Can Jews get into heaven?

[thistle]

Invincible ignorance applies to those who through no fault of their own have no knowledge of Christ and his Church, but who nevertheless in that ignorance live their lives in accordance with the teachings of Christ (the latter part implies God has somehow touched them and they have an* implicit* baptism of desire and so could be deemed to be part of the Church at death). Such people may be saved.
But note that the Church says they may be saved and not will be saved.

'No knowledge of Christ and his Church" can hardly apply to Protestants, Jews and Muslims. All of them know something about Christ and his Church. If they have the opportunity to explore further but choose not to do so or choose to explore further but then reject Christ and/or his Church then such people cannot be saved.

In reality in this age of global communications hardly anyone can claim to have no knowledge of Christ and and his Church.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Nowhere does the Catholic Church teach that everything taught by the Councils of Trent and Florence, nor everything taught via Papal Encyclicals, are taught infallibly. In fact, nothing taught infallibly by the Catholic Church has been done so via Papal Encyclicals. This is simple, clear, Catholic teaching. If you disagree, please provide Magisterial references to show otherwise.

 

[chosen_people]

This is one of my favorite recurring threads.

I am always reminded of Professor Liviu Librescu of blessed memory, a Jew an Israeli and a holocaust survivor, who in April 2007, gave his life by barricading his classroom doors at Virginia Tech and allowed his students to flee to safety from a rampaging gunman on a wild killing spree. One can only hope that among the students saved that day by this heroic action, there was at least one religious Christian, who took the time to visit the professor’s family to explain that because professor Librescu was Jewish, he is barred from the world to come.

Remarkably when God appeared to the entire nation of Israel, when the Jewish scriptures were written, it turned out that there is only one God and He is the God of all and all are equally precious in His eyes. It turned out that the world to come was just as open to the Gentile as it was for the Jew, in fact it was easier for the Gentile than for the Jew to get to the world to come as they had only to follow the seven Noahide commandments. Well over a thousand years later, two large groups of former pagans searching their way to their own brand of ethical monotheism, one in the west and one in the east, were to change that teaching to one that declared that only those who believe what and as they believed, could find redemption.

So can Jews get to heaven? Yes, but only if they promise not to try and join the country club

 

[JM3]

What is the “dual-covenant” heresy?

From this site: davidhocking.org/blog/?p=469

Both this year and last year the pastor of the Word of Faith mega-church ended the program by telling both Jews and non-Jews in the audience that the Jews do not need to be either evangelized or “saved.” They automatically are. Pray tell, where does the Bible say that?? The pastor said that “all Israel will be saved.” (Romans 11:26) Yes, they will be saved when they see Him whom they pierced. (Zechariah 12:10) But a remnant must be reached before that. What is to be made of the Jewish revival (or Messianic revival) of the last 35 years?

This pathetic position is borne out of “Dual Covenant Theology.” If you understand no other heresy today (and most of us are busy putting out heresy fires as there are so many), pay attention to this one. It could lay the groundwork for saying all sorts of people do not have to be saved to enter Heaven, which is just blatant Universalism.

“Dual Covenant Theology” teaches that Jews can be saved without believing in the Messiah Jesus. God supposedly has a separate plan for the Jews and thus faith in the Messiah is not necessary.

From this site: catholicism.org/the-heresy-of-dual-covenant-theology.html

I have just finished reading “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked?” by Dr. Robert Sungenis. It is a study debunking the notion, now regnant in liberal theological circles, that the Old Covenant still stands side-by-side with the New Covenant. According to this novelty, in essence, God’s “A Plan” and God’s “B Plan” are both currently pleasing to Him and both fully in effect.

 

[rdscheirer]

According to the Gospel of Peter- not in the Bible- everyone gets in eventually.

 

[thistle]

According to the Gospel of Peter- not in the Bible- everyone gets in eventually.

That’s obviously not true otherwise it would mean Jesus lied to us when he said that the fires of Hell are eternal and many will find their way there.

 

[Vince1022]

Ah. What about the source I just gave of teaching from the infallible council of florence by Papal Bull?

Your reference from the Council of Florence does not meet the Church’s criteria for teaching infallibly. Read Canon Law. Papal Bulls are not in and of themselves infallible teaching.

Didn’t Pope JP II put out infallible teaching re-affirming that priests could never be female in a papal encyclical (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis)?

Maybe, maybe not. That point is debated among Bishops, theologians, and canon lawyers. So it’s an open question. If it’s open, then it’s clearly not yet been understood as having been taught infallibly.

The typical dissenters such as yourself had to press him further and ask if he was speaking infallibly, to which then-Cardinal Ratzinger responded in Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1995)

Oh, so I am a dissenter? Really? Where have I ever posted anything dissenting from Catholic teaching? Or are you just resorting to “ad hominem” attacks?

The point is…the CDF (nor any other Curial department) does not possess the charism of teaching infallibly. That is the point I referred to above that bishops, theologians, and canon lawyers continue to debate regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

Or…just to clarify…are you saying that the Church teaches that the CDF has the charism to define infallibly taught doctrines? If so…where does the Church teach this?

This is a ridiculous argument anyway because in matters of faith and morals, the councils are infallible,

Are you saying everything taught by every ecumenical council (as defined by the Catholic Church) is taught infallibly? Who defines what fits into the “faith and morals” category?

