It does clearly rankle people, so I’ll give you that its clear enunciation isn’t entirely socially tactful. But “only my religion is true” seems perfectly rational to me, for a true believer, at least in the sense of “my religion is true and, therefore, where other religions disagree with it, they are false”. It would be silly to believe in any other way.
Now, as for just what one’s position is on people who believe false things and on just how worthwhile it is for them to be brought around to believing true things instead, that’s another issue. But I don’t see anything here indicating that Catholics are thinking to themselves “Those Jews are morally deficient in their incorrect religious beliefs”. It’s presumably more like “Jesus was divine, was resurrected, etc., but those Jews happen to erroneously believe the opposite. I would like to be able to convince them of the truth on these matters.” It’s on the level of any number of arguments and attempts at persuasion which go down on these boards unobjectionably. The only problem, from my perspective, is that the Catholics happen to be wrong in their beliefs, but that’s no great flaw (rare is the man with only correct beliefs), and beyond that I see no cause for outrage.
But IF there is any truth to religion (if there is a God & an afterlife for us of either reward or punishment) then it’s certainly reasonable that some religions are truer than others and that one might be truest of all. And if one is religious, then one must belief his/her religion is truest, or else they would be a different religion.
You believe your agnosticism/atheism is truer than my Christianity. Granted, you don’t see any need to convert me because you don’t believe that my conversion will have any impact on my eternal destiny because I don’t have one. The only reason I don’t see any need to try to convert you is because I don’t think I can
say anything so profound that would make you reconsider entrusting yourself to Christ. I do hope however that someone else can & that you do eventually come to Christ.
Btw, I can & sort of do hold to a doctrine of “exclusivity” that doesn’t automatically damn those outside of my faith. One thing I do share with the LDS and recent Catholic thought is the belief in afterlife-reconciliation.
I don’t have a problem with this. If it’s just a prayer that others will come round, fair enough. It’s got good motivations, and if the the Catholics are right then it’s good it helps.
I don’t think that praying for conversion is necessarily insulting, but it could be. If the prayer was phrased in a certain way (such as, “please help these morons find the true way, they can’t seem to do it themselves”) it could be unpleasant. And if a group prays for conversion but also suggests other groups shouldn’t, again i’d take that as insulting.
After the appropriate period of terror-induced pant-wetting, of course?
I agree with the first bit - there isn’t anything specifically insulting about believing one’s religion is true and that others will be better off if they convert to it.
The difficulty is that this:
… hasn’t always been true. In the not-so-distant past, the relevant liturgy basically (assuming I’m correct on the meaning of “perfidious” - see discussion above) stated that Jews were not only wrong, but bad.
Now, that language has all been cleared away. But the unfortunate history remains - one in which that language (or rather the sentiment behind it - that Jews were bot wrong and bad) spawned such notable organizations as the Inquisition.
Of course, the Inquisition was in a time long passed; and the language has, since the '60s I believe, been amended. But the history of “official” Catholic anti-Jewish hate, while a thing of the past, does tend to explain why a statement, which (absent that unfortunate history) is arguably inoffensive, causes some offense to some Jews.
It would have been better had the language said something like “we pray that all non-Catholics see the light and become Catholics” or something like that. Specifically singling out Jews (while agains understandable for historical reasons) is bound to make some Jews nervous.
It is that particular combination of factors - calling for conversion, that the call is specific to Jews, and the unfortunate, lengthy history of Catholic-Jewish relations on exactly this issue - which creates the potential for offence.
Lest anyone get the idea that it’s just Jews who “don’t understand” why it’s perfectly alright for their deceased relatives to be baptized into the Mormon church, the continued practice of posthumous baptism has drawn fire from Christians as well (from a 2003 Associated Press story):
"Not even a year after the Mormon church again promised to stop baptizing dead Jews into its faith, the Mormons have raised concerns by funding the preservation – at 10 cents a sheet – of thousands of names of dead Russian Orthodox Church members.
The church flatly rejects allegations that it is buying the names of dead souls, and insists the effort in Russia is aimed only at providing an archive of genealogical data for the good of all mankind.
