Clarification of Church Doctrine Regarding the Jews

[PJM]

=Moses613;10601822]In a Vatican document entitled: “NOTES on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church” I am confused about two seemingly contradictory statements.

1. The Holy Father has stated this permanent reality of the Jewish people in a remarkable theological formula, in his allocution to the Jewish community of West Germany at Mainz, on November 17th, 1980: “the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked”. (Emphasis added)

1. “In virtue of her divine mission, the Church” which is to be “the all-embracing means of salvation” in which alone “the fulness of the means of salvation can be obtained” (Unit. Red. 3); “must of her nature proclaim Jesus Christ to the world” (cf. Guidelines and Suggestions, I). Indeed we believe that is is through him that we go to the Father (cf. Jn. 14:6) “and this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” (Jn 17:33).
   Jesus affirms (ibid. 10:16) that “there shall be one flock and one shepherd”. Church and Judaism cannot then be seen as two parallel ways of salvation and the Church must witness to Christ as the Redeemer for all, “while maintaining the strictest respect for religious liberty in line with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (Declaration Dignitatis Humanae)” (Guidelines and Suggestions, I). (emphasis added)

How can the Church simultaneously affirm that the Old Covenant with the Jewish people has never been revoked, and also say that salvation may not be obtained through Judaism? Does this mean only “full” salvation may not be attained, but some measure of it might? Or: No salvation is obtained by the Jews, and the Pope in #1 above meant something else entirely (in which case, what??).

I thank you in advance for a well-reasoned response.

While it has NOT been “revoked” IT HAS BEEN Superceded:thumbsup:
Things like the Commandments certaily ARE retianed.

Heb. 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. [BUT NOT!]

Heb. 9: 15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

I have very little knowledge of Orthodox Christianity, but I’ll tell you this. No Western version of Christianity, from what I am familiar with, expects any Jew who converts to keep any measure of the old law, which, incidentally, includes a lot more than just refraining from pork and shellfish. Especially the Protestants who don’t believe you need works at all for salvation. Historically, perhaps, you are right – the early church was not trying to lift the commandments from the Jews. But things changed, far as I can tell. In fact, as I think about it, it seems to fly in the face of the whole notion of suppresionist theology. But I don’t know which texts are used to support that doctrine.

Okay. I don’t personally know anyone of Jewish ethnicity who are now Christian. I probably ought to get and read: Surprised by Christ: My Journey from Judaism to Orthodox Christianity by Fr. A. James Bernstein

 

[Jaysuitical]

• Yet this does not contradict previous teachings: the law ceased, not as in a revoking, but as in a transfer from Old to New, for the New fulfills the Old and it would be not only wrong but offensive to the Lord for those under the New Covenant to try to keep up with the Old Covenant (as if they did not have faith in the work of redemption of Christ, the Messiah).

The use of the word ‘transfer’ doesn’t conceal the theological dispossession of the people of Israel by the ‘new Israel’, of the displacement of one covenant by a very heavily revised notion. The covenantal partner is no longer those keeping the Sinaitic covenant, whose absorption in the Easter covenant, effaces what is most distinctive in it by relegating its statutes and conditions to merely preparatory status. Softer terms still mean the same thing: revocation and, in a very real way, spiritual eviction. It’s a bit like King Lear, with the Goneril and Regan still reassuring dad that he’s still the king, even tho’ they now hold the fiefs and revenues.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

The use of the word ‘transfer’ doesn’t conceal the theological dispossession of the people of Israel by the ‘new Israel’, of the displacement of one covenant by a very heavily revised notion. The covenantal partner is no longer those keeping the Sinaitic covenant, whose absorption in the Easter covenant, effaces what is most distinctive in it by relegating its statutes and conditions to merely preparatory status. Softer terms still mean the same thing: revocation and, in a very real way, spiritual eviction. It’s a bit like King Lear, with the Goneril and Regan still reassuring dad that he’s still the king, even tho’ they now hold the fiefs and revenues.

The Jewish people need Christ just as surely as the Hindu or Atheist. Why should this be an issue? I’m sure if I read some of the Rabbinical Literature on Christianity I would probably find more than one or two things that would annoy me…

 

[Contarini]

In a Vatican document entitled: “NOTES on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church” I am confused about two seemingly contradictory statements.

