Do Jews need to covert to be saved?

[Valke2]

Good point.

How many Christians were killed by the Jews in the first century before God destroyed their Temple and scattered them throughout the world?

Very few, if any. And if any were killed, they weren’t christians. They were still Jews at that time.
It always seems to me to be one of the most ridiculous arguments to try to justify or water down the history of violent persecution against Jews by saying Jews did the same thing to Christians in prior to 70CE or in the first century.

 

[Valke2]

In what sense do you know that Jesus is your hoped-for Messiah, that He is the fulfillment of the Prophets, that your salvation is in His Death and Resurrection? If you know this to be so, and yet continue to worship as if the Messiah is yet to come, how does *that *make sense?

THat’s a different story. But others here seem to be saying that as long as I’ve been told Jesus is God, then I am shut out of heaven for not believing it.

 

[Yerusalyim]

PAX,

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.

Pax, if the Covenant is REVOKED then the Jews are not God’s Chosen. The covenant is based upon this phrase, “I will be your God, you will be my people.” For Jews who are not Christians, they will be judged in accordance with the Law, or so we’re told in Romans Chapter 2.
I don’t deny ANY of what Cardinal Ratzinger or Pope Benedict XVI stated in his writings…the Law IS superseded…but not revoked…is transitory…but not revoked. God’s call and promise are eternal…rather than being REVOKED, the Law is FULFILLED in the the new Covenant. The Jews are still and always will be God’s Chosen people, we Christians are grafted in to the New Israel, with a New Covenant, but the Old still remains in force for the Jews.

From Vatican 2 we read in DECLARATION ON
THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS

As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; **He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls **He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and “serve him shoulder to shoulder” (Soph. 3:9).(12)

This doesn’t sound as if God has rejected his people or his covenant with them.

I do claim that the Old Law is superseded by the New, that the New is superior because it is the Law of Grace, etc. However, the term REVOKED is quite strong, if the Covenant is REVOKED then the Jews can no longer be God’s people, because the covenant is, again, based upon the phrase, "I will be your God, you will be my people.

This is why I asked for clarification on terms…Superseded? Fine, Old law Transitory…fine…REVOKED…not possible, God’s gifts and promises can not be revoked, and his word remains forever.

Does a Jew who converts need to maintain observance of the Old Covenant…no…but Paul found it useful. I think it IS important that Non-Christian Jews maintain observance.

 

[CarolsDaughter]

I am equally thankful that I am not a Palestinian Christian, or that I was an early Christian in Israel.

St. Stephen,
Pray for us.

I agree with you on the first. BTW just so you know, the most religious Orthodox Jews are anti-zionist, for the reason you mention and also theological ones. I am also not a zionist because Judaism teaches the Messiah must come FIRST before the Jewish people can genuinely return to the Land.

 

[Unitas]

PAX,

Pax, if the Covenant is REVOKED then the Jews are not God’s Chosen. The covenant is based upon this phrase, “I will be your God, you will be my people.” For Jews who are not Christians, they will be judged in accordance with the Law, or so we’re told in Romans Chapter 2.
I don’t deny ANY of what Cardinal Ratzinger or Pope Benedict XVI stated in his writings…the Law IS superseded…but not revoked…is transitory…but not revoked. God’s call and promise are eternal…rather than being REVOKED, the Law is FULFILLED in the the new Covenant. The Jews are still and always will be God’s Chosen people, we Christians are grafted in to the New Israel, with a New Covenant, but the Old still remains in force for the Jews.

So should “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” now read, “Extra Ecclesiam Et Iudaeum Nulla Salus” ?

 

[Yerusalyim]

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

As correctly understood this is correct. I point you to the CCC as oppossed to Fr. Feeney for the correct understanding.

Once again, I have never stated the Old Covenant saved or saves…Jesus Saves.

Is it your contention that the Jews are NOT God’s Chosen? Or that the CCC is incorrect in how it explains Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?

 

[Unitas]

As correctly understood this is correct. I point you to the CCC as oppossed to Fr. Feeney for the correct understanding.

Once again, I have never stated the Old Covenant saved or saves…Jesus Saves.

Is it your contention that the Jews are NOT God’s Chosen? Or that the CCC is incorrect in how it explains Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?

So God has two sets of rules? One for the jews and another for everyone else? I’ll believe you if you can show me where the Church teaches this double-standard.

