Catholic thought on the Jewish people and replacement theology

[Solus_Christus]

If Jesus’s kingdom was not of this world in the sense they you seem to imply, than Christianity is a Gnostic religion…

We are taught to pray “Thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Yes, something is happening here on earth. However, this does not necessitate an earthly jurisdiction with political borders (in fact, Christ seemed to have discounted this possibility in the passage in John), and acknowledging this fact does not require one to be a Gnostic.

You are right, though. I am off-topic. To the point of this discussion, I am not sure I have seen mentioned Romans 11:25 and 26: “Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, ‘The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob’” Since Paul is discussing the Gentiles as distinct from the Jews in this passage, it seems clear that *Israel *is not synonymous with the Christian Church in this context (and therefore, one could reasonably conclude, God is not done with the Jewish people as a race).

 

[teeboy]

If Jesus’s kingdom was not of this world in the sense they you seem to imply, than Christianity is a Gnostic religion, where the material world is excluded from the kingdom, the pure spiritual world. Or more simply, how could the Apostles be of the kingdom of God if they are preaching in the world? We are called to be in the world, but not of it.

Furthermore, it is simply a fact of history that St. Peter died in Rome (as did St. Paul around the same time), and if you accept Apostolic Succession and Petrine Primacy, than it follows that the Bishops of Rome are the Successors of St. Peter, and possess the authority that he had.

Remember that the Catholic position is clear that the Papacy is only connected to Rome by coincidence, and that if St. Peter died in say Antioch, the Bishop of Antioch would possess the Petrine office. The poster you are responding to is saying that the head of the Church residing in Rome is fitting, reflecting the power of God over his enemy., but not necessary.

But, this is off topic: you can start another thread, and I will be happy to participate

Christi pax,

Lucretius

And what is your source for this catholic position on coincidence? The man was guided by the Holy Spirit, and Jesus is the one who had already ascended and sent the Holy Spirit to guide.

 

[Wesrock]

Romans 11:1-2
I say then: Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people, which he foreknew.

St. Paul establishes that he is an Israelite by birth. He says Israel has stumbled so salvation would come to the Gentiles who would desire to be emulous of them. So does St. Paul imply that the Church has stumbled for the salvation of the Gentiles? That would be foolish.

Romans 11:13-14"
“For I say to you, Gentiles: as long indeed as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I will honour my ministry, If, by any means, I may provoke to emulation them who are my flesh, and may save some of them…”

It is very dangerous to get between God and His chosen people. They still have a purpose in salvation history. Jesus said, “You know then how to discern the face of the sky: and can you not know the signs of the times?” [Matt. 16:3] If you think Israel plays no further role, then you haven’t thought about the Holocaust and the rebirth of Israel. Jesus was the King of the Jews, the first to see and prophesy the coming diaspora.

You have to remember that Jew is a term technically applied to the tribe of Judah, which essentially annexed the tribe of Benjamin when the rest of Israel revolted, and the southern kingdom became Judah while the northern kingdom called itself Israel. The northern kingdoms were conquered by Assyria and sent off into exile. Unlike the Judeans, they never returned. Yet God’s promises were to ALL of Israel, not just to Judah.

Paul here is distinguishing himself from the tribe of Judah. He himself is a Benjamite, he is of Israel! And he is now emphasizing this for the sake of the Israelites (who should, in these passages, be considered different than just the Jews). How is God going to bring the exiled Israelites who were scattered to the ends of the Earth and absorbed by the gentiles back into his new covenant? How is he going to find them and sort them out? He isn’t going to sort them out. He’s going to instead send his missionaries to the ends of the Earth, preaching to all the gentiles. In this way he can reach all the Israelites (for the message to reach all without distinction, to offer salvation to all the tribes, though that shouldn’t imply all will accept), not individually, but by preaching to the broadest possible audience possible. This is why Paul says God hasn’t forgotten the Israelites. This is why he tells the gentiles not to be confident, for God is preaching to the gentile not only for their benefit, but so that he may reach all of lost Israel, and warns that if God was willing to cut Israel from the vine in the past, he may very well do it to the gentiles too if they get haughty.

