@ Irenaeus - Quite!! God's love in Christ Jesus is for all. Does God have favourites, like we mere mortals do? I think not. This line of arguement is a projection of man's own psychological shortcomings.
Gregory - Indeed!
Rope - That is the literal Latin translation..... However, more pertinently, pro multis the theology of the term is more complex than just the textual words - the Greek scriptural import is more powerful which implies the following:
I am rather confused by this line of argument. Is it not obvious that all will not be saved... narrow gates, camel...eye of needle, etc
Secondly, is it not obvious that the Christ was the fullfillment of the Law.
In general, when a prophecy is fullfilled it cant be re-fullfilled. It is therefore no longer extant once fullfilled, and it no longer has any effect. The Jews were the Chosen people. If people want to argue they still are... then they are only such by historical title. But the … [More]
I disagree Connoli. Your scholarship does not concurr with Dom Henri Wansborough (the editor in chief of the Jerusalem Bible) or of Fr Aidan Nichols (Biblical Scholar). The former is a Benedictine monk of Ampleforth Abbey and Lecturer in Classics at Oxford; the later is a Scripture Scholar at the Biblicum.
YOu are quite wrong. Sorry man, you just do not know enough.
Cannoli - There is a distinct difference between Classical Latin and mediaeval Latin (which the Church has used for centuries) and even later Church Latin. For example, the word "Iucudare" found in the antiphons for advent, in Classical Latin was used by Virgil in the Aenid to describe the voice of Zeus; in mediaeval Latin it came to mean "Bawl out" or "shout with great joy!". HOwever, this word is used in another antiphon "Iucundare iugiter plebs devota debitis melos canens dulciter" and is … [More]
Your Latin skills are now in question, have you a degree in Classical or Liturgical Latin?
Is a degree necessary to know that "pro multis" means "for many" and not "for all" as it is currently translated in the N. O. vernacular mass? If that's what you believe and if you have a degree in classical languages, I would suggest you get your money back from whatever institution literally stole your money and in exchange gave you little to show for it.
P.S. Do take care man, you are reverting to …[More]
Cannoli: Your Latin skills are now in question, have you a degree in Classical or Liturgical Latin? If not, it is irresponsible scholarship to speak on these matters.
The next thing is that the issue is not modernism, we began to debate the validity of an adverse attitude to the Jewish race of peoples. I said that the theology of the Church has changed and that we are not condemning the old, but seeing it rather as a primitive starting point for theological development.
the words of consecration are the same in all the Masses past and present:
Even a first year Latin student knows that "pro multis" does NOT mean "FOR ALL" as it is translated in the vernacular N.O. masses around the world except, to my understanding, in Poland which retains the correct … [More]
I urge you to remember that Theology is not stagnant
And I urge you not to confuse Theology with moderism. Changing a prayer here or there, changing the words of consecretion, communion in the hand, women on the altar etc. is NOT theology. These are all symptoms of modernism including the directive NOT to evengelize Jews.
Tomas is still taught today in great deepth indeed; his philosophy (which is Aristotiliean) is a source of great wisdom indeed. HIs Dogmatic theology and his Systematic theology is quite impressive too.... One just has to read the Summa on the "Progression of the Son" to see this. However, because of the time interval of almost 800 years, we do need to interpret it when we Lecture on any of Tomas' works. Therefore, no one is maligning Tomas here.
Yet again, I urge you to remember that Theology … [More]
In your effort to support an indefensible postion you resort to maligning the Angleic Doctor who is still taught today in seminaries. An interesting obsession you have for the Jews that would lead you to such a bizzare belief.
Yet again, cannoli, you go into literature for which you do not have the educative foundations to read.
Judge not, little man. You don't know my educative foundations. However, … [More]
Nope... wrong again. In the official Liturgy for Good Friday, we see the change.
Now, theology can be defined in two ways: 1. On a Personal level - systematical analysis of how God has interacted with the individual on a personal level (hence the many, many tomes of 'theological reflection' by the Saints - all different, but all revealing some special aspect fo God). 2. On a general level - systematic analysis of how God has interacted with human beings as a whole.