And yes, if the definition in the CCC leads to indeifferentism then yes it is incorrect. It is incredibly vague. And I love once I bring up the dogma of EENS you jump to “Feeney”. This provides a much better explanation:

1. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
   A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.

Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.

In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.

Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never – even in the past – had the slightest doubt of that fact – what will become of him?

If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister – not being a true priest – has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition – that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic – with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts – might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.

If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.

I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.

I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.

I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.

I saee no double-standard or concession pertaining to the old covenant.

 

[Unitas]

Pax,

First and foremost, I never, EVER said the Mosaic Law had the power to save. Salvation comes from Christ Jesus. My contention is that the Mosaic Law is not null, not revoked, not empty. In Christ the Mosaic Law is fulfilled…not revoked.

However, if the Mosaic Law is Null and REVOKED the Israel is no longer God’s Chosen People…which makes God a liar because He tells us in the bible that his gifts and Call are IRREVOCABLE.

Let’s simplify your argument:

A. Jews are still the chosen people
B. Jews follow the mosaic Law

Therefore:

C. following the mosaic law makes them the chosen people.

And:

D. Christians are the chosen people
E. Christians do not follow the mosaic law

Therefore:

F. they are the chosen people regardless of the mosiac law.

So which is it?

Does following the mosaic law make a person “chosen” or not? If God is perfectly absolute and perfectly just, why would He have two sets of rules? The old law is either necessary or it is not. No in-between.

We are judged by faith and not by works of the law.

 

[EasterJoy]

Let’s simplify your argument:

A. Jews are still the chosen people
B. Jews follow the mosaic Law

Therefore:

C. following the mosaic law makes them the chosen people.

And:

D. Christians are the chosen people
E. Christians do not follow the mosaic law

Therefore:

F. they are the chosen people regardless of the mosiac law.

So which is it?

Does following the mosaic law make a person “chosen” or not? If God is perfectly absolute and perfectly just, why would He have two sets of rules? The old law is either necessary or it is not. No in-between.

We are judged by faith and not by works of the law.

Point C does not follow from Points A and B.

Do you not understand that it is the other way around? That is, Jews are not chosen because they follow the Mosaic law. Rather, Jews understand themselves to be held to the higher standard of the Mosaic law because they have been chosen. If you tell a Jew you are going to convert to Judaism, in fact, it is not unusual to have them express surprise that you’d want to take than on. So what makes you one of the Chosen People? That you are descended from Abraham, and from the people who have freely joined the families of his descendents, as Ruth and Rahab of Jericho did. That is all. You might freely join the Chosen People by converting, but other than that there is not a bit of belief or behavior implied. A Jew born a Jew is a Jew, period.

This is why Jews do not attempt to gain converts or try to make the entire world keep kosher. They do not teach that those who are not “chosen” aren’t going to gain eternal life. To the contrary: righteous Gentiles are not held to the same standards as Jews, but to something akin to what we would call “natural law.” The Book of Life is not believed to hold only the names of Jews.

Furthermore, Scriptures are full of evidence that God may justly choose to have different rules for different people, particularly with regards to ritual requirements, since He makes one vessel for this use and another for that one. Is it “fair” that those who worked one hour in the vineyard receive the same wage as those who worked the full day in the sun? God is compassionate and generous, as He sees fit. There is no injustice in that!

Do we not treat sacred vessels different from the profane? Does this mean the profane vessels have no use? No, it means only that they are given a dignity in accord with their use. We have the same thing within Christianity, do we not, with consecrated religious? They make vows to which the rest of us are not bound, having been set aside, as it were, for sacred use. This does not make them automatically more united to God, for that is a function of obedience to the use to which each has been called.

God will judge each one according to how each one’s heart is read by its Maker. You could look at that as there having been as many “different sets of rules” as there are souls, if you were so inclined. In reality, the rule is this: to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your strength, and will all your mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself. It is not just Jesus who taught this. The Rabbi Hillel taught it, as well. What that means in any particular case is the work of each soul to pursue with every diligence.

One who sees that Jesus is Lord and yet will not follow, or who could see except that he refuses to open his mind to the possibility, this is a person who is withholding himself from God. This is a serious refusal. But only God can read a soul to decide to what extent this refusal is willful. God only will judge. That is not our job. Our job is to be a light by which others may see. The rest is in God’s hands, for God alone is just.

