USCCB Will Remove St. Paul from the Canon?
#51
I'm on my phone as I don't use my work computer for personal pleasure, so I cannot presently go the USCCB document.

But, let me state this much, if the tone set here has truth this is most troubling. Someone early in the thread quoted St. John Crysostym.  Great quotes by the way! If the dweebs and politicians at USCCB even had a clue about him, he would be marked first.

What's next? The removal from the Canon of Holy Scripture the Gospel of St. John?

Read Chapter 15 of that Gospel, it does not mention the Jews by name, but certainly condemns them and all that embrace only the material world and hate Jesus Christ and His Father. But, most probably this is too subtle for them, or more probably, it would start to wise-up the Faithful and perhaps see Truths they may never have been exposed to.

Also, it is high time that we drop this idea that Judaism of today has anything at all to do with Salvation History and the religion of the Hebrews, and if you insist, on calling them Jews rather than Israelites, so be it. But, the Synagogue denies Christ and is therefore Anti-Christ.

Time to examine the Jews' "Messiah" of 1666. The one who was proclaimed by every Rabbi to be the true "Messiah", but when faced with the choice of having arrows aimed his way hastily converted to Islam.

One last sobering thought. It is not the persecution of the early Christians by St. Paul that bothers the USCCB, only that some Scripture might offend some Jews.

I guess only Catholics are called to suffer, and in this suffer the constant questioning of our Faith. Maybe the best strategy is to convert to Judaism and not have to suffer and inherit the eternal covenant of Moses. Is that what the USCCB wants? It would certainly make my life a lot easier.
Reply
#52
Romans 11 says God hath not cast off all Israel. The Gentiles must not be proud but stand in faith and fear.
"[18] Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. [19] Thou wilt say then: The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. [20] Well: because of unbelief they were broken off. But thou standest by faith: be not highminded, but fear."
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/52011.htm

But who are those that "were broken off" today?  In Arthur Koestler's online book titled "The Thirteenth Tribe" he says that Gog and Magog are already in the Holy Land.  The review of Shlomo Zand's book titled "When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?" starts off by saying "What if the Palestinian Arabs who have lived for decades under the heel of the modern Israeli state are in fact descended from the very same "children of Israel" described in the Old Testament?  And what if most modern Israelis aren't descended from the ancient Israelites at all ... ?"
http://www.alternet.org/story/122810/?page=1
Reply
#53
(05-26-2011, 02:29 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-26-2011, 02:01 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Perhaps this article from the SSPX website will help:

Thanks so much for this.  I think I had been trying to look at this article but the link was not working for me.  It was interesting to see that the SSPX position agrees with Nostra Aetate when the article says that "it cannot be that there is a collective guilt of the Jewish race for the sin of deicide. For only those individuals are responsible for the sin who knowingly and willingly brought it about. Jews of today are manifestly not responsible for that sin."  I found the distinction between curse and deicide intriguing and the nature of the curse seemed quite plausible.  It was a really thoughtful and nuanced treatment of the question and I appreciated reading it.
It seems to me the USCCB official was speaking of the issue that the SSPX agrees with NA on (not each and every Jew is guilty of deicide) when he said affirming it makes one fall out of communion. That being said, I’m unsure that what he and the SSPX both seem to agree is an error is strictly heresy (thus causing a break in communion), or if it deserves some lesser censure (if anything at all.)

I think the issue of them being cursed and rejected is related, but different, and can be looked at a couple ways. The main issue is the temporary blindness that has come upon them in part. That can be seen strictly as a curse from God since the rejection of the Gospel, and sin in general, incurs the wrath of a God and such sinners can be seen as under a curse (and often are in Scripture). In that sense, their blindness is indeed a curse.

In a broader sense, on the other hand, they can be seen as not cursed and rejected because of the past promises of God to them, their being beloved for the sake of their forefathers, and the final promise when all of Israel will be saved. It seems to me NA is saying they are not cursed or rejected because of these promises In other words NA is saying that since their election in general has not been revoked, they cannot be definitively presented as cursed and rejected.  "For God has shut up all in unbelief, that he may have mercy upon all" (Rom. 11:33).

