I
I_Believe
Guest
He understands it quite well.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
H
Hildebrand
Guest
That is a misinterpretation of Paul’s letter to the Romans. Jews, like Gentiles, are bound to accept the New Covenant for salvation. There is no other existing covenant.Because by the nature of being God’s chosen people, the Jews are still somehow in a covenant with God, since God doesn’t go back on his word. The nature of this is hidden from us. This is in the CCC, I’m trying to find it. I know that I read it somewhere in there…
Read St John Chrysostom’s homilies on Romans Chapter 11.
newadvent.org/fathers/210218.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/210219.htm
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
Yerusalem:
That’s an interesting way to get around what they say, however, of the three quotes I provided, one was from the late 1950’s and the other was from 1943. Hardly ancient documents from an age neither of us fully understands.
The third quote I provided is an infallible declaration from the council of Florence, which was a general council of the Church. That quote is as authoritative as it gets. Catholics are bound to adhere to what that quote says, as it is part of the extraordinary magisterium of the Church.
If you notice, the infallible quote form the council of Florence is in perfect agreement with what Pope Pius XII said in Mystici Corporis in 1943. I’ll quote it again:
Pope Pius XII, 1943: "And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area – He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.” (Mystici Corporis, #29).
This is what the Church has always taught. The purpose of a Catechism is not to reverse, but to teach what the Church has always taught.
Now, let’s take a look at the quote you provided from the new Catechism and see if it contradicts what the Church teaches.
Before doing so, let me say that I fully agree that the new catechism can be misleading. It tries to take the “positive” approach so as not to offend the unbelievers. The result is that in trying not to offend the unbelievers, it confuses the believers. If you don’t know the faith before reading the new catechism - especially those parts that discuss heretics and false religions - there is a good chance you will “interpret” it wrong. The same is true with some parts of Vatican II which is why it has been “misinterpreted” by virtually all of the hierarchy for over 40 years, and why, even today, no one seems able to interpret it correctly.
Now, let’s examine the quotes you provided form the new catechism and see, not only what it says, but what it does not say.
2.) That if the Jews repent and convert to Christ, their sins will be forgiven, which means that their sins are not forgiven unless they convert. That is the same the Jesus taught when he told the unbelieving Jews “If you believe not that I am He, you will die in your sins”.
3.) That the Jews’ rejection of Christ opened the door for the conversion of the Gentiles, which is what St. Paul taught in Romans 11.
4.) That at the end the Jews will convert, which is also taught by St. Paul in Romans 11.
What it says is
1.) The Jews were the first to hear the word of God. True, the old Covenant is the word of God, and they were the first to hear it.
2.) The Jewish faith is a response to the revelation of God in the Old Covenant. That is true. The Jewish faith is a response to the revelation of God in the old covenant. But, if you interpret this to mean that the old Covenant can save them, or is still in force, you have read into it what it does not say. It simply says that the Jewish faith is a response to the old Covenant which was revealed by God. Nothing more, nothing less.
3.) To the Jews belong the sonship, glory, covenant, etc… That is true if we understand it to mean that it belongs to them because they are the chosen people according to the flesh. There is no doubt that the Messiah came first for the Jews, who are the chosen race according to the flesh. All the promises belong to them, in a sense, by right. In other words, what was during the Old Testament, and what is now during the new, belongs firstly to the Jews. However, since God gives men free will, they have the ability to reject these things (which the majority of them did), and if they reject them, they obviously do not possess them. Therefore, even though the things of God found in the Catholic Church belong to them, in a sense, by right, they will only possess them if they accept Christ and join the Church. An apostate does not possess what they reject. And a Jew who rejects Christ does not possess the Promise – since Christ is that Promise, as St. Paul explains. God’s promises are irrevocable. Therefore, just because the majority of the Jews rejected Christ (the long awaited Promise), God did not withdraw the Promise. God promised to send the Redeemer and he did, and if a Jew today converts (and more are today than at any time in history), they can still receive the Promise.
What it does not say: The above passage in no way says that a Jew can be saved without converting, or that the Old covenant is still in force. If you read that into the above verse, you are “misinterpreting” it.
The new catechism does not contradict what St. Paul taught in Hebrews when he wrote: “Christ annuls the first Covenant to establish the second” (Heb. 10:9).
This was predicted by the prophet Jeremiah, who wrote:
“Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Juda: Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt: the covenant which they made void…” ( Jeremiah 31: 31-32).