Look at the canons (teachings) of, let’s say, the first ecumenical council (Nicea, 325 A.D.). Which teachings of this ecumenical council do you consider taught infallibly? On what basis?

piar.hu/councils/ecum01.htm

And, where does official Catholic Church teaching agree with your views? Thanks for any clarification.

when your problem is that you won’t accept the Magisterium.

You are accusing me of not accepting the Magisterium. Wow, that’s a serious charge, and could be personally offensive (though I don’t consider it such). Why do you think that?

I know you won’t accept the above, because ironically it’s a Papal Encyclical, which isn’t the part of the Magisterium that suits your fancy.

I never said Papal Encyclicals are not part of the Magisterium. If you think so, you are seriously in error. I accept all Papal Encyclicals.

I wouldn’t talk, for the reasons stated above, and for the fact that you don’t know what invincible ignorance is yet you tried to answer a question on it.

My point was not whether I know what invincible ignorance was, but simply where such is in the Catechism. Which you have not answered.

 

[zarthan]

I am thankful to God that all of scripture was given to us through the Jewish people. ( Y’shua was Jewish, as was his mother, Miriam, and all of the twelve apostles were Jewish.

A Jewish man saved me from physical death.

The book of Revelations speaks about two witnesses in the last days, who are Jewish.
The same book speaks of 12,000 messengers from each of the 12 tribes in the last days.
The same book says the twelve apostles are the twelve foundations of the wall of heavenly Jerusalem.

The scriptures say that ‘salvation is of the Jews’. Scriptures say that we are wild olive branches grafted into the natural olive tree. The scriptures say, that one day ‘all Israel will be saved’.

Scriptures say that in the age to come, all nations will come up to Jerusalem to keep the feast of Tabernacles.

In the meantime, I’ll let God be the judge. Thank God for all of His faithful ones.

 

[NoelFitz]

Question:

Can Jews get into heaven?

Answer:

Yes.

If in doubt ask St Peter or Jesus Christ!

 

[Vince1022]

Question:

Can Jews get into heaven?

Answer:

Yes.

If in doubt ask St Peter or Jesus Christ!

Nice! Thanks.

And of course we can add Mary, Joseph, and all the Apostles!

 

[StrawberryJam]

Jewish believers in God don’t believe in a heaven/hell senario as far as I know.
They really reject original sin. I agree with them.

 

[Vince1022]

I am thankful to God that all of scripture was given to us through the Jewish people. .

It wasn’t.

Only the Old Testament was.

Christians consider the New Testament as Scripture, which was not given through the Jewish people.

 

[Vince1022]

That’s obviously not true otherwise it would mean Jesus lied to us when he said that the fires of Hell are eternal and many will find their way there.

The Catholic Church does not teach that salvation for all is impossible.

 

[zarthan]

It wasn’t.

Only the Old Testament was.

Christians consider the New Testament as Scripture, which was not given through the Jewish people.

Vince1022: The Catholic church teaches that both the OT and the NT are scripture.
Except for possibly, Luke’s gospel and the book of Acts, all of the NT was written by Jewish disciples of Jesus Christ.

The peace of Jesus Christ be with you.

 

[TMC]

It wasn’t.

Only the Old Testament was.

Christians consider the New Testament as Scripture, which was not given through the Jewish people.

That depends on who you believe wrote the New Testament. The single largest author of the NT was Paul - and he was a Jew. James was also a Jew. If you hold that the books and letters traditionally attributed to Matthew and John were written by the apostles with those names - they were also Jews.

 

[TMC]

Vince1022: The Catholic church teaches that both the OT and the NT are scripture.
Except for possibly, Luke’s gospel and the book of Acts, all of the NT was written by Jewish disciples of Jesus Christ.

The peace of Jesus Christ be with you.

Oops, I see you already made my point.

 

[Vince1022]

Vince1022: The Catholic church teaches that both the OT and the NT are scripture.

Yes, of course. I never said nor suggested otherwise.

Except for possibly, Luke’s gospel and the book of Acts, all of the NT was written by Jewish disciples of Jesus Christ.

Or by followers, whether Jewish or not, of the disciples of Christ, as Catholic Church teaching recognizes…

 

[Vince1022]

That depends on who you believe wrote the New Testament. The single largest author of the NT was Paul - and he was a Jew. James was also a Jew. If you hold that the books and letters traditionally attributed to Matthew and John were written by the apostles with those names - they were also Jews.

I believe Christians wrote the New Testament. Which is at least one if the not THE major reason Jews do not accept it as Scripture.

Yes of course Paul and James (and Jesus, Mary, and Joseph) were raised as Jews…but did they write the New Testament as Jews, or Christians? Or does it not make a difference to you?

Are you suggesting that non-Christians wrote the New Testament?

 

[StrawberryJam]

I believe Christians wrote the New Testament. Which is at least one if the not THE major reason Jews do not accept it as Scripture.

Yes of course Paul and James (and Jesus, Mary, and Joseph) were raised as Jews…but did they write the New Testament as Jews, or Christians? Or does it not make a difference to you?

Are you suggesting that non-Christians wrote the New Testament?

I’m guessing there was a little bit more to it than just rejecting the scriptures you have that came much much later on after they had already taken a look at the evidence.

 

[Vince1022]

I’m guessing there was a little bit more to it than just rejecting the scriptures you have that came much much later on after they had already taken a look at the evidence.

I don’t understand. Can you clarify? Thanks.