Jewish Salvation

[JReducation]

J,

It would appear then that the Evangelical Free Church and the Dispensationalists at large have not heard what Clare of Assisi told our HOly Father Francis…

In the Imitation of Christ, Thomas a Kempis held a similar view as that of St. Clare. " Many more time worrying about the salvation of others and not enough about their own. "

During their day there were no Protestant churches, but there certainly were enough people all over the place.

It’s interesting, because Kempis repeats this several times in his book. It must have been a serious problem in his monastery. Normally, he did not tend to repeat himself.

There are two ideas that he repeats several times. One is the preoccupation with the salvation of others and the other is judging the faults of another.

Clare and Kempis were very much of the idea that the best way to save the world was to save oneself and those who wanted to, would follow your good example.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Kelca,

You are assuming alot.

The synagogue of today is not Judaism of the OT.

Judaism of the OT commenced with Ezra/Nehemiah. The temple, Levetical priest, sacrifices etc. This is the Judaism of the OT.

Judaism of today is what is called Rabinnical Judaism. You can search the history of that.

Abraham, Israel were not called Jews. These are Israelites. Recall that there was the kingodm of David, then after that the Kingdom of Judah and Kingdom of Israel, both destroyed in the North and the South.

Recall Jesus saying to the samaritan woman…we worship what we know and you worship what you don’t know…worship nevertheless…

Recall Paul says that the Church is the mystery hidden for all ages…always there yet not seen…so those that worshipped one God worshipped in the Church not yet seen…

Rabbinical Judaism is essentially the continuation of the Judaism of the Pharisees of Jesus’ time (especially one of the major parties of the Pharisees, though with some elements from the other major party), but without the Temple worship since the Temple has been destroyed. The loss of the Temple does not automatically mean the end of Judaism, however. Remember that they went through an earlier period with no Temple worship. This did not constitute the end of their religion but merely a new phase of it.

The word “Jew” of course is an English one, but the equivalent in other languages was used since well before the birth of Christ for the Israelites of Judea (descended from the tribes of Judah, Levi, and Benjamin, and later also the Idumeans, aka Edomites, who converted to Judaism), and has been used of this people continuously ever sense (the Levites retaining their distinct tribal identity though also called “Jews“, the Judahites, Benjaminites, and Idumeans forgetting their divisions around the second century and becoming simply the rest of the Jews).

I’ve read that genetic studies have shown that all major populations of modern Jews descend strongly from Middle Eastern populations (they can’t get more specific than this) through their male lines, though studies of the female lines have sometimes been interpreted as indicating a mostly European origin for the Ashkenazi Jews, as if Jewish men had married ethnically European women and raised the children as Jews. This is a more challenging hypothesis to mainstream Jews than to Christians of Hebrew ancestry (such as myself, partially) or certain minority Jewish sects due to a post-Christian Rabbinical Jewish shift to tracing “Jewishness” through the female rather than male line.

Anyway, yes non-Christian Jews missed the boat so to speak and there have been some developments in post-Christian Judaism that we would disagree with, but I don’t think this warrants as total an impression of rupture as you seem to suggest, or the Vortex episode linked to earlier in this thread.

I think the best, most balanced image might be the one St. Paul used. Israel is a cultivated grape vine. Jewish Catholics are natural branches on that vine. Non-Jewish Catholics are wild grape branches that have been grafted onto the cultivated vine. Non-Catholic Jews are natural branches of that vine that have been cut off from it. But if natural branches can be cut off, all the more can the wild branches be cut off, and if wild branches can be grafted onto the cultivated vine, all the more can the natural branches be grafted back on.