Others say the church is continuing its oft-criticized ritual of posthumously baptizing the dead as Mormons – a practice called “proxy baptism” that critics say is rife with ethical and moral holes.
“Obviously we can’t approve the practice, it takes away the most essential gift God has given people, their freedom,” said the spokesman for the patriarchal parish of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States."
The Catholic Church obviously isn’t too happy about this LDS practice either.
"Thus the Mormon argument from fairness is not persuasive. There are other ways for accounting for God’s justice and mercy in dealing with those who have not heard of God and the gospel. It is not necessary to postulate another preaching of the gospel and second chance of repentance in the afterlife, much less the necessity of proxy baptism for the dead, on that basis. God can simply let whomever he wants into heaven, whether they have water baptism or not. God is not bound by the sacraments he himself instituted (CCC 1257).
The practice of baptism of the dead, then, must stand or fall based on the direct evidence concerning it, and that is where the Mormon position runs into fatal problems."
As for the pretense that hundreds of thousands of Jewish Holocaust victims in the spirit world want the opportunity to become Mormons - if the offensiveness of that delusion is not manifest, then one’s religious fervor is obviously far out of control.
So do you understand now why we don’t like it when members of other religions pray for us to convert? If you wouldn’t like members of other religions to pray that you see the light and join them, you shouldn’t do that sort of thing with respect to them. I think there’s something in the New Testament about that…
True. I’ll take Catholics praying for me to convert in their churches where I don’t have to listen to it over Evangelicals harassing me, any day of the week.
It would be orders of magnitude worse, too, if the Catholics had this prayer at occasions like weddings or funerals, when non-Catholics are likely to be visiting Catholic churches. There probably aren’t many non-Catholics, and very very few Jews, at Catholic Good Friday services. I don’t think this is as bad as the practice in some evangelical churches of having altar calls at funerals, for example.
Buy yourself a history book. How would you feel if church officials showed up at your door one day and kidnapped your son because he had been secretly baptized by the maid? See the case of Edgardo Mortara.
Um, yes, that’s tragic, but it isn’t 1858 anymore. Does that happen on a regular basis now? Does anything like that happen now? Is it being planned as part of this new thing? There’s a big difference between ‘Pray for Jews to convert’ and ‘Kidnap their kids’.
The rightness or wrongness of religion is irrelevant to the issue - which is how someone, believing their religion is correct and seeking to establish rules for it, ought to behave.
Naturally it isn’t 1858 any more; nor is it the 1960s (when the truly insulting words were removed from the liturgy). This doesn’t mean that the historical context of an action is irrelevant to how it will be perceived.
The fact is that the reason that this particular bit of the liturgy is being added back in is a desire to return to the tried & true ways of the “good old days”. I have no doubt those wishing such a return are thinking only in terms of the beauty of the original mass - but for those of us who are Jews, the “good old days” weren’t so good, at least in terms of Catholic/Jewish relations.
But the Edgar Mortara case is an example of why Jews can’t always just shrug off what the Catholics believe as not affecting us. You would think that the Catholic ideas on baptism don’t affect Jews in any way, but the Edgar Mortara case shows that you’d be wrong. Whether Catholics believe the communion wafer is actually Jesus’ body or not is another issue that you’d think wouldn’t affect Jews in any way, but historically it certainly did.
Actually, I found it in an article in the Jerusalem Post. I’ve had a heck of a time finding the post-1961 changes to the Tridentine mass on-line (although there are a lot of versions of the pre-1962 and even pre-1955 versions for some reason). (Lots of people want to sell me the book.)
The Wikipedia article on Good Friday includes a description of a change by 1965 to that prayer (several sources attribute the change to a 1959 directive by Pope John XXIII), that is very close to the translation provided by the Jerusalem Post.
The change would not have appeared in the recent motu proprio because it was not part of Pope Benedict’s statement. He only addressed the changes in rules making it easier to get permission to celebrate the Tridentine mass as it is already set; the issue of anti-semitism was brought up by a few people who remembered that the old mass had anti-semitic statements in it who then claimed he was “reviving” the church’s anti-semitic stance.
To the general discussion:
Let me point out that last aspect, again. Pope Benedict did nothing to “insert” (or even “revive”) a prayer to “convert Jews.”