1. The Holy Father has stated this permanent reality of the Jewish people in a remarkable theological formula, in his allocution to the Jewish community of West Germany at Mainz, on November 17th, 1980: “the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked”. (Emphasis added)
2. “In virtue of her divine mission, the Church” which is to be “the all-embracing means of salvation” in which alone “the fulness of the means of salvation can be obtained” (Unit. Red. 3); “must of her nature proclaim Jesus Christ to the world” (cf. Guidelines and Suggestions, I). Indeed we believe that is is through him that we go to the Father (cf. Jn. 14:6) “and this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” (Jn 17:33).
   Jesus affirms (ibid. 10:16) that “there shall be one flock and one shepherd”. Church and Judaism cannot then be seen as two parallel ways of salvation and the Church must witness to Christ as the Redeemer for all, “while maintaining the strictest respect for religious liberty in line with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (Declaration Dignitatis Humanae)” (Guidelines and Suggestions, I). (emphasis added)

How can the Church simultaneously affirm that the Old Covenant with the Jewish people has never been revoked, and also say that salvation may not be obtained through Judaism? Does this mean only “full” salvation may not be attained, but some measure of it might? Or: No salvation is obtained by the Jews, and the Pope in #1 above meant something else entirely (in which case, what??).

I thank you in advance for a well-reasoned response.

All salvation comes through Christ. For Jews, this salvation is mediated by the covenant(s) God made with them in the Old Testament. Those covenants point toward Christ. Jews (taking the term to refer to the religion of Judaism, which is opposed to Christianity) refuse to accept this. If they do this out of a good conscience and not out of pride (and charitably we may suppose that many/most do), then this refusal doesn’t cut them off from the grace of Christ, even if they don’t recognize that grace.

It’s obviously false that there can’t be “two valid covenants,” since in the OT alone there are at least four (with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David).

The difficulty I see is how to reconcile more recent statements on the Jews with the traditional teaching (most authoritatively stated at Florence) that the ceremonial law can no longer be practiced by anyone, even Jews, without grave sin, even if the person practicing it does not hope for salvation from it.

I don’t think that the Abrahamic/Mosaic distinction helps here, since it seems to me that this and other recent statements are referring to the Mosaic as well as Abrahamic covenants.

Edwin

 

[AbideWithMe]

The difficulty I see is how to reconcile more recent statements on the Jews with the traditional teaching (most authoritatively stated at Florence) that the ceremonial law can no longer be practiced by anyone, even Jews, without grave sin, even if the person practicing it does not hope for salvation from it.

Edwin

Last year I was reading a piece by Avery Cardinal Dulles wherein he mentioned the portion of the Decree for the Copts where circumsion for a Christian is declared to be a mortal sin. I was curious, so I read a considerable portion of that decree online, including the part forbidding circumsion. Though I realize I don’t have enough background knowledge on this decree to fully put it in its historical context, still I’m puzzled how the decree would not be considered a change in teaching from that of the Apostles in Acts 21; and then I don’t understand how the current allowance of circumsion is not a change in teaching from that of the Decree for the Copts.

 

[Yerusalyim]

All salvific action and grace flows forward and backward in time from the cross. There is no salvation other than the cross of Christ. Scripture and the Church tell us that the call and election of God are irrevocable. Therefore, the Jewish people will always be God’s chosen people. The covenant is also irrevocable. But the only promise of salvation in the old covenant is the salvation of the cross. Christians are grafted into the covenant of the people of Israel as part of the new covenant wrought in the blood of Christ. So the Covenant with Moses is still in force…FOR THE JEWISH PEOPLE…non Jews have never been subject to it. The new covenant is with all people and does not replace the Mosaic covenant. However, there is only one way to Salvation…through the cross of Christ. How God decides to deal with Jews, who have a special place in His heart, and those who have not had a chance to hear the Gospel is up to God…but even if he saves them…the Salvific action comes from the cross even if those saved don’t know what that is.
God’s mercy is deeper than our thoughts.