So there is one sense in which the Church is the continuation of the People of God, and another sense in which the Jews forever remain Jews and the non-Jews remain forever non-Jews. We need to keep both senses in mind, not simplify it to just one or the other

 

[triumphguy]

Whereas faith in Jesus Christ distinguishes and separates us from our Jewish brothers and sisters, we can at the same time affirm with profound conviction “the spiritual bond linking the people of the New Covenant with Abraham’s stock”. Thus we have here a bond which, notwithstanding our differences, makes us brethren; it is an unfathomable mystery of grace which we dare to scrutinize in confidence, grateful to a God who grants us to contemplate together his plan of salvation. Bl John Paul II ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC-JEWISH THEOLOGICAL COLLOQUIUM 6 November 1986

I would also like to express my gratitude for the deepening dialogue between the Catholic Church and Judaism. The Church feels a great closeness to the Jewish people. With the Declaration Nostra Aetate of the Second Vatican Council, an “irrevocable commitment to pursue the path of dialogue, fraternity and friendship” was made

it seems to me that we Christians must also become increasingly aware of our own inner affinity with Judaism, to which you made reference. For Christians, there can be no rupture in salvation history. Salvation comes from the Jews (cf. Jn 4:22). When Jesus’ conflict with the Judaism of his time is superficially interpreted as a breach with the Old Covenant, it tends to be reduced to the idea of a liberation that mistakenly views the Torah merely as a slavish enactment of rituals and outward observances. Yet in actual fact, the Sermon on the Mount does not abolish the Mosaic Law, but reveals its hidden possibilities and allows more radical demands to emerge. It points us towards the deepest source of human action, the heart, where choices are made between what is pure and what is impure, where faith, hope and love blossom forth.

To this end, may the One and Almighty, Ha Kadosch Baruch Hu, grant his blessing. I thank you. MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI

Through his teaching, John Paul II has, on many occasions, taken the initiative in developing this Declaration. During a visit to the synagogue of Mainz (1980) he said: “The encounter between the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been abrogated by God (cf. Rm 11:29), and that of the New Covenant is also an interna****l dialogue in our Church, similar to that between the first and second part of its Bible”. 350 Later, addressing the Jewish communities of Italy during a visit to the synagogue of Rome (1986), he declared: “The Church of Christ discovers its ‘links’ with Judaism ‘by pondering its own mystery’ (cf. Nostra Aetate). The Jewish religion is not ‘extrinsic’ to us, but in a certain manner, it is ‘intrinsic’ to our religion. We have therefore a relationship with it which we do not have with any other religion. You are our favoured brothers and, in a certain sense, one can say our elder brothers”. 35

The example of Paul in Rm 9-11 shows that, on the contrary, an attitude of respect, esteem and love for the Jewish people is the only truly Christian attitude in a situation which is mysteriously part of the beneficent and positive plan of God. Dialogue is possible, since Jews and Christians share a rich common patrimony that unites them. It is greatly to be desired that prejudice and misunderstanding be gradually eliminated on both sides, in favour of a better understanding of the patrimony they share and to strengthen the links that bind them. THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION, THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND THEIR SACRED SCRIPTURES IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html#3. Progression

I think Bro JR is right.

We should just be silent and let the mystery of the relationship between the Jewish People and the Kingdom unfold according to God’s plan.

 

[JReducation]

Everyone must remember that we have to be very careful when quoting scripture to interpret it as the Church interprets it, not as we interpret it or take it at face value. While there is much that the Church takes at face value, there is also much that the Church happens to know the rest of the story that is not on the printed page, because the writer was not thinking that anyone would be reading his work in 2000 years. He was writing for people who knew what he was talking about. Therefore, he left out many details that when we add them to the passage, change the meaning and give us a clearer insight. Paul reminds them that scripture is not for private interpretation.

We’re falling into the danger of responding to almost every situation with, “The bible says. . .” without asking, what does the Church say about what the bible says? The Church came before the bible and it it’s in the bible it’s because it reflected the faith of the early Church. The key is to determine whether the passage reflects the entire faith of that period or if the passage assumes that you know the rest of the story. The fact that a passage does not tell the entire story does not make it wrong or fallible. It points to a truth that the Church believed. It is our responsibility to find out what that is. Some is evidently clear and some is not as clear.

There is an excellent scripture theologian still alive under whom I had the pleasure of studying the writings of John. I was in absolute awe of how much mystical theology John packed into his short writings. He assumed that his audience remembered what he had preached. Were it not for Polycarp and other, we would not understand the whole of John’s writings.

Then, Fr. Dulles, who taught Pauline writings was another incredible biblical scholar. The most important thing to remember about Paul is that he’s writing to Christians from different Churches. There is a context and the recipient of the letters knew the context. We depend on that first generation of Christians to understand the context. We can’t just do like the Protestants who pick and pull out of the scripture and say, “Here’s my proof!”