The Tridentine Mass was superseded by the Novo Ordo rite in 1972. Following Vatican II, a lot of people got upset that “our Latin Mass” was being “taken away.” And, in fact, the rules governing the celebration of the Tridentine form, (which, by that time had already been celebrated for either 10 or 13 years with the less insulting language in the one prayer on Good Friday; in addition, the equivalent prayer in the Novo Ordo is equally either insulting or not compared to the one it replaced in the Tridentine form), were made fairly restrictive. A parish needed explicit permission from the local bishop under specific conditions to use the older form. There were a number of groups who broke from the RCC over that and other issues. Such groups are tiny, but loud. The explicit change made in the motu proprio, *Summorum Pontificum *, was intended to do nothing but change the process whereby a group could petition to have the Tridentine mass celebrated in their parish with a little bit of the red tape eliminated. No statement was made regarding any of the prayers in that liturgy. It was not intended to change the way the Tridentine mass was celebrated. Of the current population of around 1.1 billion Catholics, this is liable to increase the number who celebrate the Tridentine mass from a few tens of thousands to several tens of thousands. It was intended to make the Catholic church appear a bit less hostile to a tiny but loud group who have a 40 year history of disaffection. (Ironically, I suspect that it is going to backfire, anyway. There are not enough priests available in most countries to be able to set aside an entire mass time in every parish for the dozen or so people who might remotely be interested. Every time a group is turned down for logistical reasons, they are going to scream “persecution!” and stay mad. And a lot of the people who are mad at the church (notably, the late LeFebvre’s Pius X group), are mad about a lot more than the Tridentine mass and they are going to refuse to “rejoin” the church regardless of this motu proprio.
The current prayer in the Tridentine mass has a corresponding prayer (that is equally either insulting or not) that has been used throughout the church for the last 35 years in the Novo Ordo mass.
Yes, the relaxation of restrictions on the Tridentine is an effort to let some folks who remember “the good old days” feel better about coming back to the church, but they are not going to encounter any prayer that they will not have heard (if they made it to mass on Good Friday) any time in the last 45 or 48 years (depending on whether the language changed in 1959 or 1962).
Now, if I were Jewish, I would definitely be leery of a lot of things that the RCC does, (although three of the last five popes have worked very hard to establish better relations between the Catholics and Jews and none of them have done anything to reverse better relations). As a Catholic I tend to look over statements by individual bishops or priests to challenge them if they appear to be embracing the beliefs of Pope Paul IV. On the other hand, there just might be a difference between taking offense at actual actions and creating offense at unrelated actions.
I was incorrect in my simplification of the situation. For “added back”, please insert the correct (and more complex) set of facts, as you have related them.
My post was merely an explaination as to why some Jews might find this an irritant. It was in reaction to this account of the Pope’s statement, from the article in the OP:
Thus, the appeal to the ways of the “good old days”. The problem is that, when the issue is specifically one of praying for the conversion of Jews, the context of the “good old days” isn’t all “good” - when it came to the specific issue of converting Jews.
As I have said already, I’m not particularly fussed. I can understand why the Pope takes this action: to bring believers back into the fold. I also understand that the change is more symbolic than real, given that the prayer in question is already available. However, I can also understand why some Jews aren’t happy about it - it’s about historical context; and symbolism does have some importance in this respect.
That being said, I don’t think anyone really believes that the Pope is signaling a return to characterizing Jews as “perfidious”, let alone more overt forms of Jew-hatred. However, it does appear to be an unfortunate departure from the policy of previous Popes to mend relations.
On the contrary, the links I’ve provided explain quite well why LDS posthumous baptism is viewed in a dim light.
Your posts have been limited to incredulity that anyone could be offended, and suggestions that any negative sentiments about the practice constitute Mormon-bashing, and/or a lack of “honesty”.
If you don’t want to continue this “hijack”, then stop feebly defending posthumous baptism. Although this has not really been a hijack, because it sheds more light on the tone-deaf manner in which some religions pursue conversions, by direct or covert means.
It’s a pity that this is your attitude. As someone with no dog in the fight one way or the other, Jackmanii’s cites seem persuasive. If they are deceitful in some way, I’d be interested to see how.