God has made a new covenant with the house of Israel. Unfortunately, many of the Jews rejected the new covenant. And fortunately, as is explained in Romans 11, God has allowed the Gentiles to be grafted into the house of Israel, in order to replace the Jews “according to the flesh” who have been “cut off”.
Now, back to the catechism:
continue…
I’ll answer the second part first. You have stated several times that the quotes I provided were “ancient documents”. Above you said they were written “in an age neither of us fully understand”.Pax,
It’s really quite simple, either the Church and what it teaches in the CCC is correct, or incorrect. Which is it?
Show me I’m wrong with CURRENT documents, not documents written in an age neither of us fully understand.
That’s an interesting way to get around what they say, however, of the three quotes I provided, one was from the late 1950’s and the other was from 1943. Hardly ancient documents from an age neither of us fully understands.
The third quote I provided is an infallible declaration from the council of Florence, which was a general council of the Church. That quote is as authoritative as it gets. Catholics are bound to adhere to what that quote says, as it is part of the extraordinary magisterium of the Church.
If you notice, the infallible quote form the council of Florence is in perfect agreement with what Pope Pius XII said in Mystici Corporis in 1943. I’ll quote it again:
Pope Pius XII, 1943: "And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area – He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.” (Mystici Corporis, #29).
This is what the Church has always taught. The purpose of a Catechism is not to reverse, but to teach what the Church has always taught.
Now, let’s take a look at the quote you provided from the new Catechism and see if it contradicts what the Church teaches.
Before doing so, let me say that I fully agree that the new catechism can be misleading. It tries to take the “positive” approach so as not to offend the unbelievers. The result is that in trying not to offend the unbelievers, it confuses the believers. If you don’t know the faith before reading the new catechism - especially those parts that discuss heretics and false religions - there is a good chance you will “interpret” it wrong. The same is true with some parts of Vatican II which is why it has been “misinterpreted” by virtually all of the hierarchy for over 40 years, and why, even today, no one seems able to interpret it correctly.
Now, let’s examine the quotes you provided form the new catechism and see, not only what it says, but what it does not say.
This quote is saying 1.) That Christ will not return until the conversion of the Jews takes place, which is in agreement with what the Church has always taught, beginning with St. Paul in Romans 11.647 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.569 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."570 St. Paul echoes him: "For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?"571 The “full inclusion” of the Jews in the Messiah’s salvation, in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles,"572 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."573
2.) That if the Jews repent and convert to Christ, their sins will be forgiven, which means that their sins are not forgiven unless they convert. That is the same the Jesus taught when he told the unbelieving Jews “If you believe not that I am He, you will die in your sins”.
3.) That the Jews’ rejection of Christ opened the door for the conversion of the Gentiles, which is what St. Paul taught in Romans 11.
4.) That at the end the Jews will convert, which is also taught by St. Paul in Romans 11.
I can see how you would have been misled by this quote. Therefore, let’s look closely at what it says, and what it does not say."325 The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”;328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329
What it says is
1.) The Jews were the first to hear the word of God. True, the old Covenant is the word of God, and they were the first to hear it.
2.) The Jewish faith is a response to the revelation of God in the Old Covenant. That is true. The Jewish faith is a response to the revelation of God in the old covenant. But, if you interpret this to mean that the old Covenant can save them, or is still in force, you have read into it what it does not say. It simply says that the Jewish faith is a response to the old Covenant which was revealed by God. Nothing more, nothing less.
3.) To the Jews belong the sonship, glory, covenant, etc… That is true if we understand it to mean that it belongs to them because they are the chosen people according to the flesh. There is no doubt that the Messiah came first for the Jews, who are the chosen race according to the flesh. All the promises belong to them, in a sense, by right. In other words, what was during the Old Testament, and what is now during the new, belongs firstly to the Jews. However, since God gives men free will, they have the ability to reject these things (which the majority of them did), and if they reject them, they obviously do not possess them. Therefore, even though the things of God found in the Catholic Church belong to them, in a sense, by right, they will only possess them if they accept Christ and join the Church. An apostate does not possess what they reject. And a Jew who rejects Christ does not possess the Promise – since Christ is that Promise, as St. Paul explains. God’s promises are irrevocable. Therefore, just because the majority of the Jews rejected Christ (the long awaited Promise), God did not withdraw the Promise. God promised to send the Redeemer and he did, and if a Jew today converts (and more are today than at any time in history), they can still receive the Promise.
What it does not say: The above passage in no way says that a Jew can be saved without converting, or that the Old covenant is still in force. If you read that into the above verse, you are “misinterpreting” it.