In this way, everyone is brought into this regenerated, inclusive Israel. A nation (like David’s and Solomon’s) which ruled not just over the Twelve tribes, but over gentile nations as well which did homage to Him. The kingdom of Jesus is the fulfillment and restoration of David’s kingdom of Israel, ruling over people regardless of ancestry (like David’s kingdom). The Church is the earthly apparatus that overseas the kingdom on earth. In this way the Church is the New Israel, where Israel is not just a people, but a kingdom. And modern Jews are outside the kingdom, denying the authority of the King…

Now, I think the Jews still hold a special place in God’s heart. I don’t think them forgotten. But I don’t think we should assume like some Protestants that there will be a mass conversion of all of them or that their covenant is just as effective as the new (the very point of Christianity and Paul’s writings are that it is not).

When we say the Church is the New Israel, we don’t just mean a new chosen people like the sons of Jacob, we mean that it is the restored and eternal kingdom.

Edit: Please excuse typos. I’ve been going over this message from my phone, but I can’t seem to get them all. Darn autocorrect.

 

[Wesrock]

Then what did Jesus mean when He told Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36)?

If it’s not of this world in any sense, then why did Jesus give Peter the keys of the Kingdom and quote Isaiah 22 (regarding the office of prime minister in the Davidic Kingdom)? Let’s not even consider the papacy of the modern Catholic church. Why would Jesus make this reference, giving the keys of a kingdom to an earthly authority, if he would not be bringing the kingdom to earth? Why did he call him the rock, such as the rock the Temple was built on on Mt. Zion? Certainly saying he would build his assembly on a rock would have brought that immediately to the mind of any first century Jew. I don’t think we can deny the immediacy with which Jesus declared in the coming of the kingdom, nor the image of his ascension in reference to Daniel and the establishment of the restored kingdom.

 

[meltzerboy]

The Jewish religion was the only true one for 2000 years, which may be summed up by saying that a messiah would come, and to look and wait for his comming. And the rite of cimcumcision was the acknowledgement of their belonging to that true messianic kingdom.

When the messiah came in Jesus Christ, he was the fullfillment of that Jewish messiahship. And on Pentecost, there were 3000 Jews who accepted him as their messiah by the preaching of Peter. But no longer is the right of circumcision necessary to make them part of God’s messianaic people, but the right of baptism making them a part of the messianic people.

However the church has said that there are others who may belong to this kingdom by accepting baptism in another way, which is to lengthy to explain in this post.

The coming of the Messiah, while important in Judaism, particularly to Orthodox Judaism, is not really the heart of the Jewish religion. Neither is the Prophets portion of the Hebrew Bible. The heart of Judaism is the Written Law (Torah), and not merely the studying and teaching of the Law but especially the PRACTICE of the Law: “Studying is not the ultimate but the doing” (Oral Torah, Mishna). The codified Oral Law (Mishna) is equally as important as an indispensable means of interpreting the Written Law. In fact, it is believed that during the Messianic age, the studying and the practice of the Law will be INTENSIFIED. That is the meaning of salvation according to Judaism; it has nothing to do with the afterlife, during which time the Law will NOT be studied or taught. And that is the major mission of the Messiah, rather than salvation in the World to Come. The other components of the Messianic age, including peace among the nations of the earth and the in-gathering of the exiled Jewish people, even the acknowledgment of the existence of G-d, are subsumed under the Law. In short, EVERYTHING, including the Messiah, revolves around the Law since the latter is G-d’s blessing to humanity as a means of living a fulfilling and purposive life by pointing us in the right direction with regard to our relationship with G-d, our fellow humans, and all the creatures which inhabit the earth.

 

[Lucretius]

And what is your source for this catholic position on coincidence? The man was guided by the Holy Spirit, and Jesus is the one who had already ascended and sent the Holy Spirit to guide.