Here's what St. Thomas says in this regard in his commentary on Romans:

Quote:252. Someone could belittle the Jews’ prerogative by citing their ingratitude, through which they would seem to have set aside the value of God’s message. Hence he says, what if some were unfaithful? Does this show that the Jew has no advantage, especially in the light of 2 Pt (2:21): “It would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandments delivered to them.”
For they did not believe the Lawgiver: “They had no faith in his promises” (Ps 106:24) or the prophets: “They are a rebellious house” (Ez 2:6) or the Son of God: “If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?” (Jn 8:46).

253. Then when he says Does their faithlessness (v3b) he excludes this objection by showing the unsuitable conclusion it engenders. For if the Jews’ prerogative were taken away on account of the unbelief of some, it would follow that man’s unbelief would nullify God’s faithfulness -- which is an unacceptable conclusion.

In another way, it can be understood as referring to the faith with which God is faithful in keeping His promises: “He who promised is faithful” (Heb 10:23). This faithfulness would be nullified, if it happened that the Jews had no advantage, just because some have not believed.
------

915. Thirdly, he states what he intended.
First, with respect to the fall of particular Jews, when he says: a hardening has come upon Israel, not universally but upon a part: "Blind the heart of this people" (Is 6:10).
Secondly, he predicts the end of this blindness, saying: until the full number of the Gentiles come in to the faith, i.e., not only some Gentile nations as were then converted; but either in all or the greater part the Church would be establishes: "The earth is the Lord's and all its fullness" (Ps 23:1).

916. It should be noted that the word, until, can signify the cause of the blindness of the Jews. For God permitted them to be blinded, in order that the full number of the Gentiles come in.
It can also designate the termination, i.e., that the blindness of the Jews will last up to the time when the full number of the Gentiles will come to the faith. With this agrees his next statement, namely, and then, i.e., when the full number of the Gentiles has come in, all Israel will be saved, not some, as now, but universally all: "I will save them by the Lord their God" (Hos 1:7); "He will again have compassion upon us (Mic 7:19).
----------

922. First, therefore, he says that their sins will be taken away and that after they have sins, they are enemies of Christ. As regards the gospel, which they resist, they are enemies for your sake, i.e., it has turned out to your benefit. Hence, it says in Lk (19:27): "As for those enemies of mind, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me"; and in Jn (15:24): "But now they have seen and hated both me and my Father."
Or as regards the gospel means their enmity has helped the gospel, which has been spread everywhere by reason of such enmity: "In the word of truth of the gospel, which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing" (Col 1:5).

923. But they are beloved by God for the sake of their forefathers as regards election, because He chose their descendants on account of their forefathers' grace: "The Lord loved your fathers and chose their descendants after them" (Dt 10:15).
This does not means that the merits established by the fathers were the cause of the eternal election of the descendants, but that God from all eternity chose the fathers and the sons in such a way that the children would obtain salvation on account of the fathers; not as though the merits of the fathers were sufficient for the salvation of the
sons, but through an outpouring of divine grace and mercy, the sons would be saved on account of the promises made to the fathers.

924. Then when he says, For the gifts, he excludes an objection.
For someone might claim that even though the Jews were formerly beloved on account of their forefathers, nevertheless the hostility they exert against the gospel prevents them from being saved in the future. But the Apostle asserts that this is false, saying: The gifts and call o God are irrevocable, i.e., without repentance. As if to say: That God gives something to certain ones or call certain ones is without repentance, because God does not change His mind: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind” (Ps 110:4).
http://www.aquinas.avemaria.edu/Aquinas_on_Romans.pdf

This is why St. John Chrysostom, as cited in the Haydock commentary for Matthew 27:25 (where the Jews call down the Blood of Christ), states that
Quote:“Still the God of all mercies did not literally comply with their impious prayer. For, of these children he selected some for himself; amongst the rest even Paul, and many thousands who were converted at Jerusalem.”

http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/compare/...Matthew_27
(This seems to perhaps contradict one of the quotes of Chrysostom provided by Vetus which says they are absolutely abandoned, but unfortunately neither Haydock nor Vetus has given a cite so we can compare the contexts.)