Passages must be understood in the context of the entire text and the text in the context of the faith of the early Church. Picking out isolated statements about the Jews does not give a complete picture of what the writers were saying and why they were saying it. That’s why we depend on the Church to tell us. The Church has looked at the entire book in which these passages appear and interprets them in light of the book and its intended audience. She then tells us, “This is what the early Church meant when it said X”.

Some passages are going to be more obvious than others. It’s always a good idea to look at a good biblical commentary and concordance with some of these passages. It’s risky business to attempt to apply scripture to another person, unless one is knowledgeable of scripture, beyond knowing where to find passages. Look at works like the writings of St. Anthony of Padua or Pope Benedict XVI, they reveal things in scripture that most of us never saw there and they dispel things that we thought we understood. It’s always good to refer to the masters on the subject.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Everyone must remember that we have to be very careful when quoting scripture to interpret it as the Church interprets it, not as we interpret it or take it at face value. While there is much that the Church takes at face value, there is also much that the Church happens to know the rest of the story that is not on the printed page, because the writer was not thinking that anyone would be reading his work in 2000 years. He was writing for people who knew what he was talking about. Therefore, he left out many details that when we add them to the passage, change the meaning and give us a clearer insight. Paul reminds them that scripture is not for private interpretation.

We’re falling into the danger of responding to almost every situation with, “The bible says. . .” without asking, what does the Church say about what the bible says? The Church came before the bible and it it’s in the bible it’s because it reflected the faith of the early Church. The key is to determine whether the passage reflects the entire faith of that period or if the passage assumes that you know the rest of the story. The fact that a passage does not tell the entire story does not make it wrong or fallible. It points to a truth that the Church believed. It is our responsibility to find out what that is. Some is evidently clear and some is not as clear.

There is an excellent scripture theologian still alive under whom I had the pleasure of studying the writings of John. I was in absolute awe of how much mystical theology John packed into his short writings. He assumed that his audience remembered what he had preached. Were it not for Polycarp and other, we would not understand the whole of John’s writings.

Then, Fr. Dulles, who taught Pauline writings was another incredible biblical scholar. The most important thing to remember about Paul is that he’s writing to Christians from different Churches. There is a context and the recipient of the letters knew the context. We depend on that first generation of Christians to understand the context. We can’t just do like the Protestants who pick and pull out of the scripture and say, “Here’s my proof!”

Passages must be understood in the context of the entire text and the text in the context of the faith of the early Church. Picking out isolated statements about the Jews does not give a complete picture of what the writers were saying and why they were saying it. That’s why we depend on the Church to tell us. The Church has looked at the entire book in which these passages appear and interprets them in light of the book and its intended audience. She then tells us, “This is what the early Church meant when it said X”.

Some passages are going to be more obvious than others. It’s always a good idea to look at a good biblical commentary and concordance with some of these passages. It’s risky business to attempt to apply scripture to another person, unless one is knowledgeable of scripture, beyond knowing where to find passages. Look at works like the writings of St. Anthony of Padua or Pope Benedict XVI, they reveal things in scripture that most of us never saw there and they dispel things that we thought we understood. It’s always good to refer to the masters on the subject.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Is this a general comment, or a response to my paraphrase and interpretation of St. Paul’s metaphor of the vine? I thought the paraphrase was quite accurate and that my interpretation was cautious and more or less incontrovertible (aside from my decision to speak in terms of Catholicism rather than Christianity in general, which was for the sake of simplicity and because none of the currently existing non-Catholic Christian Churches and ecclesial communities existed at the time of St. Paul) but if you think something contradicts Church teaching feel free to point it out specifically. I’m not a person whose feelings are easily hurt online.