I used the word “coincidence” because I thought people wouldn’t understand the terms “contingent” or “accidental.” What I mean is that there is no necessary connection between the Petrine Office and the Bishop of Rome.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Wesrock]

I used the word “coincidence” because I thought people wouldn’t understand the terms “contingent” or “accidental.” What I mean is that there is no necessary connection between the Petrine Office and the Bishop of Rome.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Maybe I’m late to this argument and missed something, but the connection is the office Jesus appointed Peter to. The symbolic possessing and passing on of the Keys to the Kingdom, the symbols of that sacred office.

 

[Wesrock]

The coming of the Messiah, while important in Judaism, particularly to Orthodox Judaism, is not really the heart of the Jewish religion. Neither is the Prophets portion of the Hebrew Bible. The heart of Judaism is the Written Law (Torah), and not merely the studying and teaching of the Law but especially the PRACTICE of the Law: “Studying is not the ultimate but the doing” (Oral Torah, Mishna). The codified Oral Law (Mishna) is equally as important as an indispensable means of interpreting the Written Law. In fact, it is believed that during the Messianic age, the studying and the practice of the Law will be INTENSIFIED. That is the meaning of salvation according to Judaism; it has nothing to do with the afterlife, during which time the Law will NOT be studied or taught. And that is the major mission of the Messiah, rather than salvation in the World to Come. The other components of the Messianic age, including peace among the nations of the earth and the in-gathering of the exiled Jewish people, even the acknowledgment of the existence of G-d, are subsumed under the Law. In short, EVERYTHING, including the Messiah, revolves around the Law since the latter is G-d’s blessing to humanity as a means of living a fulfilling and purposive life by pointing us in the right direction with regard to our relationship with G-d, our fellow humans, and all the creatures which inhabit the earth.

As a Catholic, I feel like this (insofar as you explained it) does parallel our beliefs more than one would expect, though I don’t mean to understate any differences.

Our understanding of the “new covenant” is that it is this covenant that empowers us to keep and live the law, that we could not live up to it otherwise. Where we stumble we can find forgiveness as we renew our commitment to keeping this law. Catholic teaching is that Jesus heightened the law to what it was intended to be, internalized it, and gave us the strength (at Pentecost) to keep it; he didn’t abolish it. I think many Catholics have lost that perspective.

Anyway, again, for all I said there are certainly may differences. But unlike some of our Protestant brethren, the (moral) law is still important to us. I mean, certainly Protestants are all for being moral, but they’d likely shy away from this idea of “the law” and how important it is for Christians.

 

[Lucretius]

Maybe I’m late to this argument and missed something, but the connection is the office Jesus appointed Peter to. The symbolic possessing and passing on of the Keys to the Kingdom, the symbols of that sacred office.

If you read what I wrote, I’m claiming that the Successor of Peter is the Bishop of Rome because that is where St. Peter died. If he died in Antioch, than the Bishop of Antioch would be the Successor

And the Keys were given to both St. Peter individually, and to all of the Apostles collectively, including St. Peter. The claim that all the Bishops don’t share in the keys, but only Peter and his Successors is relatively new, and against the traditional understanding, from my understanding

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[teeboy]

If you read what I wrote, I’m claiming that the Successor of Peter is the Bishop of Rome because that is where St. Peter died. If he died in Antioch, than the Bishop of Antioch would be the Successor

And the Keys were given to both St. Peter individually, and to all of the Apostles collectively, including St. Peter. The claim that all the Bishops don’t share in the keys, but only Peter and his Successors is relatively new, and against the traditional understanding, from my understanding

Christi pax,

Lucretius

You should read this post.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12641120&postcount=30

 

[Lucretius]

You should read this post.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12641120&postcount=30

I didn’t see anything that was false in it, on the first reading at least

Thank you for the resource

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[jerome_ky]

You have to remember that Jew is a term technically applied to the tribe of Judah, which essentially annexed the tribe of Benjamin when the rest of Israel revolted, and the southern kingdom became Judah while the northern kingdom called itself Israel. The northern kingdoms were conquered by Assyria and sent off into exile. Unlike the Judeans, they never returned. Yet God’s promises were to ALL of Israel, not just to Judah.