So, the question ultimately becomes whether one can one affirm this blindness without speaking in terms of the whole people being cursed and rejected? I think it’s possible to do so within the bounds of orthodoxy for the above reasons. I also think it’s possible to instead speak in terms of those things also within the bounds of orthodoxy. Of course, NA was not making a definitive judgment that to speak of curses, etc. is heretical, but rather that it should not (NB: not “cannot”) be done in current circumstances (in context it seems the reason for this decision is to avoid anti-semitism or the appearance of it in a time period when sensitivities to it were peaked).

Note, not speaking of curses, etc. doesn’t seem to mean that the blindness itself cannot be affirmed or spoken of. In fact, the whole brouhaha over the section of the Pope’s book on this topic is centered around his assertion that the Church shouldn’t concern itself with a mission to the Jews because they cannot be converted until the Gentiles come in. I looked up the quote he cited from St. Bernard and it seems St. Bernard said the same thing to Bl. Eugene III. I reposted that whole chapter of St. Bernard’s work here if anyone is interested:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33448911
Reply
#54
(05-25-2011, 10:52 PM)Petertherock Wrote: I love this comment...

I thought St. Paul was already condemned. I was told to my face by a priest and another, the head of the Catholic education in the city, that St. Paul was a misogynist! At that point, I left the Church for the Greek Orthodox Church.

Ordering women to wear scarves in church, commanded a woman to obey her husband and females have to be trained to be submissive--is the grounds on which St. Paul is a misogynist.

St. Paul is a very evil creature in the sight of the JudeoRomanCatholicChurch. 

Yeah, what a great comment. What a beautiful thing apostasy is  ::)
Reply
#55
Blessed Cardinal Newman and The Jews

The Unbelieving Jews Were Cast Out by God

Bl. John Henry Newman

"Let us pray for the Jewish People, that they will return to the Lord their God, whom they have crucified". From Bl. John Henry Cardinal Newman (+1890).

[kreuz.net] Our Lord questioned the Pharisees and spoke to them: Who do you think Christ is? Whose son is he?"

They answered him: "The Son of David."

For the Prophet Isaiah had said before: "A branch will sprout from the root of Jesse".

Jesse was the father of David, of the Kings of the Jews. The "branch" or plant was a visual image of the all holy Maiden.

"And there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root." (Is. 11.1): The flower, that blooms from the stem, is our Lord -- the Son of the holy virgin, Mary.

"And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him" (Is 11.2). At the baptism at the Jordan the Holy Ghost descended upon Him.

Behold the days come, saith the Lord, and I will raise up to David a just branch: and a king shall reign, and shall be wise, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Israel shall dwell confidently."

And: "this is the name that they shall call him: the Lord our just one" (Jer. 23, 5-6).

Therefore the Jews said, when they argued whether our Lord and Savior was the Messiah: "Doth not the scripture say: That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem the town where David was? " (John 7: 42)

Homeless Until Today

It was the mission of the Jews, that the revealed Savior, Christ, the Victim and the redeemer of the whole human race, the all-powerful Savior, should be descended from their country and people.

However -- horrible as it is to say -- when He came, they overcame him and condemned Him to death: "He came unto his own, and his own received him not" (John 1:11).

As they disowned Him, so he rejected them.

They led Him to death, and he gave them into the power of their enemies, who destroyed their holy city of Jerusalem. they were driven from their land and remain homeless and unsettled even to this day.


Give to the Jews the True Faith

Let us pray for the people of the Jews, that they return to their Lord and God, Whom they have crucified!