 

[chosen_people]

Thanks for the interesting information about the former Rabbi, whose story I was totally unfamiliar with. However, I’m not so sure about your final phrase: “an act which in Judaism cuts him off forever from G-d and the Jewish people.” According to my understanding of the laws of Cherem for voluntary apostates (Jewish excommunication, which in meaning differs from Catholic excommunication, since the former is indeed a punishment), there is still the possibility of return to Judaism. Further, I don’t think these laws state that the person is technically no longer Jewish although he may be shunned by Jewish society with respect to certain participatory social roles and, regarding Israel, may no longer have the right of return. One of the reasons for this, according to what I’ve read, is that since the Sacraments of Catholicism, particularly baptism, are not valid according to halakha, the converted Jew remains Jewish. (At the same time, I realize many Orthodox Jews sit shiva for a relative who converts, itself thought by some to be a misinterpretation of a Talmudic passage.) Finally, I seriously doubt such an individual is forever cut off from G-d. That would be contrary to the Jewish belief in redemption for one’s sins.

I believe you are mixing up “herem” which is a ban imposed by the Jewish community with the punishment I was referring to which is “Karet”. Karet is a Divine punishment and the crime is a crime against God. God may cause a person to die before their 60th birthday or a woman to not bear children. It is true that a Jew will always be a Jew until death and up until that time can repent . However, the ramification of the Divine punishment of Karet is in not being part of the world to come and having your soul obliterated.

 

[kelcca]

‘For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek’ (Romans 1:16).

Is not St.Paul saying preach to the Jews? I don’t believe St.Paul believe that the Jews were in a saving covenant simply because they are Jews. If he did he would not of preached to them.

 

[JReducation]

Is this a general comment, or a response to my paraphrase and interpretation of St. Paul’s metaphor of the vine? I thought the paraphrase was quite accurate and that my interpretation was cautious and more or less incontrovertible (aside from my decision to speak in terms of Catholicism rather than Christianity in general, which was for the sake of simplicity and because none of the currently existing non-Catholic Christian Churches and ecclesial communities existed at the time of St. Paul) but if you think something contradicts Church teaching feel free to point it out specifically. I’m not a person whose feelings are easily hurt online.

I was not responding to your post. That’s why I didn’t quote it. I’m giving a general piece of advice, because I notice that posters are throwing quotes out there from Paul and others without presenting the historical background. The historical background is important.

The best example that I can think of is the actual sentencing of Christ. If one reads very carefully, the Jews to whom the Gospel writers are referring are not the Jewish people, but the corrupt leadership of Jerusalem and their cronies. The rest of Judea had no clue what wag happening in Jerusalem. It is also a well known fact that Pilate was not as calm and gentlemanly as he appears in the Gospels. Actually, he was very cruel to the Jews and deliberately antagonized them at every turn. Tiberius reprimanded him on several occasions of his insensitivity to the Jewish people.

Pilate’s statement, “I find no fault in him,” can be taken at face value to mean that Pilate really did not find fault in Jesus. It can also be taken as his subtle way of aggravating the priests. At the end of the day, Jesus was just one more Jew to Pilate. Whether Jesus lived or died was immaterial to him. But, if Pilate released Jesus, it would outrage the priests, something that Pilate delighted in doing as several other Roman historians tell us.

Albert Scheweitzer gives us another perspective. The Jewish leadership knew Pilate’s weakness. They knew that he was walking a fine line with Tiberius Caesar. They played their card by planting people in the crowd who would claim that if Pilate released Jesus, he was no friend of Caesar. This blindsided Pilate. Normally, the Jews were not too interested in Caesar’s claims to be a god. But if word got back to Tiberius that he had once again failed to keep the peace with the Jews and failed to be sensitive to their requests, especially one in favor of Tiberius, it would not look good for Pilate.

This along with the fact that it was Passover and that the Jews did not mingle with the Romans during the high holy days, because they had to remain clean in order to celebrate the Pasch, it tells us that those Jews who arrested Jesus and brought him before Pilate were unfaithful to Jewish custom. In other words, they were Cafeteria Jews. The devout Jew would not have been caught dead in a Roman praetorium during the Passover. He would have waited for after the feast to step into a pagan’s turf.

This information, along with the fact that long before the European Christians started to blame the Jews for killing Christ, the Roman Christians had already incorporated into their creed, “I believe in Jesus Christ . . . who was crucified under Pontius Pilate.” The early Christians did not place the burden of Christ’s death on the Jewish people, but on a specific group of unfaithful Jews and on a very cowardly and cruel Roman prefect named Pontius Pilate. They were not too concerned whether or not it bothered the Romans.

