ICTHUS Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/research/cjl/Docu...usccb120802.htm And tell me what you think. Specifically, the quote "The Roman Catholic reflections describe the growing respect for the Jewish tradition that has unfolded since the Second Vatican Council. A deepening Catholic appreciation of the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people, together with a recognition of a divinely-given mission to Jews to witness to God’s faithful love, lead to the conclusion that campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church." Emphasis mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good Friday Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Hi ICTHUS. I could see how this would be confusing for you, it was confusing for me when I first read about it. This is not actually the teaching of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. This is from an article put out by a subcomittee within the USCCB, but the people on the subcommittee are scholars rather than Bishops. The article was called Reflections On Covenant and Mission, and Cardinal Keeler -- the president of the USCCB -- has stated that it is not the position of the USCCB nor his personal position, and the article was removed from the Conference's website. Because Reflections On Covenant and Mission was just a set of "reflections" put out by a subcommittee, it holds no binding authority whatsoever. The Bishops have rejected it. I think the most serious problem I have with the Bishops is that they do not have better control over the subcommittees of their own Conference. Cardinal Keeler admitted that he had not read the document before it was released. Certainly all documents released by a subcommittee of the Conference should be read by the Bishops before being released. This same subcommittee has embarrassed the Conference of Bishops twice now: once in its publication of Reflections, and then again in its theft of a script of Mel Gibson's film The Passion, which they used to call Gibson's film anti-Semitic. The Conference of Bishops needs to put an end to this subcommittee, or they need to get orthodox scholars on it instead of the morons who are currently there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleflower+JMJ Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 hey thanks speech for that great info/answer clears things up alot +JMJ God bLEss! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good Friday Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 No prob, Bob. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted September 15, 2003 Author Share Posted September 15, 2003 The Conference of Bishops needs to put an end to this subcommittee, or they need to get orthodox scholars on it instead of the morons who are currently there. Ha. *breathes easier* THANK YOU LORD... Thy Church shall always be protected from corruption! Alleluia! I thought you said "or they need to get orthodox scholars on it instead of the mormons who are currently there." rather than morons... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted September 15, 2003 Author Share Posted September 15, 2003 Hey, can I quote you on that, Good Friday? I need to respond in a debate concerning this on another forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good Friday Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Sure, go right ahead. Anything I say here you can quote, provided that I'm not being an idiot... then ask permission. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Actually Good Friday the Bishops are correct. You are simply missing the context. THe Bishops are referring here to specific campaigns by certain Envangelical groups who follow jews around, trying to convert them to the point of actual harrassment. That is totally unacceptable. This whoever is not the same as same Jews do not need conversion. So in the context the Bishops are right, but they should have phrased it differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Is this subcommitee made up of Priests? if so... Any Priest with valid orders is a representative of Christ and should NEVER be referred to as idiot or moron. As long as their orders are valid, they need to be shown proper respect. St. Josemaria Escriva: The Way, 66 A Priest — whoever he may be — is always another Christ. 67 Though you well know it, I shall remind you again that a Priest is 'another Christ'. And that the holy Spirit has said: 'Nolite tangere Christos meos — do not touch my Christs'. 68 Presbyter — Priest — means, literally, an elderly man. If old age deserves veneration, think how much more you ought to venerate the Priesthood 69 It shows very little refinement — and great lack of respect — to make fun of a Priest, whoever he is, and whatever the pretext! 70 I repeat: to make fun of a Priest — no matter what the circumstances — is always, at best, a sign of coarseness and poor taste. 74 To love God and not venerate his Priests... is not possible. 526 If you have not the highest reverence for the priesthood and for the religious state, it is not true that you love God's Church. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Is this subcommitee made up of Priests? if so... Any Priest with valid orders is a representative of Christ and should NEVER be referred to as idiot or moron. As long as their orders are valid, they need to be shown proper respect. St. Josemaria Escriva: The Way, 66 A Priest — whoever he may be — is always another Christ. 67 Though you well know it, I shall remind you again that a Priest is 'another Christ'. And that the holy Spirit has said: 'Nolite tangere Christos meos — do not touch my Christs'. 68 Presbyter — Priest — means, literally, an elderly man. If old age deserves veneration, think how much more you ought to venerate the Priesthood 69 It shows very little refinement — and great lack of respect — to make fun of a Priest, whoever he is, and whatever the pretext! 70 I repeat: to make fun of a Priest — no matter what the circumstances — is always, at best, a sign of coarseness and poor taste. 74 To love God and not venerate his Priests... is not possible. 526 If you have not the highest reverence for the priesthood and for the religious state, it is not true that you love God's Church. God Bless, ironmonk Respect is earned. Even in a priest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Respect is earned. Even in a priest. All priests no matter who, as long as their orders are valid deserve the respect due to a priest.... 1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:23 It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi).24 Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ.25 1550 This presence of Christ in the minister is not to be understood as if the latter were preserved from all human weaknesses, the spirit of domination, error, even sin. The power of the Holy Spirit does not guarantee all acts of ministers in the same way. While this guarantee extends to the sacraments, so that even the minister's sin cannot impede the fruit of grace, in many other acts the minister leaves human traces that are not always signs of fidelity to the Gospel and consequently can harm the apostolic fruitfulness of the Church. 1581 This sacrament configures the recipient to Christ by a special grace of the Holy Spirit, so that he may serve as Christ's instrument for his Church. By ordination one is enabled to act as a representative of Christ, Head of the Church, in his triple office of priest, prophet, and king. 1583 It is true that someone validly ordained can, for grave reasons, be discharged from the obligations and functions linked to ordination, or can be forbidden to exercise them; but he cannot become a layman again in the strict sense,75 because the character imprinted by ordination is for ever. The vocation and mission received on the day of his ordination mark him permanently. 1584 Since it is ultimately Christ who acts and effects salvation through the ordained minister, the unworthiness of the latter does not prevent Christ from acting. St. Augustine states this forcefully: As for the proud minister, he is to be ranked with the devil. Christ's gift is not thereby profaned: what flows through him keeps its purity, and what passes through him remains clear and reaches the fertile earth. . . . The spiritual power of the sacrament is inDouche comparable to light: those to be enlightened receive it in its purity, and if it should pass through defiled beings, it is not itself defiled.77 -------------------------------- All Priests deserve the respect that is due to a priest, if a priest has issues, those are between him and God... God will see that justice is done. We are to show all priests respect. It is not our place to judge them no matter what the sin. If the orders are valid, then Christ can still work through the priest even if the priest is of questionable character. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted September 16, 2003 Author Share Posted September 16, 2003 Actually Good Friday the Bishops are correct. You are simply missing the context. THe Bishops are referring here to specific campaigns by certain Envangelical groups who follow jews around, trying to convert them to the point of actual harrassment. That is totally unacceptable. This whoever is not the same as same Jews do not need conversion. So in the context the Bishops are right, but they should have phrased it differently. I can see the point cmom is trying to make. Harassment is not Christ-like and should be avoided, especially in bringing the Good News. However, this article is saying "we shouldnt evangelise Jews at all" This is WRONG. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now