You seed of Abraham and Son of David, Adonai and leader of the house of Israel: You appeared to Moses in the burning bush and have given him the Your law on Sinai.

You key of David and scepter of the House of Israel, You open, and no one closes, You close, and no one opens: do not visit at home, O Lord, the sins of the father to the children, be not angry for ever, rather strengthen the poor people, that once stood so high in your eyes and have sunken so low!

Consider not the old priests and learned, the Pharisees and Sadducees, forget Ananias and Caiaphas, Judas and the senseless rabble which first shouted: "Crucify Him!"

Recall Your pity from Your anger! Forget You their stiff necks and hard heartedness, their blindness for things of yesterday, their love of this world and their luxury!

Touch their hearts and give them the true Faith and the spirit of penance!

Have Mercy, O Jesus, on Your own brothers, the countrymen of your Mother, of St. Joseph, Your Apostles, St. Paul, the righteous of the Old Testament, Abraham, Moses, Samuel and David!

O Lord, hear: O Lord, be appeased: hearken and do: delay not for thy own sake, O my God: because thy name is invocated upon thy city, and upon thy people. (Daniel 9:19) Do not refuse your own desire, O my God, for your name was first established in the city of Jersalem and under Your people.

Another People Took the Place of the Jews

When Our Lord Jesus Christ had been rejected by His own people, the Jews, He denied them, and called another people in their place.

The Evangelist followed with these words " He came unto his own and his own received him not." (Jo 1: 11-13) but to the others: "But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

That is to say: all men, who believe in Him, from whatever race or country they come, He made into his children, He gave to them the grace and the promise of Heaven.

He warned the Jews, since the time of grace had lapsed for them.

"I say to you," he said to them, "the Kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to another people, and shall be given to a people yielding the fruits thereof." (Matt 21:43)

For that reason St. Paul was agitated, His great Apostle, to rend his shirt, when he saw that the Jews would not obey, that they "contradicted and blasphemed" (Acts 18:6) and said:

"Your blood will come on your heads! I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles."

This Goes for the Protestants As with the Jews

As God had disowned the Jews, His own people, so will He reject every other people, who reject Him.

For so said St. Paul the same: "If some from the branch (Rom 11:17-21) - that means the Jews -- be broken, and thou, being a wild olive, art in-grafted in them, and art made partaker of the root, and of the fatness of the olive tree, Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then: The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.Well: because of unbelief they were broken off. But thou standest by faith: be not highminded, but fear. For if God hath not spared the natural branches, fear lest perhaps he also spare not thee."

This misfortune has come to our own land -- England.

God had blessed it for nearly one thousand years and called it. But it left off, lost the Faith and was expelled from the Church.

Let us pray for the reunion of the peoples with the Faith and the Church of Christ!

From "Meditations and Prayers" of John Henry Newman, third edition, München, Kösel, 1952.
Reply
#56
"For eighteen centuries Israel has been without prince or leader . . . After all these long ages of suffering and humiliation, the justice of the Father is not appeased . . . The very sight of the chastisement inflicted on the murderers proclaims to the world that they were the deicides. Their crime was an unparalleled one; its punishment is to be so, too; it is to last to the end of time --The mark of Parricide here fastens on this ungrateful and sacrilegious people; Cain-like, they shall wander, fugitives on the earth. Eighteen hundred years have passed since then: slavery, misery and contempt have been their portion: but the mark is still upon them."



From the Good Friday commentary in The Liturgical Year.
Reply
#57
Edited Under Fr. Leonard Feeney M.I.C.M. — Saint Benedict Center

November, 1958
THE JEWS AND THE SAINTS

What Our Canonized Catholics Are Lately Suffering

Ever since the explosive year, 1789, when the Judaeo-Masonic French Revolution set off the movement to knock down the walls of Europe’s ghettos, and spill their contents into every corner of Christendom, the Jews have been gaining one victory after another. As the nineteenth century progressed, the governments of Europe (whose policies were made in Europe’s lodges) even granted the Jews citizenship on an equal footing with Christians. Belgium did it in 1815, Denmark in 1849, Norway in 1851, England in 1858, Switzerland in 1865, Austria-Hungary in 1867, Germany in 1870.