 

[catholiconce]

continuation anybody that dares to think that "ONLY ROMAN CATHOLICS " are going to heaven is sadly wrong .Only the father knows the time. For anybody to assume that anybody is or is not going to heavan is being judgemental. Do not remark on the splinter in some on another’s eye when you have beam in yours. We have to live our lives as close God as possible and that can be and is done in and outside the Roman Catholic Church. There is no where in the Bible that claims Only Catholics are going to have eternal life. That is only how they interpet the verse to say it. There are non Catholic Christians who par take in the body and blood of christ. Some Catholics by their own definition claim other wise. CAtholics can define others but do not dare define them. If you do you are a heritic as defined by them. The Catholic Church writes it own dogma and if you disagree your going to purgatory. Agree as they do or your wrong. My how convenient for them. They do good work giving to the poor as all other christians do but then attack all who disagree with the dogma they wrote and change as time goes on just change the rules and then your not wrong.

Pope Eugebe IV: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches, that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire ‘prepared for the devil, and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41)., unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is such that the Church’s sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ’s sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739; Pope Eugene IV, in the bull, Cantate Domino, 1441).

Let this post be a warning to those who have followed the blind leaders of the blind into this error. Let us realize that the Church does not change its teachings. In the days of the Arian crisis it is said that 97% of the Bishops denied the divinity of Jesus. Just as the truth did not change in those days when almost all of the hierarchy fell into error, neither has it changed in our day. Let us remain faithful to what the Church teaches, even if 99% of our leaders have not.

 

[Unitas]

Point C does not follow from Points A and B.

Do you not understand that it is the other way around? That is, Jews are not chosen because they follow the Mosaic law. Rather, Jews understand themselves to be held to the higher standard of the Mosaic law because they have been chosen. If you tell a Jew you are going to convert to Judaism, in fact, it is not unusual to have them express surprise that you’d want to take than on. So what makes you one of the Chosen People? That you are descended from Abraham, and from the people who have freely joined the families of his descendents, as Ruth and Rahab of Jericho did. That is all. You might freely join the Chosen People by converting, but other than that there is not a bit of belief or behavior implied. A Jew born a Jew is a Jew, period.

This is why Jews do not attempt to gain converts or try to make the entire world keep kosher. They do not teach that those who are not “chosen” aren’t going to gain eternal life. To the contrary: righteous Gentiles are not held to the same standards as Jews, but to something akin to what we would call “natural law.” The Book of Life is not believed to hold only the names of Jews.

Furthermore, Scriptures are full of evidence that God may justly choose to have different rules for different people, particularly with regards to ritual requirements, since He makes one vessel for this use and another for that one. Is it “fair” that those who worked one hour in the vineyard receive the same wage as those who worked the full day in the sun? God is compassionate and generous, as He sees fit. There is no injustice in that!

Do we not treat sacred vessels different from the profane? Does this mean the profane vessels have no use? No, it means only that they are given a dignity in accord with their use. We have the same thing within Christianity, do we not, with consecrated religious? They make vows to which the rest of us are not bound, having been set aside, as it were, for sacred use. This does not make them automatically more united to God, for that is a function of obedience to the use to which each has been called.

God will judge each one according to how each one’s heart is read by its Maker. You could look at that as there having been as many “different sets of rules” as there are souls, if you were so inclined. In reality, the rule is this: to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your strength, and will all your mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself. It is not just Jesus who taught this. The Rabbi Hillel taught it, as well. What that means in any particular case is the work of each soul to pursue with every diligence.

One who sees that Jesus is Lord and yet will not follow, or who could see except that he refuses to open his mind to the possibility, this is a person who is withholding himself from God. This is a serious refusal. But only God can read a soul to decide to what extent this refusal is willful. God only will judge. That is not our job. Our job is to be a light by which others may see. The rest is in God’s hands, for God alone is just.

The fact still remains that to accept the mosaic law as still valid that God must endorse a double-standard. Those that follow the mosaic law, the requirements of Judaism, are called jews. Jews consider themselves the chosen people. Christians are the chosen people, but they do not practice the mosaic law. Either the chosen people are exclusive to the mosaic law or they are not. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[EasterJoy]

The fact still remains that to accept the mosaic law as still valid that God must endorse a double-standard. Those that follow the mosaic law, the requirements of Judaism, are called jews. Jews consider themselves the chosen people. Christians are the chosen people, but they do not practice the mosaic law. Either the chosen people are exclusive to the mosaic law or they are not. You can’t have it both ways.

No. Those who are born Jews are Jews. A Gentile could follow Mosaic Law perfectly, and it wouldn’t make him a Jew. A Jew might remain entirely ignorant of every teaching of Judaism or might refuse to live any bit of what he knows, and he is no less a Jew. Jews aren’t chosen because of what they do! They do what they do because they believe they were chosen to do it.

If I am not reading you wrong–and do forgive me if I am–you are coming very close to setting yourself up as a judge of the rightful boundaries for God’s justice and mercy. At any rate, I don’t see a double standard in God being pleased with His sons and daughters honestly doing the best that they can, as they have been given to see it–and God sees exactly what that “best” is–or at any rate in God having a great deal of patience with it. Neither is there any injustice whatsoever in God calling one to this purpose and another to that one, and yet rewarding all exactly the same. This is all well within God’s perogatives…or will you set yourself up as God’s judge?

If you want to look at standards, though, I suppose you could read Jesus’ account of the Last Judgement: did you feed the hungry? Clothe the naked? Visit those in prison? There’s your standard. Jesus said quite clearly that the protestations of those who merely say, “Lord, Lord” will be rejected. In another story, He taught that the one who prayed “have mercy on me, a sinner” would go home justified, while the one who prayed “thank you for not making me like other men, like this sinner” will not.

It seems to me that the one who goes around pointing at who is liable to judgement, while not including himself or herself in that group, is putting himself or herself on some very thin ice. Again, I do not mean to imply that this includes you, but do be careful at the impression you are giving.

 

[Dauphin]

God has divinely revealed through His Church who can have salvation:

There is no salvation outside the Church.

This doesn’t have to be “understood” or “interpreted” in a particular way - it’s clear and unequivocal on its own. If one is not baptised and does not assent to Catholic teaching to the best of their ability, they may not be saved. This teaching doesn’t make humans the judge - it simply allows us to inform others what God has revealed.

 

[EasterJoy]

Does a Jew who converts need to maintain observance of the Old Covenant…no…but Paul found it useful. I think it IS important that Non-Christian Jews maintain observance.

Read the 1st Letter to the Corinthians. Paul observed purely in order that he might be more likely to win over Jews. He counseled that those with faith strong enough not to be scandalized, by eating meat sacrificed to idols, for instance, should nevertheless observe whether they were in a position to scandalize those whose faith was weaker. The ritual, being empty, did not taint the meat, but if the possibility existed that eating it might scandalize a weaker brother, it was necessary to avoid it. “Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not be an occasion of sin to him.” (1 Cor. 8:13) This Paul was a man who always kept his eye on the ball. Making converts to the Gospel and edifying them was first, last, and everything in-between to him. Nothing else mattered.

What Catholics mainly think important is that non-Christians, Jew or not, receive and accept the Gospel. If you cannot accept it yet, keep your eyes and ears open. As for mu shu pork, let your conscience be your guide. That is none of our affair, as we have our eyes on another ball.

 

[Unitas]

No. Those who are born Jews are Jews. A Gentile could follow Mosaic Law perfectly, and it wouldn’t make him a Jew. A Jew might remain entirely ignorant of every teaching of Judaism or might refuse to live any bit of what he knows, and he is no less a Jew. Jews aren’t chosen because of what they do! They do what they do because they believe they were chosen to do it.

Oh ok, so someone is chosen because of their genetic lineage? You’re simply born into it whereas gentiles must accept christianity to be chosen?

Again, a double-standard; jews are born into it with no other prerequisite but gentiles must do things to be a part of it.

Second, why, for the first time in history, are there two concurrent covenants? If the old still exists, why have the new?

 

[EasterJoy]

Oh ok, so someone is chosen because of their genetic lineage? You’re simply born into it whereas gentiles must accept christianity to be chosen?

Again, a double-standard; jews are born into it with no other prerequisite but gentiles must do things to be a part of it.

Second, why, for the first time in history, are there two concurrent covenants?

Oy vey. Forgive me, but I can’t imagine I can add anything helpful to the lengthy explanations with which I have already tired this patient forum.

How can God make one vessel for one use and another for another? Ask God. I only ask that you not put boundaries on the answer before you hear it.

 

[Unitas]

Oy vey. Forgive me, but I can’t imagine I can add anything helpful to the lengthy explanations with which I have already tired this patient forum.

How can God make one vessel for one use and another for another? Ask God. I only ask that you not put boundaries on the answer before you hear it.

The priori is quite simple; God does not contradict Himself. If the old covenant is perpetual, then there is no need for a new one. If it was sufficient, then also there is no need for a new one. If there is no need for the jews’ conversion to Christ, then Christ is obviously unnecessary to salvation.

Let us also not forget that the council of Florence (quoted in teh first post of this thread) was the 16th ecumenical council. If the decrees of which are ratified by the pope, it is infallible:

Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils. Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum), the Synod of Pisa in 1409, and in part with the Councils of Constance and Basle.

. . .]

Papal and conciliar infallibility are correlated but not identical. A council’s decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation, because the pope is infallible also extra concilium, without the support of a council. The infallibility proper to the pope is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council’s infallibility. The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope’s infallibility: a fallible pope supporting, and supported by, a council, would still pronounce infallible decisions. This accounts for the fact that, before the Vatican decree concerning the supreme pontiff’s ex-cathedra judgments, Ecumenical councils were generally held to be infallible even by those who denied the papal infallibility; it also explains the concessions largely made to the opponents of the papal privilege that it is not necessarily implied in the infallibility of councils, and the claims that it can be proved separately and independently on its proper merits. The infallibility of the council is intrinsic, i.e. springs from its nature. Christ promised to be in the midst of two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name; now an Ecumenical council is, in fact or in law, a gathering of all Christ’s co-workers for the salvation of man through true faith and holy conduct; He is therefore in their midst, fulfilling His promises and leading them into the truth for which they are striving. His presence, by cementing the unity of the assembly into one body – His own mystical body – gives it the necessary completeness, and makes up for any defect possibly arising from the physical absence of a certain number of bishops. The same presence strengthens the action of the pope, so that, as mouthpiece of the council, he can say in truth, “it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us”, and consequently can, and does, put the seal of infallibility on the conciliar decree irrespective of his own personal infallibility.

So either Tradition is wrong, or those denying the necessity of converting the jews are wrong.

 

[EasterJoy]

The priori is quite simple; God does not contradict Himself. If the old covenant is perpetual, then there is no need for a new one. If it was sufficient, then also there is no need for a new one. If there is no need for the jews’ conversion to Christ, then Christ is obviously unnecessary to salvation.

Let us also not forget that the council of Florence (quoted in teh first post of this thread) was the 16th ecumenical council. If the decrees of which are ratified by the pope, it is infallible:

…

So either Tradition is wrong, or those denying the necessity of converting the jews are wrong.

Again, we are beating a horse that has been around the same course many, many times. Give the poor beast a rest.

You insist that this is an “either/or” question which can be couched in terms you believe lead with inescapable logic to your conclusion. I deny your position, on several counts. We have both spent thousands of words in order to expound upon what we mean by our respective positions. Others have likewise weighed in…again and again and again. I could find myself pleasantly surprised, but think that’s where it is likely to stay.

Let’s take our warning from previous threads, and get out while things are still charitable.

 

[Valke2]

Read the 1st Letter to the Corinthians. Paul observed purely in order that he might be more likely to win over Jews. He counseled that those with faith strong enough not to be scandalized, by eating meat sacrificed to idols, for instance, should nevertheless observe whether they were in a position to scandalize those whose faith was weaker. The ritual, being empty, did not taint the meat, but if the possibility existed that eating it might scandalize a weaker brother, it was necessary to avoid it. “Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not be an occasion of sin to him.” (1 Cor. 8:13) This Paul was a man who always kept his eye on the ball. Making converts to the Gospel and edifying them was first, last, and everything in-between to him. Nothing else mattered.

What Catholics mainly think important is that non-Christians, Jew or not, receive and accept the Gospel. If you cannot accept it yet, keep your eyes and ears open. As for mu shu pork, let your conscience be your guide. That is none of our affair, as we have our eyes on another ball.

Right. Paul was cearly a deceiver.

 

[EasterJoy]

Right. Paul was cearly a deceiver.

You are attempting to provoke…that’s naughty!

Have a nice thread, guys. Keep it nice.