To take the narrative as it appears in the Gospels without the background, it sounds as if all of Palestine was culpable of Jesus crucifixion and the Romans were simply caught in the middle. This was not the case. The majority of the Jewish people were caught in the middle of the political machinery run by Pilate and the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem and Jesus paid the price.

For this reason, I suggest that we be very careful in quoting passages unless we check how the Church interprets them and what scholars have to say about them. One of the best contemporary sources and an easy read are the two recent books by Pope Benedict, Jesus of Nazareth. He goes through all of this and gives us the deeper meaning of these passages and events.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[floresco]

Is not St.Paul saying preach to the Jews? I don’t believe St.Paul believe that the Jews were in a saving covenant simply because they are Jews. If he did he would not of preached to them.

Did St. Paul preach to the Jews? He is known as the Apostle to the Gentiles.

 

[JReducation]

‘For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek’ (Romans 1:16).

Is not St.Paul saying preach to the Jews? I don’t believe St.Paul believe that the Jews were in a saving covenant simply because they are Jews. If he did he would not of preached to them.

St. Paul did not preach to the Jews. He spent little time in Palestine. St. Paul wrote a letter to the Hebrew Christians. But he did not found the Church of Jerusalem. When Paul converts, the Church of Jerusalem is up and running.

In this passage, Paul is writing to the Roman Christians. He’s encouraging them in their faith, because they were being threatened by the Roman authorities on the one hand and there were already problems between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. Paul is asserting that the Gentiles as well as the Jews are included in God’s plan of salvation. His other assertion is that he has the courage to openly profess the Gospel and is encouraging them to have the same courage, whether they are threatened by the Romans or discriminated against by the Jewish Christians. There is a lot of history behind this entire letter. In fact, in chapter 9:1 - 5, Paul reminds his readers that God keeps his covenant. He is not despairing of the Jews salvation at all. He believes that they will come to believe when they fulfill certain conditions in chapter 11:19 - 22. At first, one gets the impression that he’s denying that the Jews can be saved, but he concludes on a positive note. The purpose of his letter is not to throw the Jews under the camel (there were no buses back then). The purpose of the letter is proclaim the faithfulness of the God of Israel.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[kelcca]

“And when Silas and Timothy were come from Macedonia, Paul was earnest in preaching, testifying to the Jews, that Jesus is the Christ. 6 But they gainsaying and blaspheming, he shook his garments, and said to them: Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.” acts 18: 5-7 DRB

 

[JReducation]

“And when Silas and Timothy were come from Macedonia, Paul was earnest in preaching, testifying to the Jews, that Jesus is the Christ. 6 But they gainsaying and blaspheming, he shook his garments, and said to them: Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.” acts 18: 5-7 DRB

This is an example of what I was saying above. We can’t take the passage as it stands. Luke assumes that you know what he knows, because you and I were not on his radar. It is now commonly believed that Luke exerts a great deal of energy to show the Church of his time that Paul was very much an Apostle with the same authority as Peter and the rest. Luke often presents Paul in conflicts where he proves himself worthy of the title Apostle.

Luke also has to show us how Paul, a Jew, goes on to become the Apostle to the Gentiles. He narrates this incident for us as what is sometimes called a “transition event”. The incident did happen, but it does not mean that Paul was in constant conflict with the Jews and much less that he spent much time preaching to the Jews, as they were an already established Church with Apostles at the helm. This particular incident is important because it shows us Paul asserting his authority by scolding his Jewish audience and also the transition of his attention from the Jews to the Gentiles. Given Luke’s reason for showing us the event, we can also assume that Paul does not feel this way about the Jewish people, but about the turkeys in his presence at that moment. On the contrary, Paul was always very proud of being a Jew.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[CopticChristian]

St. Paul did not preach to the Jews. He spent little time in Palestine. St. Paul wrote a letter to the Hebrew Christians. But he did not found the Church of Jerusalem. When Paul converts, the Church of Jerusalem is up and running.