You're not paying attention. You already acknowledged Irenaeus' post in that I am not aware of any post vatican II document promulgated to the whole Church (from the Chair) that says we are not to evangelize Jews.
Yet you still write "Holy MOther Church has done so (changed it policy toward Jews)."
So too with theology as it develops.
This is NOT theology. This is modernism and has as much to do with theology as communion in the hand and we all know the … [More]
As I have already said: theology is not stagnant, she develops as human beings develop - both as good people and as a result, in their relationship with God. This is no different with the Magisterium of the Church. Once it was thought that relic of "Gabriel's Wing" (a feather of an ostrich really...) was a real and that our Lady really spilt her breast milk resulting in a relic there. Of course, these are rediculous - but in their time both clergy and faithful were really inspired by it. Now … [More]
The basic tenets of Christianity and the mandate of love is just bypassed by these chaps in favour of some of the most unchristian thinking I have ever come accross outside of the Lecture Hall. (And sometimes within it as well!) And they attempt to support it with Scripture and Church documents..... crazy really.
Do you want to know what is really crazy? What is really crazy is that in spite of direct quotes from saints, in spite of direct quotes from popes throughout the centuries and in … [More]
It has just been burdened with bureaucratic niceties.
Absolutely true. The next question would be for what purpose have these “bureaucratic niceties” been proposed, by whom and when do we get rid of the bonehead clerics who proposed them? If, for no other reason, they are making the Catholic Church look like a mindless gathering of politically correct kumbaya singing simpletons to the “Bible Only Crowd” who ought to be our primary target for converions. It's bad …[More]
@ Irenaeus - Indeed that man. Permit me to draw your attention to the other poster's proof: internet blogs, reported speech in articles, pre-councilior documents. Not one scrap of official promulgation from the Holy See. Sometimes I get gravely concerned that people get so inundated with conflicting information, without benefit of educated leadership, that they get lost in the heap.
The basic tenets of Christianity and the mandate of love is just bypassed by these chaps in favour of some of … [More]
I am not aware of any post vatican II document promulgated to the whole Church (from the Chair) that says we are not to evangelize Jews. Therefore the teaching has never changed. It has just been burdened with bureaucratic niceties. If one truly believes in Christ and His Church, how can one deny the Truth to Jews? True love is found in the love of your neighbors soul. To deny them the Truth when they face Judgment, does not show any authentic love, but grievous sins of omission.
Cannoli, if one cannot understand the clear, concise and documented writings and reasonings which you presented, which should not be difficult, by no means to the average person, than either they are not quite able to grasp the pertinancy of it even in these times, or they choose to remain obstinate in their own ignorance. Good job, my friend
ACL wrote: This is a clear directive to evangelise and convert all men unto belief and faith in Jesus the Christ.
Perhaps, in your wisdom and obvious "evangelical virtue" you can explain how evangelization will be possible when the Catholic Church has specifically stated (post V-II, of course) that Jews are NOT to be targets for conversion since the "biblical covenant between Jews and God is valid and therefore Jews do not need to be saved through faith in Jesus"?
Cannoli - Indeed however, the Gospel according to St John ends with the injuction to : "Go therefore and baptise all the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit....etc." This is a clear directive to evangelise and convert all men unto belief and faith in Jesus the Christ. This includes the Jews who do not believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah (note, not all of them are non-believers!). This has always been the Christian directive and the Roman catholic … [More]
So, just read the prayers above again and you will see how the Church has developed
Nonsense. Those prayers are no more indicative of a development of “Truth” any more than communion in the hand is a development of "Truth.” Both are attempts by modernists who have chosen to abandon the traditional teachings of the Church, abandon the words of numerous saints and Supreme Pontiffs for a politically correct exercise in feel good hand-holding with those who despise Jesus the Christ and His … [More]
St. Bernard of Clairvaux's critique of the Jews is the same as the Church's position, reiterated since Augustine and codified by Pope Gregory the Great in Sicut Judaeis non. Jews according to Catholic teaching, are carnal and blind. Not even the wonders Jesus performed could overcome their blindness.
St. Bernard notes:
" Not the flight of demons, nor the obedience of the elements, nor life restored to the dead, was able to expel from their minds that bestial stupidity, and more than bestial, …[More]