Will Pope Francis Scuttle the Latin Mass when Pope Benedict Dies?

LivingWordUnity

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic
May 10, 2007
24,496
11,193
✟213,086.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
So is your solution to call the people of Israel "Hebrews?" Do you realize that no one has called us "Hebrews" since Egypt? You and I have a very good relationship. But you need to understand how deeply insulting it is to us as a people that anyone would abscond with our tribal name. It would kind of be like if the United States decided to call itself the New Lakota Nation.
I didn't mean any offense by using the term Hebrew for the Jews. You identify yourself as a Hebrew Catholic. So I don't understand why you are offended that I called the Jews Hebrews.
 
Upvote 0

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,327
14,493
Vancouver
Visit site
✟304,048.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I didn't mean any offense by using the term Hebrew for the Jews. You identify yourself as a Hebrew Catholic. So I don't understand why you are offended that I called the Jews Hebrews.
Hebrew means river crossers The priests passed thru many rivers

as if in any way that is going to help
 
Upvote 0

MoonlessNight

Fides et Ratio
Sep 16, 2003
10,217
3,523
✟63,049.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Being faithful to God.

So we've established that what makes someone a child of God is faith, not ancestry. This is the correct answer of course, since even Jesus said as much.

The Samaritans left the right understanding of Torah, mixing it with Paganism, and not repenting. This is why Ezra and the Jews returning from Babylon would not accept them as fellow Jews. To this day, if they give up their Samaritan religion and return to Judaism, they would be accepted as Children of Israel.

The People of Israel have nothing to do with DNA. We are a tribe, not a race. Jewish identity is received via the mother of the person, or through conversion. A person who has converted is 100% a son of Israel. IOW, there are those who have lots of Ashkenazi DNA or Middle Eastern DNA who are not part of the Tribe, and there are those who have no DNA whatsoever who are 100% part of the People.

If the Samaritans cannot be considered Israel because they turned their back on God, would that not mean as well that the part of the tribe of Judah that rejected Christ also cannot be considered Israel? (And I want to stress that I'm talking about a part here. Likely the largely portion of the tribe of Judah accepted Christ and joined the Church, but they are often overlooked because the modern "Jewish" identity has been largely defined by the portion of the tribe who did not join the Church).

I think that you are having some issues of equivocation here. You seem to be sometimes using "Israel" to mean "the party that God has come into a special covenant with," by which you (correctly) reject Samaria. But when it comes to the thought of identifying Israel with the Bride of Christ, which is to say the Church (matching with the frequent description of the prophets of Israel being the Bride of Christ) you object. I can't see why you would, unless you want to say that only the people in the Church with the right ancestors can be Israel. But that would be a change from the previous definition.

The name "Israel" definitely refers to multiple things. If nothing else it refers to a man (Jacob) and a tribe (the Hebrews). But it has to have a third definition, or else the Samaritans, being descendents of Jacobs children, would also be included. It's this third definition that we are using when we discuss the Church as Israel. (And those are just the definitions that scripture uses; we can further confuse ourselves by getting mixed up with modern secular definitions if we aren't careful).
 
Upvote 0

Virgil the Roman

Young Fogey & Monarchist-Distributist . . .
Jan 14, 2006
11,413
1,299
Kentucky
✟64,604.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Why do you keep bringing up the modern State of Isreal? It's not the topic. We are discussing the People of Israel. If you are not going to call us Israel, what are you going to call us as a people, a tribe?
You never made it clear that you weren't discussing the modern day political state of Israel. If I mis-interpreted you, I sincerely apologise.

Standing up for the basic dignity of my people is not the same thing as having inordinate pride. Are you now accusing Jews such as myself of conceit simply because we hang on to our tribal name of Israel and do not allow it to be usurped by others?
Trying not to do so.

Notice my quote of Cardinal Lustiger in my Signature area. Is he also a conceited Jew?
Yes, I see the quotation in question. To put it bluntly, according to the Early Church and according to Roman Catholic doctrine, that statement is heretical. The Church is Israel. The faithful Jews joined the now only remaining covenant that fulfilled and superseded the old covenant: the New Covenant. The majority of modern-day self-described Jews today are essentially apostates or unbelieving. They have rejected and removed themselves from the only covenant that remains that God has: the New Testament or New Covenant. Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant. And He established the New Covenant. A minority of Jews have since converted and became apart of the New. The Majority of disbelieving Jews today either aren't religious or believers in God at all; or if they are, they reject the New Testament. Many claim, according to the Talmud, that Our Blessed Lord is in a vat of excrement in Hell and that Our Lady was a prostitute; who fornicated with a Roman soldier to birth Jesus. Blasphemous, but that this what the Pharisees of the modern-day Jewish religion believe in their Talmud.