Paul here is distinguishing himself from the tribe of Judah. He himself is a Benjamite, he is of Israel! And he is now emphasizing this for the sake of the Israelites (who should, in these passages, be considered different than just the Jews). How is God going to bring the exiled Israelites who were scattered to the ends of the Earth and absorbed by the gentiles back into his new covenant? How is he going to find them and sort them out? He isn’t going to sort them out. He’s going to instead send his missionaries to the ends of the Earth, preaching to all the gentiles. In this way he can reach all the Israelites (for the message to reach all without distinction, to offer salvation to all the tribes, though that shouldn’t imply all will accept), not individually, but by preaching to the broadest possible audience possible. This is why Paul says God hasn’t forgotten the Israelites. This is why he tells the gentiles not to be confident, for God is preaching to the gentile not only for their benefit, but so that he may reach all of lost Israel, and warns that if God was willing to cut Israel from the vine in the past, he may very well do it to the gentiles too if they get haughty.

In this way, everyone is brought into this regenerated, inclusive Israel. A nation (like David’s and Solomon’s) which ruled not just over the Twelve tribes, but over gentile nations as well which did homage to Him. The kingdom of Jesus is the fulfillment and restoration of David’s kingdom of Israel, ruling over people regardless of ancestry (like David’s kingdom). The Church is the earthly apparatus that overseas the kingdom on earth. In this way the Church is the New Israel, where Israel is not just a people, but a kingdom. And modern Jews are outside the kingdom, denying the authority of the King…

Now, I think the Jews still hold a special place in God’s heart. I don’t think them forgotten. But I don’t think we should assume like some Protestants that there will be a mass conversion of all of them or that their covenant is just as effective as the new (the very point of Christianity and Paul’s writings are that it is not).

When we say the Church is the New Israel, we don’t just mean a new chosen people like the sons of Jacob, we mean that it is the restored and eternal kingdom.

Edit: Please excuse typos. I’ve been going over this message from my phone, but I can’t seem to get them all. Darn autocorrect.

First, my apologies, I had included a quote earlier and failed to attribute it. It is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

674 The glorious Messiah’s coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by “all Israel”, for “a hardening has come upon part of Israel” in their “unbelief” toward Jesus. St. Peter says to the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old.” St. Paul echoes him: “For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?” The “full inclusion” of the Jews in the Messiah’s salvation, in the wake of “the full number of the Gentiles”, will enable the People of God to achieve “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”, in which “God may be all in all”.

So the Catechism itself conflates Israel with the Jews. I disagree that St. Paul identifies himself as being of the tribe of Benjamin in order to distance himself from the Jews. He uses the phrase “Jews and Gentiles” several times, as in “For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink [1Cor.12:13].” He says in Galatians 1:14, “And I made progress in the Jews’ religion above many of my equals in my own nation, being more abundantly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” “In my own nation” means Judea.

This all being said, I completely agree that part of the mission to the Gentiles was to reach the lost tribes that were dispersed. I think there is a great mystery there, that will hopefully be amongst many that are clarified when the Lord returns and we (I’m speculating here) are given to see how the Holy Spirit moved through history.

I have no huge argument with you on this, but I do think that evangelical Protestants are seeing something, in the Jews’ return to the Holy Land, that Catholics are missing out on. Protestants of course feel considerably less constraint on giving their own private interpretations, and they miss the boat so often it is tragic, but on this one, I think they are seeing the sign of the (end) times.