But as the Jews have climbed from height to height, buying up the world’s Main Streets, and buying off its leaders, they have not lost sight of the depth from which, so lately, they have risen. Nor have they forgotten for a moment who it is that formerly kept them in such effective line. Their continuing bitter hatred for the Church bears witness to this. And since the Church is the communion of all her faithful children, gathered from every age, the Jews have reserved a special contempt for those supremely faithful among the faithful: our canonized saints.

Among the papers and periodicals that the Jews put out for their fellow Jews, it is an exceptional issue that does not contain an attack on some haloed and prayed-to Catholic whose memory is especially loathsome in Jewry. Recent victims have included: Saint Albert the Great, whom the Jews have never forgiven for sitting on an ecclesiastical commission that condemned their Talmud to be burned, over seven hundred years ago; Saint Pius X, whom the “brotherhood” Jews have indicted for his refusal to cooperate with a group of Italian officials because they had taken part in a synagogue service; and Saint Bernadette of Lourdes, whom Manhattan Jews have accused of a “disposition to bigotry” for insisting, in one of her prayers, that the Jews killed Christ.

http://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/tag/do...gueranger/
Reply
#58
Perhaps those here in the forum who are attempting to impute blame on the Church for holding this opinion of the Jews for almost two millenia, but the political correctness which began to make itself known more and more virulently in the 20s and 30s has become so insidious that even people who are mistaken for good Catholics can attempt to browbeat those of us who are still aware of this legacy and how it's pestilence runs unabated.

The spirit of Cain is very much alive in the Jewish Nation today.
Reply
#59
(05-26-2011, 07:18 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: Perhaps those here in the forum who are attempting to impute blame on the Church for holding this opinion of the Jews for almost two millenia, but the political correctness which began to make itself known more and more virulently in the 20s and 30s has become so insidious that even people who are mistaken for good Catholics can attempt to browbeat those of us who are still aware of this legacy and how it's pestilence runs unabated.

I haven't seen anyone imputing blame on the Church for holding this opinion. Personally, I have been questioning whether the Church did, in fact, hold this opinion.  So far, nobody has offered evidence that this is a dogmatic position of the Church.  Do you consider it  being browbeaten when you are asked to give evidence to support your views?
Reply
#60
(05-26-2011, 07:25 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-26-2011, 07:18 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: Perhaps those here in the forum who are attempting to impute blame on the Church for holding this opinion of the Jews for almost two millenia, but the political correctness which began to make itself known more and more virulently in the 20s and 30s has become so insidious that even people who are mistaken for good Catholics can attempt to browbeat those of us who are still aware of this legacy and how it's pestilence runs unabated.

I haven't seen anyone imputing blame on the Church for holding this opinion. Personally, I have been questioning whether the Church did, in fact, hold this opinion.  So far, nobody has offered evidence that this is a dogmatic position of the Church.  Do you consider it  being browbeaten when you are asked to give evidence to support your views?
You refuse to address the point I am making about the normative nature of this teaching and that St. Paul's statement can not be taken in the way you or the USCCB [presumably] take it.

You also refuse to address the fact that the USCCB is condemning the normative position.

Edit: either the USCCB has to completely reject the statement St. Paul is making in the manner in which he intended it, or it will try to interpret or translate it in such a way as to make it conform to Jewish standards of acceptability; either way it amounts to a repudiation of two thousand years of traditional exegesis on the curse suffered by the Jews.

It hearkens back to Cardinal Bernardin's infamous comment that the Gospel of St. John can no longer be taken as definitive teaching with respect to the Jews.

Second Edit: It's also connected to this idea that the Old Covenant is still salvific.  This is yet another erroneous notion adopted by the hierarchy in this country, "for fear of the Jews"
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)