The new catechism does not contradict what St. Paul taught in Hebrews when he wrote: “Christ annuls the first Covenant to establish the second” (Heb. 10:9).
This was predicted by the prophet Jeremiah, who wrote:
“Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Juda: Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt: the covenant which they made void…” ( Jeremiah 31: 31-32).
God has made a new covenant with the house of Israel. Unfortunately, many of the Jews rejected the new covenant. And fortunately, as is explained in Romans 11, God has allowed the Gentiles to be grafted into the house of Israel, in order to replace the Jews “according to the flesh” who have been “cut off”.
Now, back to the catechism:
continue…
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
continuation
After quoting the catechism, you concluded that “the Mosaic Law is NOT REVOKED and still applies to the Jews… who are God’s chose people”.
Unfortunately, the Catechism does not say that the Mosaic law was not revoked. You have read into it what it does not say.
Regarding the Jews as God’s chosen people. There is an important distinction that you do not realize. The Jews are God’s chosen people “according to the flesh”. However, a Jew “according to the flesh”, who is not also a Christian, has been cut off from the house of Israel. That is why St. Paul distinguishes between the “Israel of God”, and the Jews “according to the flesh”. Since the advent of the new Covenant, the house of Israel consists are those who have been incorporated into Christ, whether Jew or Gentile: In other words, the Church. St. Paul clearly explains this throughout the New Testament. If you read the link I provided in the earlier post, you will see it all clearly explained.
Now. even though the new catechism can be misinterpreted, it actually does not teach anything untrue, and does not contradict the infallible dogma pronounced at the council of Florence.
“Council of Florence: It [the Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors."
Just as so many people have “misinterpreted” Vatican II, so too it seems that you have misinterpreted the new Catechism.
As I said at the beginning of this post, this is the effect of the Church taking the “positive” approach to errors and false religions, which is what it has done since Vatican II. In seeking not to offend the unbelievers, it has confused the believers.
There is nothing untrue about that.1961 God, our Creator and Redeemer, chose Israel for himself to be his people and revealed his Law to them, thus preparing for the coming of Christ. The Law of Moses expresses many truths naturally accessible to reason. These are stated and authenticated within the covenant of salvation.
Again, there is nothing untrue about that.1962 The Old Law is the first stage of revealed Law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments. The precepts of the Decalogue lay the foundations for the vocation of man fashioned in the image of God; they prohibit what is contrary to the love of God and neighbor and prescribe what is essential to it. The Decalogue is a light offered to the conscience of every man to make God’s call and ways known to him and to protect him against evil:
There’s nothing untrue about that either. It even clearly states that the old law could not forgive sins. The only part that could be misinterpreted is the last sentence, but as long as the Catholic reads it according to what the Church has always taught, there is no danger.1963 According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good,14 yet still imperfect. Like a tutor15 it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a “law of concupiscence” in the human heart.16 However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God.
Nothing untrue about that either.1964 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel. "The Law is a pedagogy and a prophecy of things to come."17 It prophesies and presages the work of liberation from sin which will be fulfilled in Christ: it provides the New Testament with images, “types,” and symbols for expressing the life according to the Spirit. Finally, the Law is completed by the teaching of the sapiential books and the prophets which set its course toward the New Covenant and the Kingdom of heaven.
Again, there’s nothing untrue about that. It teaches that some during the old covenant did possess the Holy Ghost, which is true (John the Baptist was sanctified in his mother’s womb). However, the old Law itself did not give the Holy Ghost, as the catechism says.There were . . . under the regimen of the Old Covenant, people who possessed the charity and grace of the Holy Spirit and longed above all for the spiritual and eternal promises by which they were associated with the New Law. Conversely, there exist carnal men under the New Covenant, still distanced from the perfection of the New Law: the fear of punishment and certain temporal promises have been necessary, even under the New Covenant, to incite them to virtuous works. In any case, even though the Old Law prescribed charity, it did not give the Holy Spirit, through whom "God’s charity has been poured into our hearts."18
After quoting the catechism, you concluded that “the Mosaic Law is NOT REVOKED and still applies to the Jews… who are God’s chose people”.
Unfortunately, the Catechism does not say that the Mosaic law was not revoked. You have read into it what it does not say.