But in Scripture today, there is neither Jew nor Greek: We're all in the New Testament together; the old testament was a mere shadow and prefigurement of the Old.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
Yes, I see the quotation in question. To put it bluntly, according to the Early Church and according to Roman Catholic doctrine, that statement is heretical.
Really. Because this is the Cardinal who was almost Pope. I doubt he would have been considered eligible if he were running around espousing heresies.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
So we've established that what makes someone a child of God is faith, not ancestry.
You are changing the topic entirely. I didn't say this at all. There are two different covenants and each has different criteria. In the New Covenant, what it takes to be a child of God is faith and baptism. In the Mosaic covenant all it takes is to be b'nei Yisrael, either by being born of a Jewish mother, or by conversion.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
I think that you are having some issues of equivocation here. You seem to be sometimes using "Israel" to mean "the party that God has come into a special covenant with," by which you (correctly) reject Samaria. But when it comes to the thought of identifying Israel with the Bride of Christ, which is to say the Church (matching with the frequent description of the prophets of Israel being the Bride of Christ) you object. I can't see why you would, unless you want to say that only the people in the Church with the right ancestors can be Israel. But that would be a change from the previous definition.

I think that one of the things you are having difficulty with is that God has two sets of children. Also, the metaphor of Bride is used twice. Israel is the Bride of God and the Church is the Bride of Christ. No one is saying that Israel is the Bride of Christ. You need to get over this "God only loves us" thing. In Romans 11:28-29, Paul discusses unbelieving Jews, admitting they are enemies of the gospel, but he says that when it comes to election, they are beloved for the sake of the Patriarchs; that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
I didn't mean any offense by using the term Hebrew for the Jews. You identify yourself as a Hebrew Catholic. So I don't understand why you are offended that I called the Jews Hebrews.
I identify myself as a Hebrew Catholic because that is the Church's official term for us: the Church is afraid if we call ourselves Jewish Catholics or Catholic Jews that it will cause confusion for some believing we are still practicing Judaism. But for me and for most "Hebrew Catholics," we despise the term. We are Jews who are also Catholics. It's like the Church is telling us that being a Jew is a shameful term, and we resent it. I've met Hebrew Catholics who are okay with it, but they tend to be those who are only modestly descended from Jews and do not practice any Jewish traditions (in other words, they don't have a dog in the race).

Anyhow, don't worry about it. It's not like I'm angry or anything. Just trying to increase awareness.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In the holy Bible, the Jews are called Hebrews.

The Apostle Paul called himself an Ἑβραῖος -- a Hebrew (Philippians 3:5, 2 Corinthians 11:22). And there's an entire Epistle προς Ἑβραιους -- to the Hebrews.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Virgil the Roman

Young Fogey & Monarchist-Distributist . . .
Jan 14, 2006
11,413
1,299
Kentucky
✟64,604.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Really. Because this is the Cardinal who was almost Pope. I doubt he would have been considered eligible if he were running around espousing heresies.
Irrelevant. There was a Cardinal during the conclave that elected Pope St Pius X, Card. Rampolla (sic) that was a closet Liberal (theological Liberal and suspected Freemason); there have been schismatic cardinals. There can be heretical Cardinals. They are mere electors; who can be a deacon, priest, bishop, or even a layman. A cardinal merely elects a pope; it is no special order otherwise. So, yes, the Cardinal, if he espoused that particular quotation was denying Catholic doctrine. That quotation is heretical. Quote me any saint or catechism of the Roman Church prior to 1958 that will support that opinion as being anything other than heretical. I would suspect that it would be utterly wanting in the utmost. To my knowledge, there are NONE.
 
Upvote 0

LivingWordUnity

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic
May 10, 2007
24,496
11,193
✟213,086.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
This thread has gone off topic. But the Catholic Church is okay with someone who is a Catholic but who is also a Jew by blood and who acknowledges that. However, it would not be compatible with Catholicism if they reject or try to diminish any of what Jesus Christ established. The Old Testament is important, but it has to be looked at in light of Jesus Christ and the Church.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
Quote me any saint or catechism of the Roman Church prior to 1958 that will support that opinion as being anything other than heretical.
I don't see why 1958 would make any difference.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
The Apostle Paul called himself an Ἑβραῖος -- a Hebrew (Philippians 3:5, 2 Corinthians 11:22). And there's an entire Epistle προς Ἑβραιους -- to the Hebrews.
St. Paul referred to the Jews as Israel, and never referred to the Church as Israel.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
You never made it clear that you weren't discussing the modern day political state of Israel. If I mis-interpreted you, I sincerely apologise.
I know I'm responding strongly to you, because there are so many who slip into antisemitism (I'm not accusing you of being anti-Semitic, only that things you've said give me pause)--it is always something that is a top priority issue for us since ultimately it becomes about survival. However, it is not my intent to come across as attacking you or being uncharitable. I hope I have not crossed that line. Sometimes I can be overzealous. If I have gone too far, I also apologize.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Will Pope Francis Scuttle the Latin Mass when Pope Benedict Dies?
Doubtful. Why would he? I realize people accuse Francis of all sorts of deep dark conspiracies but Benedict was so clear, forthright and specific in broadening access to the TLM that it's hard to picture being able to walk that back.

It's also popular among the young. When I attended an FSSP parish, at least half the people were under 40. There's just no denying that the TLM is attractive to a certain type of Catholic and there's no reason to scuttle it.
 
Upvote 0

Hamlet7768

World's Second-Worst Polemicist
Nov 2, 2013
89
56
United States of America
✟22,257.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Francis already moved us further away from the Latin Mass with his new motu proprio.

I don't see how. Magnum Principium makes changes in liturgical translations harder, because they require unanimity of the bishops involved.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums