S
Splinker
Guest
Now that you are an atheist, have you ever considered converting to Judaism?
Is it heretical to pray that Jews continue to follow the Old Covenant?
- Status
G
gentle_atheist
Guest
The entry fee is too painful.
T
Timothy17
Guest
Thanks for the racism, I feel compelled now to bow-down like a slave to your mind’s immaculate conception of God (I am sure your perfect mind does not need to be told this, but that was sarcasm).
No human being ever needed the pre-cursor of another human being or statue to conceptualize God, seeing as God first comes to mind for anyone and everyone as an idea, generally thought to be omnipotent, untouchable, indescribable, and beyond all things and everything : utterly sovereign, all-powerful, and usually an utterly alien (in the sense of distinctness) entity. It is only after this that our experiences may or may not refine our conceptualization of God. This being a fact obvious to everyone who can think -except, it seems, you- I kindly ask you delete your racist remarks and re-think your idea of humanity, wherein you actually exist in and as part of that mass, without being mystically seperated. Seem harsh ? Your own theology demonstrates it, and - not surprisingly - is also wrong, even from a purely Jewish perspective, as when you said :
" It has been well over three thousand years since we broke from the pagan… "
By “we” you must mean you and yours, and the fact is you and yours did not break free from paganism : God broke your people free from it, and if I recall my Old Testament, it was not an easy struggle, as the tendency to revert was problematic for the Israelites, and God had to keep disciplining the Israelites to be free from it. The sublte slip-up there would force everyone to believe that the Israelites miraculously saved themselves, and God didn’t even need to involve Himself, which forces me to conclude that what you really meant to say was,
“It has been well over three thousand years since [God broke us free] from the pagan [system of worship],”
Which means nothing on this forum, as God likewise liberated us, through pure and utter Grace, and all humanity from that same massively monstrous system of religion, and through us eliminated pagansim from most of the world, especially where it was worst of all and wont to use human sacrifices. Now, if you actually imagine Catholicism to be pagansim, we can start another thread, because frankly I don’t think you even know what paganism really was, and how absolutely sadistic, perverted and monstrous it really was : you don’t know this because the worst cases of it have been systematically removed from the Earth, usually by process of conversion to Christianity, or the throwing down of the kingdoms that supported and financed its systematic enslavement and debauchery of all mankind.
Pax,
Tim
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Start a new Thread on the appropriate Forum.
U
una_fides
Guest
I realize there is a large audience that can read these posts, and this particular topic was originally intended for Catholics who are serious about their faith, know it, and who are willing to reconcile anything that may seem to contradict it. Unfortunately, people who are against the Church can find any ammo they can from any serious discussion of problems in the Church or if anyone is having difficulty understanding a particular Church teaching. Atheism on the other hand is not reasonable or logical, and most of the time people who embrace such thinking are running from God because of other issues.I think that this post nails it, even if I am quoting myself.
That last line is so important that it should be shouted:
LIKE IT OR NOT, CATHOLICS ARE PRAYING FOR JEWS TO REBUILD THE TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM AND RESUME ANIMAL SACRIFICES.
As I have mentioned before, the operating principle of the Catholic Church from Vatican 2 onward can be summed up in one word: APPEASEMENT.
I am a cradle Catholic who was so astonished by what I saw happening in the Catholic Church that I finally chucked the whole thing and became an atheist.
I do want to also say that if you read that post I made you will see that this prayer is not an infallible statement by the Church protected from error and even if one argues that it is then it can still be understood to be referring to growing into the fulfillment of their covenant. They are being faithful to parts of the covenant but not to others (i.e. its fulfillment in Christ). The only way the prayer can be faithfully understood is as a growth into full acceptance of the covenant and its fulfillment in Christ. Either way, the prayer is vague and should be revised, but I hardly see this prayer as a reason to leave the Church and to fall away from the faith of Christ. Obviously there has to be some other reason coming into play. Something else drawing you away from God and his truth. Perhaps this thread is not the place to discuss it, but I would encourage you to start up a thread on whatever particular issues with which you may have difficulty or feel free to send me a PM and we can discuss if you like.
U
una_fides
Guest
I don’t think it necessary to start a brand new thread on the same topic when I merely wanted to post an interesting and relevant article to our old discussion. If you don’t want to follow the thread anymore, simply unsubscribe.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
No problem. Thanks.
S
Splinker
Guest
I can get you a steep discount. But you still need to provide the tipThe entry fee is too painful.
M
mytruepower2
Guest
I can only say what Saint Thomas Aquinas said about it, in his masterwork of theology; the Summa Theologica.
The Old Law contained countless symbols and practices intended to prefigure the coming of Christ. If, therefore, someone continues to practice those symbols and practices, it is virtually the same as saying that we still await Christ, and therefore, that he has not yet come. For a Catholic to say this would be a heresy.
However, just because Catholics can’t say this doesn’t mean that it’s a heresy in non-Catholics. Heresy against the church is only considered heresy among her members. Non-Catholics claiming that Jesus has not come again are not heretical; just wrong.
Researched from the Summa Theologica; First part of the Second Part; Question 103, Article 4.
The Old Law contained countless symbols and practices intended to prefigure the coming of Christ. If, therefore, someone continues to practice those symbols and practices, it is virtually the same as saying that we still await Christ, and therefore, that he has not yet come. For a Catholic to say this would be a heresy.
However, just because Catholics can’t say this doesn’t mean that it’s a heresy in non-Catholics. Heresy against the church is only considered heresy among her members. Non-Catholics claiming that Jesus has not come again are not heretical; just wrong.
Researched from the Summa Theologica; First part of the Second Part; Question 103, Article 4.
U
una_fides
Guest
You’re right. They are not called heretics. They are unbelievers.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Una Fides' link:
Even though they have broken covenant with God, God’s promise is not altered or rendered inviolate. The covenant is still in tact. You may have read Ps. 89?
I believe you are following this peron’s thinking in error. The Abrahamic Covenant made by God is an “unconditional” covenant, and it is eternal. Israel as a nation will be converted, forgiven, and restored (Romans 11:25–27).
Even though they have broken covenant with God, God’s promise is not altered or rendered inviolate. The covenant is still in tact. You may have read Ps. 89?
W
WFS5801
Guest
And St. Paul, in his epistle to the Hebrews, makes it absolutely clear that the Old Covenant is not eternal that was (in fact) “decaying” and “growing old” when he wrote his epistle. Nothing “near its end” can be eternal.
[6] But now he hath obtained a better ministry, by how much also he is a mediator of a better testament, which is established on better promises. [7] For if that former had been faultless, there should not indeed a place have been sought for a second. [8] For finding fault with them, he saith: Behold, the days shall come, saith the Lord: and I will perfect unto the house of Israel, and unto the house of Juda, a new testament: [9] Not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: because they continued not in my testament: and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. [10] For this is the testament which I will make to the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my laws into their mind, and in their heart will I write them: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people:
[11] And they shall not teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least to the greatest of them: [12] Because I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more. [13] Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end.
(from Hebrews 8)
So how do the bishops reconcile their teaching in the new Catechism with St. Paul’s teaching in Hebrews 8?
W
WFS5801
Guest
I’m sorry, but your explanation opposes what is taught in the Bible. Perhaps you’re confusing the promise made to Abraham with the Old Covenant made with Moses. The Promise is eternal and was made to the “Seed” of Abraham, i.e., our Lord Jesus Christ. The Old Covenant of Laws, made with Moses, was fulfilled by Christ and superseded by the New Covenant at Christ’s death on the Cross. St. Paul is quite clear about this in his epistle to the Galatians – there is no reason for confusion on this subject:
[16] 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. [17] Now this I say, that the testament which was confirmed by God, the law which was made after four hundred and thirty years, doth not disannul, to make the promise of no effect. [18] For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise. But God gave it to Abraham by promise. [19] Why then was the law? It was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come, to whom he made the promise, being ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. [20] Now a mediator is not of one: but God is one. (Galatians 3)
The “Law” is the Old Covenant. It no longer exists a valid Covenant with God, it has been superseded by the New Covenant. This is why the veil was torn from top to bottom at the moment of Christ’s death on the Cross. There is one flock, not two, as St. Paul makes clear in his epistle.
[21] Was the law then against the promises of God? God forbid. For if there had been a law given which could give life, verily justice should have been by the law. [22] But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by the faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe. [23] But before the faith came, we were kept under the law shut up, unto that faith which was to be revealed. [24] Wherefore the law was our pedagogue in Christ, that we might be justified by faith. [25] But after the faith is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue.
[26] For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus. [27] For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. [28] 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. [29] And if you be Christ’s, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3)
Can’t get much clearer than that. “Neither Jew nor Greek…all one in Christ Jesus.”
[21] Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, have you not read the law? [22] For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, and the other by a free woman. [23] But he who was of the bondwoman, was born according to the flesh: but he of the free woman, was by promise. [24] Which things are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from mount Sina, engendering unto bondage; which is Agar: [25] For Sina is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
[26] But that Jerusalem, which is above, is free: which is our mother. [27] For it is written: Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not: break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that hath a husband. [28] Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. [29] But as then he, that was born according to the flesh, persecuted him that was after the spirit; so also it is now. [30] But what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. (Galatians 4)
The Old Covenant results in bondage and it is to be “cast out.” To teach that there are still two valid Covenants opposes the infallible teaching of the Church.
S
Sirach2
Guest
It is probably fruitless for me to debate with you regarding covenant understanding, for you are ready only for milk, rather than solid food. JReducation spoke the truth to you, but since you have read the bible, you are now wiser than the Church. That is unfortunate, for your mind is not open to learning, but fixed on your own understanding.
Some day, maybe you can contact your bishop or Rome and ask why the prayer was formulated in that manner, and what is the Church’s understanding of “unconditional covenant.” Meanwhile, as you struggle with a lack of education, please do not assume the Church should abide by your limited understanding.
U
una_fides
Guest
Hey now. Be nice. Remember humility and charity. Have you studied the Church’s prior dogmatic teachings on this matter throughout history? If not, we can certainly have a charitable discussion without any ad hominem attacks or accusations of a lack of education.
U
una_fides
Guest
S
Sirach2
Guest
Una Fides,
I’m sorry you viewed my post as ‘ad hominem’ simply because I alleged the poster lacked education on “unconditional covenants”. It is very true what I said.
In addition, I suggested he contact the magisterium to seek out the truth, since he insulted the intelligence of JReducation … and did so formally.
Where did I get this from, other than his insistence that he was right, without so much as a “please explain…”
I’m sorry you viewed my post as ‘ad hominem’ simply because I alleged the poster lacked education on “unconditional covenants”. It is very true what I said.
In addition, I suggested he contact the magisterium to seek out the truth, since he insulted the intelligence of JReducation … and did so formally.
Where did I get this from, other than his insistence that he was right, without so much as a “please explain…”
U
una_fides
Guest
Do you have a different understanding of those Scripture texts than what they say? Perhaps you can cite Haydocks or another orthodox Catholic commentary that supports your understanding? Let’s not just write something off until you have at least examined and considered it (if you have not already done so).
U
una_fides
Guest
So are you saying the Church change her teaching on this matter? If you ask me to, I can demonstrate that she has always believed in supercessasionalism. If the Church now authoritatively teaches that the Jews are in an independent covenant relationship with God that is not a part of his new covenant of grace in Christ then she would have flip flopped on this issue and would not be being faithful to her own settled tradition. Find me where the fathers taught that Jews could be saved in their own covenant and you can them state your case. So far no evidence had been presented.
U
una_fides
Guest
How about this. Rather than say that he doesn’t understand unconditional covenants, why not cite some evidence that supports your claim. So far the person you called ignorant cited Scriptures and provided a very reasonable support of his argument. Rather than call him ignorant, why not cite some Scripture, Tradition, or authoritative Magisterium to back up your argument? If you don’t have any solid support, then perhaps you should reconsider your remarks.
- Status