Regarding the Jews as God’s chosen people. There is an important distinction that you do not realize. The Jews are God’s chosen people “according to the flesh”. However, a Jew “according to the flesh”, who is not also a Christian, has been cut off from the house of Israel. That is why St. Paul distinguishes between the “Israel of God”, and the Jews “according to the flesh”. Since the advent of the new Covenant, the house of Israel consists are those who have been incorporated into Christ, whether Jew or Gentile: In other words, the Church. St. Paul clearly explains this throughout the New Testament. If you read the link I provided in the earlier post, you will see it all clearly explained.
Now. even though the new catechism can be misinterpreted, it actually does not teach anything untrue, and does not contradict the infallible dogma pronounced at the council of Florence.
“Council of Florence: It [the Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors."
Just as so many people have “misinterpreted” Vatican II, so too it seems that you have misinterpreted the new Catechism.
As I said at the beginning of this post, this is the effect of the Church taking the “positive” approach to errors and false religions, which is what it has done since Vatican II. In seeking not to offend the unbelievers, it has confused the believers.
M
Miserissima
Guest
PLEASE someone help me here. I know that there is a Sacred Scriptural passage in Luke in which Jesus says [and I am paraphrasing *poorly]: “Even though you are the chosen people, do not expect that to save you.”
Where IS this passage? I cannot find neither the chapter nor the verse, even using the Unbound Bible. HELP!
Where IS this passage? I cannot find neither the chapter nor the verse, even using the Unbound Bible. HELP!
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
Are you thinking of John 8?
John 8: " I am one that give testimony of myself: and the Father that sent me giveth testimony of me. 19 They said therefore to him: Where is thy Father? Jesus answered: Neither me do you know, nor my Father: if you did know me, perhaps you would know my Father also. 20 These words Jesus spoke in the treasury, teaching in the temple: and no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.
21 Again therefore Jesus said to them: I go, and you shall seek me, and you shall die in your sin. Whither I go, you cannot come. 22 The Jews therefore said: Will he kill himself, because he said: Whither I go, you cannot come? 23 And he said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world. 24 Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin. 25 They said therefore to him: Who art thou? Jesus said to them: The beginning, who also speak unto you.
26 Many things I have to speak and to judge of you. But he that sent me, is true: and the things I have heard of him, these same I speak in the world. 27 And they understood not, that he called God his Father. 28 Jesus therefore said to them: When you shall have lifted up the Son of man, then shall you know, that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father hath taught me, these things I speak: 29 And he that sent me, is with me, and he hath not left me alone: for I do always the things that please him. 30 When he spoke these things, many believed in him.
31 Then Jesus said to those Jews, who believed him: If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 33 They answered him: We are the seed of Abraham, and we have never been slaves to any man: how sayest thou: you shall be free? 34 Jesus answered them: Amen, amen I say unto you: that whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin. 35 Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever; but the son abideth for ever.
36 If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. 37 I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father. 39 They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. 40 But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not.
41 You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: 43 Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. 45 But if I say the truth, you believe me not.
John 8: " I am one that give testimony of myself: and the Father that sent me giveth testimony of me. 19 They said therefore to him: Where is thy Father? Jesus answered: Neither me do you know, nor my Father: if you did know me, perhaps you would know my Father also. 20 These words Jesus spoke in the treasury, teaching in the temple: and no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.
21 Again therefore Jesus said to them: I go, and you shall seek me, and you shall die in your sin. Whither I go, you cannot come. 22 The Jews therefore said: Will he kill himself, because he said: Whither I go, you cannot come? 23 And he said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world. 24 Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin. 25 They said therefore to him: Who art thou? Jesus said to them: The beginning, who also speak unto you.
26 Many things I have to speak and to judge of you. But he that sent me, is true: and the things I have heard of him, these same I speak in the world. 27 And they understood not, that he called God his Father. 28 Jesus therefore said to them: When you shall have lifted up the Son of man, then shall you know, that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father hath taught me, these things I speak: 29 And he that sent me, is with me, and he hath not left me alone: for I do always the things that please him. 30 When he spoke these things, many believed in him.
31 Then Jesus said to those Jews, who believed him: If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 33 They answered him: We are the seed of Abraham, and we have never been slaves to any man: how sayest thou: you shall be free? 34 Jesus answered them: Amen, amen I say unto you: that whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin. 35 Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever; but the son abideth for ever.
36 If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. 37 I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father. 39 They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. 40 But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not.
41 You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: 43 Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. 45 But if I say the truth, you believe me not.
M
Miserissima
Guest
Pax: You’ve almost helped me to find the scripture.