 

[Wesrock]

I’ll have to reconsider with that quote from the Catechism in mind. I know Paul regularly counted himself as a Jew. My argument about him stressing “Israel” and his own status as not being from the tribe of Judah is limited to Romans 9-11, as I think he had in his mind the recalling of the lost tribes (but not only that). I may have taken my argument too far, though.

A hardening has come upon a part of Israel [Judah] , until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel [all tribes] will be saved. (Romans 11: 25-26)

But I’ve spoken too certainly on the subject.

Regarding the Church being the New Israel,

This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants. (Romans 9: 8)

. . . she was told, “The elder will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (Romans 9: 12-13)

Verse 8 doesn’t necessarily need elaboration. 12-13 may speak to the Gentiles succeeding the Jews/Israelites (the first born people) in receiving the New Covenant blessings. I want to step back and clarify that Paul wasn’t using hate as we would in modern English, nor do I think the Jews in any way are meant to serve the New Church. Nor do I think Paul was speaking completely in ethnic terms, and we need to be very wary about how we understand this passage. What I do think he may have been addressing Jews who might reject the New Covenant, or perhaps Jewish Christians of his time who might think of themselves having the first-born blessing simply because of their ancestry, and Paul here is saying “No, that’s not necessarily the case. While it is traditional, there are many prominent examples of the first born being passed over in receiving the covenant blessings, so don’t get cocky, or assume just because you have ancestry you won’t be disinherited.” Paul later goes on to warn the Gentiles against assuming this same assurance, of course.

 

[teeboy]

I don’t find the phrase “new Israel” anywhere in Scripture. Please cite a Catholic source so I can look into this claim. Because I’m not aware of Israel being a widow or what that is supposed to mean. She is spoken of in the books of the Prophets as being the spouse of the Father.

This isn’t the sacred scripture forum. However, note that the prophets were in the Old Testament. If I recall correctly, Jesus declared in the New Testament that he would destroy the old religion.

Jesus’s spouse is the church.

Israel by definition is “one who struggles with God”. It is the Church that struggles with God now. Prior to Jesus, it was the nation of Israel that struggled with God. So forget about the phrase “New Israel” and instead use “New one who struggles with God”.

 

[Wesrock]

This isn’t the sacred scripture forum. However, note that the prophets were in the Old Testament. If I recall correctly, Jesus declared in the New Testament that he would destroy the old religion.

This I don’t think is true. I know you were only going off memory. Would you be able to provide a source for this?

 

[meltzerboy]

This isn’t the sacred scripture forum. However, note that the prophets were in the Old Testament. If I recall correctly, Jesus declared in the New Testament that he would destroy the old religion.

Jesus’s spouse is the church.

I doubt that Jesus declared this, at least not according to the way you put it.

 

[teeboy]

Israel by definition is “one who struggles with God”. It is the Church that struggles with God now. Prior to Jesus, it was the nation of Israel that struggled with God. So forget about the phrase “New Israel” and instead use “New one who struggles with God”.

 

[teeboy]

This I don’t think is true. I know you were only going off memory. Would you be able to provide a source for this?

You should read more scripture. Unfortunately, I don’t know the book much less the verse where it is found. You can Google it.

 

[Wesrock]

I read the New Testament (Ignatius Study Bible) within the last six months and am making my way through the Old. In addition, I’ve been listening to and meditating on talks about the gospels, Paul’s epistles, the sacraments, Church history, mostly every day. I was attempting to be charitible, but in all of my study I honestly do not recall Jesus ever declaring what you said in how you phrased it. Now, I certainly am not a biblical scholar and am relatively newly reconverted, but I politely asked for a citation, not a reprimand to read more scripture, which I have been constantly doing for the last six months.

I think you may have reversed what Jesus is quoted as saying in Matthew 5:

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Perhaps you are referring to something else, but I’m unable to locate what you may be referring to.

 

[teeboy]

This shocking passage was part of the United States gospel liturgy recently. I’d say within the last month. If I come across it I’ll get in touch.

I was shocked when I read it and wanted to read it again but I didn’t make the time to follow up.