In this passage, Paul is writing to the Roman Christians. He’s encouraging them in their faith, because they were being threatened by the Roman authorities on the one hand and there were already problems between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. Paul is asserting that the Gentiles as well as the Jews are included in God’s plan of salvation. His other assertion is that he has the courage to openly profess the Gospel and is encouraging them to have the same courage, whether they are threatened by the Romans or discriminated against by the Jewish Christians. There is a lot of history behind this entire letter. In fact, in chapter 9:1 - 5, Paul reminds his readers that God keeps his covenant. He is not despairing of the Jews salvation at all. He believes that they will come to believe when they fulfill certain conditions in chapter 11:19 - 22. At first, one gets the impression that he’s denying that the Jews can be saved, but he concludes on a positive note. The purpose of his letter is not to throw the Jews under the camel (there were no buses back then). The purpose of the letter is proclaim the faithfulness of the God of Israel.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Br,

I will take issue as to the reason for the letter to the Romans. All you may say is true however the overwhelming reason for the letter is to address the Judaizing Christians and the abandonment of the Old Covenant in favor of the New Covenant…

Has God abandoned his people, by no means…Romans 3

The spouse now dead can marry anew…Romans 7

Romans 11 concludes this dialogue

 

[JReducation]

Br,

I will take issue as to the reason for the letter to the Romans. All you may say is true however the overwhelming reason for the letter is to address the Judaizing Christians

I said this, in different words. I said, “Paul is asserting that the Gentiles as well as the Jews are included in God’s plan of salvation.” In other words, the Gentiles do not have to become Jews.

and the abandonment of the Old Covenant in favor of the New Covenant…

Paul does not promote abandoning the Old Covenant for the New Covenant. Paul preaches that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled and the new one has begun. There is a big difference between the two messages. The former is very negative, the latter is very positive and is consistent with Paul’s message in this letter, “God keeps his promises.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

In essence, the Catholic Church is not out to convert the Jews and does not condone anyone trying to do so. She accepts them as they are. On the other hand, this does not mean that Christians cannot give witness to their faith, even among Jews, as long as we are polite and not condescending. If they ask us to back off, we back off. Jews do not proselytize, nor do we tolerate proselytism very well.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I think this is sad and confusing.

 

[JReducation]

I think this is sad and confusing.

Actually, it’s not confusing at all. The Church’s position is very clear.

1. God has a plan.
2. The Church will no condone or support any organized plan to convert the Jews.
3. There is nothing to stop Christians from giving witness to their faith, even among the Jews provided that the Christian respects the boundaries that the Jews set up. If they ask, we respond. If they want to learn, we teach. If they say “enough.”, be back off.

The directions are very explicit.

This has been the practice of the great missionaries among the Jews for centuries, beginning in 1219 in Jerusalem, later with the Dominicans in Spain, later again with the Catholics in Poland who welcomed the Jews and did not bother them and such great men as Francis of Assisi, Vincent Ferrer, Vincent de Paul, John XXIII, John Paul II and now Benedict XVI.

It’s really interesting, because the push to convert the Jews has never come from the Vatican. It has always come from the bottom up. The Holy See has always walked on egg shells on that subject. It never came out against it and never established a formal plan either. I believe that part of it may have been, because some of the push to convert Jews was more political than religious zeal.

In Spain, the Spanish government was very hard on them and pushed them into ghettos. Had it not been for the Dominicans and Franciscans who stood in the way between the crown and the Jews, the Jews in Spain would have been forced to convert to Christianity. The Franciscans have done much during the last 800 years to persuade the Holy See to have Catholics treat the Jews with respect and not to push them to Christianity. The Dominicans have always argued that the Jews have a special place in God’s plan and that Jesus will find a way to bring them into the Church. They are not lost, except for those who refuse to enter when the time comes. The Carmelites have always protected the rights of the Jews to exist as a religion, which will find its way to the fulfillment of the covenant. In other words, the covenant has been fulfilled. These people have to realize this on their own, without our pushing.

Catholic history is very clear that the concern with the conversion of the Jews is from individuals, not a collective concern of the Church. The Church prays that the Jewish people will recognize Christ as the Messiah promised to our fathers and she invites the Jewish people to come along and explore this possibility. But she does not want to endorse any kind of campaign.

Part of this may also have to do with the Church’s dislike for Protestant proselytism. You know, the guys who knock on your door on a Saturday morning asking you if you have been saved or who want to tell you about the bible. Though we have door to door apostolaates which are very good, we don’t walk in assuming that someone has not been saved as do these other missionaries from other Christian traditions. The Catholic approach is always to invite, to to condemn.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[choliks]

Actually, it’s not confusing at all. The Church’s position is very clear.