Jesus actually said and abbreviated quote you bolded – something like, “If you’re Jewish don’t think you’re the chosen ones anymore [Old Covenant], since I have come [new Covenant].”
It was succinct, and I thought i t was near the beginning of Luke. Grr…I can’t even find my hardcopy resources…
Jesus actually said and abbreviated quote you bolded – something like, “If you’re Jewish don’t think you’re the chosen ones anymore [Old Covenant], since I have come [new Covenant].”
It was succinct, and I thought i t was near the beginning of Luke. Grr…I can’t even find my hardcopy resources…
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
I have never once said that the Mosaic Law had the power of salvation, that comes from Christ alone. However, the Law is not revoked because GOD’S WORD can not be revoked.
E
eelpis
Guest
I think the problem is not with the law but with the denial and rejection of Jesus Christ.I have never once said that the Mosaic Law had the power of salvation, that comes from Christ alone. However, the Law is not revoked because GOD’S WORD can not be revoked.
God could make stones the children of Abraham.
G
Gara3987
Guest
*1John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also. *
*2John 1:9 Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son.
*When you look at these versus what is it that they speak of? In layman’s terms it is saying he that Denies the Son (Jesus), Denies The Father(God) as well; He that has the Son (Jesus), has the Father (God) as well. It is a Catch 22; if the Jews are correct then the Bible is wrong, if the Jews wrong the Bible is correct.
*2John 1:9 Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son.
*When you look at these versus what is it that they speak of? In layman’s terms it is saying he that Denies the Son (Jesus), Denies The Father(God) as well; He that has the Son (Jesus), has the Father (God) as well. It is a Catch 22; if the Jews are correct then the Bible is wrong, if the Jews wrong the Bible is correct.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
Ya can’t sit and just pick out individual scriptures as proof texts, that’s what protestants do.
You’re calling those who wrote the CCC false prophets?I am sticking with what the Chruch has always taught. Our Lord Christ fulfilled the old covenant and brought it to a close. In its place is the New Covenant. I do not follow the interpretation of false prophets who manipulate scripture and even our own Church teaching to mean something other than the Truth and are leading many down a false road.
E
eelpis
Guest
No one is saved without Christ.Ya can’t sit and just pick out individual scriptures as proof texts, that’s what protestants do.
You’re calling those who wrote the CCC false prophets?
If the old law is called the OLD law is because the NEW has come.
“The law was given through Moses but grace and truth has come through Christ”
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
I provided you with the quotes showing that the Old Law has been revoked, and is null and void. If your reading of the new Catechism is leading you to your conclusion, you are reading into it what it does not say.I have never once said that the Mosaic Law had the power of salvation, that comes from Christ alone. However, the Law is not revoked because GOD’S WORD can not be revoked.
What is it that we always told about the documents of Vatican II? We are told that we must read them “in light of Tradition” or with the “hermeneutic of continuity”. What does that mean? It means that, in order to not be misled by the often ambiguous and misleading documents, we must read them according to what the Church has always taught.
The new Catechism DOES NOT SAY that the old Covenant has not been revoked. You are reading into it what it does not say.
In your defense I will say that I am not surprised, since I personally consider the new Catechism to be a misleading document in many places. I would go so far as to say that the “positive” approach gives the impression of teaching what it actually does not teach. Let me give you an example. I’ll explain Satanism using the “positive” approach of the new Catechism.
“The Great Religion of Satanism has existed for many centuries. It has a great number of followers, which is increasing each year, who have embraced its messages of love [love of self]. Satanism has many things in common with us. They are monothiestic, so are we. They have a holy book, so do we. Many practicioners of the Great Religion of Satanists even believe in practicing the Golden Rule as taugth by our common Savior - Jesus Christ, the Savior of all men. We reject nothing that is true in the religion of Satanism. In fact, we embrace those truth with true devotion knowing that all truth comes from God, and that it is the truths contained within Satanism that unite us to the Satanists”.
Everything written above can be interpreted in a way that is true, but such “positive” speach leaves the impression that Satantism is not that bad.
The approach used above with respect to Satanism is the approach the new Catechism uses with every false religion in discusses. Rather than condemning the errors, it takes the “positive” approach and ends by confusion the faithful, who is it supposed to be teaching.
Don’t be misled by the ambiguous documents of the past 40 years. Salvation is too important. Stick with the clear documents of the pre-Vatican II era and you will be on safe grounds. In those days the Church was more interested in teaching the truth than offending the unbelievers. Today it is the exact opposite.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Ya can’t sit and just pick out individual scriptures as proof texts, that’s what protestants do.
You’re calling those who wrote the CCC false prophets?
Seems that shoe fits your foot.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
Old doesn’t mean REVOKED…the TLM is OLD, but not REVOKED.If the old law is called the OLD law is because the NEW has come.
Nope, I’m not the one calling the writers of the CCC false prophets.Seems that shoe fits your foot.
Someone explain to me, again, why it is St. Paul remained a faithful observor of the law if it was void?
If the Old Covenant is void, first, that makes God a liar, second, it means the Jews are no longer God’s chosen…which makes God a liar.
Christ said the Law would not pass until it was fulfilled, it’s not fulfilled until his coming in Glory.
Paul says that the Law applies to those to whom it was given (ROM 3:19)
The Jews are still God’s Chosen people, as Paul tells us in Romans 11:29.
Does this mean we as Christians are subject to the Law? Of course not, however, we as Christians are a branch grafted into the tree that is Israel.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Old doesn’t mean REVOKED…the TLM is OLD, but not REVOKED.
Nope, I’m not the one calling the writers of the CCC false prophets.
I am calling those who have use the CCC/scripture to say that the old covenant is not finish --and are influencing others to do the same—false prophets.
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Are you going to argue with Pope Benedict XVI here? What say you of these passages which you failed to respond to in the other thread?:I have never once said that the Mosaic Law had the power of salvation, that comes from Christ alone. However, the Law is not revoked because GOD’S WORD can not be revoked.
Cardinal Ratzinger:
Cardinal Ratzinger:What strikes us first of all is that Paul makes a firm disjunction between the covenant in Christ and the Mosaic covenant; this is how we usually understand the difference between the “Old” and the “New” Covenant….In 2 Corinthians [3:4-18], Paul sets these two in diametrical opposition: the former is transitory; the latter abides perpetually. Transience is a characteristic of the Mosaic covenant.
Cardinal Ratzinger:God, according to the Prophet, will replace the broken Sinai covenant with a New Covenant that cannot be broken….The conditional covenant [the Mosaic Covenant], which depended on man’s faithful observance of the Law, is replaced by the unconditional covenant [the New Covenant] in which God binds himself irrevocably.
The Old Covenant is conditional: since it depends on the keeping of the Law….By contrast, the covenant sealed in the Last Supper…is not a contract with conditions but the gift of friendship, irrevocably bestowed.
Cardinal Ratzinger said:Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded.
The above destroys every argument that you have made (which it shouldn’t even have to do as the Council of Florence and Popes Pius XII and Benedict XIV are pretty clear by themselves). You’re just being hard-headed now…
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
That is exactly backwards. St. Paul repeatedly taught that the Old Law was null and would not save. In Hebrews 10 he explicitly taught that it has been annulled and replaced.Someone explain to me, again, why it is St. Paul remained a faithful observor of the law if it was void?
He may have gone to the synagogue, but that was to argue with the Jews in an attempt to convert them.
In fact, one of the early heresies that St. Paul refuted in his encyclicals were the Judaizers, whose error was mingling the “works of the law” with the Christian religion.
How can you claim that St. Paul continued to observe the law when the epistles to the Galatians and Ephesians were written specifically to refute the heretics who taught that?
Not at all. The old law was simply God’s religion before the coming of the Messaih. The religious practices were figuremts of what was to take place in the new. When the Messiah came, He fulfilled all these old “types” and established what they prefigured. At that point, their reason for being ceased, and the reality that they forshaddowed came to be. You need to look at the old Covenant for what it was: A preparation for the new; a type of the reality which was to come; a preparation for the coming of the Messiah.If the Old Covenant is void, first, that makes God a liar,
The Jews are God’s chosen people according to the flesh. However, that does not mean that God is pleased with them whatever they do. Many of the Jews followed their Messiah, many did not. Both were not right, and both sets are not pleasing to God. A Jewish apostate who lived during the Old covenant was not pleasing to God, even though he was a member of the race that was chosen by God. Likewise, a Jew who rejects Jesus is not pleasing to God, even though he is a member of the race that was chosen by God.second, it means the Jews are no longer God’s chosen…which makes God a liar.
Jesus fulfilled the old law, which is why its religious practices are null.Christ said the Law would not pass until it was fulfilled, it’s not fulfilled until his coming in Glory.
It did apply to those who it was given, but it has now passed away. And be sure to read the next verse (Rom. 3:20) wherein Paul says “by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified in his sight. For by the law is the knowledge of sin”.Paul says that the Law applies to those to whom it was given (ROM 3:19)
They are God’s people according to the flesh, but not according to the spirit if they reject Christ. If the Jews “according the to flesh” reject their Messiah, they have been “cut off” from the house of Israel, as Paul explains in Romans 11.The Jews are still God’s Chosen people, as Paul tells us in Romans 11:29.
Unfortunately, you have been confused by the wolves in sheeps clothing. You should be EXTREMELY angry with the deceivers who confused you, rather than defending their error. These people are you true spiritual enemies and should be looked upon as such.
I know you are well meaning, but if you notice, you are explicitly arguing against a de fide teaching from the council of Florence. I’m not going to pass subjective judgment, but this is without doubt an objective mortal sin against the first commandment, and as such, very dangerous for your salvation. Your probably only now seeing what the Church actually teaches, so I’m sure God will excuse you since your ignorance may have been “invincible”.
Possibly God saw your good will and therefore chose to show you the truth, which has now happened. It may take you a little time to sort through everything, but whatever you do don’t reject the truth that you have now seen for a lie.
Before the ambiguity that has enveloped the Church since Vatican II, the Church was extremely clear in teaching that the old Covenant is null and void, and has been replaced by the new.
Unfortunately, for the past 40 years we have been given ambiguous and even misleading statements from on high, which have served to confuse many people.
The teachings of the Church do not change. What was taught at the council of Florence, and what Puys XII taught in 1943 is what the Church has always taught… and it is very clear.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
Pax,
You keep making the argument that the Mosaic Law does not save…that’s a straw man, I’ve never EVER said that the Mosaic law has the power to save.
As to St. Paul, he remained faithful to the covenant while at the same time preaching that it didn’t apply to GENTILES…Paul himself observed the Law, as far as we can tell, up to his death. In Acts we find James speaking to Paul and stating:
Why did Paul continue to observe the law if it was revoked?
And let’s be clear about what we’re talking about here.
It is my contention that God’s covenant with Israel remains in force, i.e. that the Jews are STILL God’s chosen people. Do you deny this?
Second, it’s my contention that JEWS (not Christians) are still bound to follow the law inasmuch as that is possible without a temple…Paul seemed to think it was important.
You keep making the argument that the Mosaic Law does not save…that’s a straw man, I’ve never EVER said that the Mosaic law has the power to save.
As to St. Paul, he remained faithful to the covenant while at the same time preaching that it didn’t apply to GENTILES…Paul himself observed the Law, as far as we can tell, up to his death. In Acts we find James speaking to Paul and stating:
Acts 21:24b"In this way everyone will know that there is nothing to the reports they have been given about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law. _
Why did Paul continue to observe the law if it was revoked?
And let’s be clear about what we’re talking about here.
It is my contention that God’s covenant with Israel remains in force, i.e. that the Jews are STILL God’s chosen people. Do you deny this?
Second, it’s my contention that JEWS (not Christians) are still bound to follow the law inasmuch as that is possible without a temple…Paul seemed to think it was important.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
OK. let’s set aside the infallible quote from the council of Florence which teaches what Catholics are bound to believe. Let’s also set aside the quote from Pope Pius XII (from 1943), which contains another quotes from Pope Leo the Great, and also the quotes from our current Pope, as provided by SemperFidelis. Let’s set all these aside for the moment, pretend they don’t exist, and consider your questions.
Regarding the Jews as God’s chosen people, the link I provided a few days ago goes into great biblical detail about the distinction between the Jews according to the flesh and the true children of Abraham according to the spirit.
The promise that God made to Abraham was fulfilled in Jesus. St. Paul explains this. He says that the promise was made to Abraham and his seed (singular), not seeds (plural). Jesus was the promise that God made to Abraham. He (Jesus) is the “seed”, and all those who have been “baptized into Christ” have thereby become a member of the body of Christ, which makes them a spiritual child of Abraham and recipients of the promise. That is what St. Paul teaches. “To Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith not, ‘and to his seeds’, as of many: but as of one, ‘and to thy seed’, which is Christ” (Gal. 3:16). “There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you be Christ’s, then you are the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3: 29-29).
The Jews are the natural lineage of Abraham, through his son Isaac, and his son Jacob (who was renamed Israel). This makes them the chosen race “according to the flesh”; however, they are only the recipients of the Promise if they convert and become members of the body of Christ, which takes place at baptism. Just because they are the chosen people according to their natural lineage, does not mean that they will all be saved, or that God is pleased with them no matter what they do. Just read what Jesus and John the Baptist said to the unbelieving Jews of the day.
So, I do believe that the Jews are the chosen people according to the flesh, but those who reject Christ are not the spiritual children of God, but of the devil. What good is it to be of the chosen race according to the flesh, when they are children of the devil according to the spirit?
You also said you believe the old covenant remains in effect for the Jews. You admit that it will not save them, but say that they are bound to practice it. OK, does that mean that a Jewish Christian must practice the old law in order to be pleasing to God? That must be what you are saying since God intends for the Jews to accept Christ. You must believe that a Jewish Christian is bound to obey the “works of the law” proscribed in the old Testament in order to be pleasing to God. Yet that is nowhere to be found in 2000 years of Church history.
Or do you say that only the unbelieving Jews are required to follow the old law? If that is the case then your example of Paul (a believing Jew) does not fit. For if you say that Jews are bound to follow the old law, and use St. Paul as your example, you must mean that the Jewish Christians are still bound to follow the old law in order to be pleasing to God.
Your theory is easily proven false when we consider that, in 2000 years, the Jewish Christians have never been required to follow the old law. This was the explicit heresy of the Judaizers. It was not only condemned by St. Paul in the Bible, but by Church councils during the first several centuries as well.
I deny the first part, but accept the second. The two are not synonymous. The Jews are God’s chosen people “according to the flesh”, but that does not mean they old Covenant is still in force.And let’s be clear about what we’re talking about here.
It is my contention that God’s covenant with Israel remains in force, i.e. that the Jews are STILL God’s chosen people. Do you deny this?
Regarding the Jews as God’s chosen people, the link I provided a few days ago goes into great biblical detail about the distinction between the Jews according to the flesh and the true children of Abraham according to the spirit.
The promise that God made to Abraham was fulfilled in Jesus. St. Paul explains this. He says that the promise was made to Abraham and his seed (singular), not seeds (plural). Jesus was the promise that God made to Abraham. He (Jesus) is the “seed”, and all those who have been “baptized into Christ” have thereby become a member of the body of Christ, which makes them a spiritual child of Abraham and recipients of the promise. That is what St. Paul teaches. “To Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith not, ‘and to his seeds’, as of many: but as of one, ‘and to thy seed’, which is Christ” (Gal. 3:16). “There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you be Christ’s, then you are the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3: 29-29).
The Jews are the natural lineage of Abraham, through his son Isaac, and his son Jacob (who was renamed Israel). This makes them the chosen race “according to the flesh”; however, they are only the recipients of the Promise if they convert and become members of the body of Christ, which takes place at baptism. Just because they are the chosen people according to their natural lineage, does not mean that they will all be saved, or that God is pleased with them no matter what they do. Just read what Jesus and John the Baptist said to the unbelieving Jews of the day.
So, I do believe that the Jews are the chosen people according to the flesh, but those who reject Christ are not the spiritual children of God, but of the devil. What good is it to be of the chosen race according to the flesh, when they are children of the devil according to the spirit?
You also said you believe the old covenant remains in effect for the Jews. You admit that it will not save them, but say that they are bound to practice it. OK, does that mean that a Jewish Christian must practice the old law in order to be pleasing to God? That must be what you are saying since God intends for the Jews to accept Christ. You must believe that a Jewish Christian is bound to obey the “works of the law” proscribed in the old Testament in order to be pleasing to God. Yet that is nowhere to be found in 2000 years of Church history.
Back to what I just asked. Do you maintain that a Jewish Christian is bound to follow the old law? Do you maintain that if the Temple was rebuilt a Jewish Christian would be obliged to sacrifice animals in accord with the teachings of the old law? And do you also maintain that a Jewish Christian is bound to follow the dietary laws of the old law, even today? If not, why not?Second, it’s my contention that JEWS (not Christians) are still bound to follow the law inasmuch as that is possible without a temple…Paul seemed to think it was important.
Or do you say that only the unbelieving Jews are required to follow the old law? If that is the case then your example of Paul (a believing Jew) does not fit. For if you say that Jews are bound to follow the old law, and use St. Paul as your example, you must mean that the Jewish Christians are still bound to follow the old law in order to be pleasing to God.
Your theory is easily proven false when we consider that, in 2000 years, the Jewish Christians have never been required to follow the old law. This was the explicit heresy of the Judaizers. It was not only condemned by St. Paul in the Bible, but by Church councils during the first several centuries as well.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.