1. God has a plan.
2. The Church will no condone or support any organized plan to convert the Jews.
3. There is nothing to stop Christians from giving witness to their faith, even among the Jews provided that the Christian respects the boundaries that the Jews set up. If they ask, we respond. If they want to learn, we teach. If they say “enough.”, be back off.

The directions are very explicit.

This has been the practice of the great missionaries among the Jews for centuries, beginning in 1219 in Jerusalem, later with the Dominicans in Spain, later again with the Catholics in Poland who welcomed the Jews and did not bother them and such great men as Francis of Assisi, Vincent Ferrer, Vincent de Paul, John XXIII, John Paul II and now Benedict XVI.

It’s really interesting, because the push to convert the Jews has never come from the Vatican. It has always come from the bottom up. The Holy See has always walked on egg shells on that subject. It never came out against it and never established a formal plan either. I believe that part of it may have been, because some of the push to convert Jews was more political than religious zeal.

In Spain, the Spanish government was very hard on them and pushed them into ghettos. Had it not been for the Dominicans and Franciscans who stood in the way between the crown and the Jews, the Jews in Spain would have been forced to convert to Christianity. The Franciscans have done much during the last 800 years to persuade the Holy See to have Catholics treat the Jews with respect and not to push them to Christianity. The Dominicans have always argued that the Jews have a special place in God’s plan and that Jesus will find a way to bring them into the Church. They are not lost, except for those who refuse to enter when the time comes. The Carmelites have always protected the rights of the Jews to exist as a religion, which will find its way to the fulfillment of the covenant. In other words, the covenant has been fulfilled. These people have to realize this on their own, without our pushing.

Catholic history is very clear that the concern with the conversion of the Jews is from individuals, not a collective concern of the Church. The Church prays that the Jewish people will recognize Christ as the Messiah promised to our fathers and she invites the Jewish people to come along and explore this possibility. But she does not want to endorse any kind of campaign.

Part of this may also have to do with the Church’s dislike for Protestant proselytism. You know, the guys who knock on your door on a Saturday morning asking you if you have been saved or who want to tell you about the bible. Though we have door to door apostolaates which are very good, we don’t walk in assuming that someone has not been saved as do these other missionaries from other Christian traditions. The Catholic approach is always to invite, to to condemn.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I dunno. I feel this applies also to how the Catholic Church deals with other faith traditions.

The thing with conversion, it’s not supposed to be a fruit of coercion. It should be done out of love and free will. The Church employs this position because that is how She came into existence, and because that’s how God calls us to conversion. He calls us to convert (for those of us who are already in the Church: to turn away from sin) out of love by loving us first.

@TrueLight: when you were received into the Church, I don’t remember you telling us that you were forced to convert, or were influenced by proselytizers. I think you converted because of what you witnessed and what you studied. Am I right?

Pardon my being scatter-brained… I haven’t had my cup of coffee.

 

[TrueLight]

@TrueLight: when you were received into the Church, I don’t remember you telling us that you were forced to convert, or were influenced by proselytizers. I think you converted because of what you witnessed and what you studied. Am I right?

I was just telling someone today how no Catholic ever spoke to me about their faith. I considered Catholicism a joke as people only seemed to be Catholic on Ash Wednesday, Christmas and Easter.

I wish someone had spoken to me.

I think the term proselytize is often used interchangeable with preaching. But if it is used to mean forcing folks to convert, I don’t I know anybody in this day and age who would “force” someone to convert.

I found Catholicism on Catholic Answers, and to me it was a form of preaching.

Yes, you folks told me that Protestantism was not the true faith and that I should long for the fullness of the faith.

You told me that I was in error and I appreciated that.

I’m glad at that point I wasn’t reading too much of the ecumenical stuff, so I knew I had to change things. Otherwise, I might have just stayed where I was, comfortable as can be.

 

[TrueLight]

Catholic history is very clear that the concern with the conversion of the Jews is from individuals, not a collective concern of the Church.

Hi Brother JR,

I don’t have the knowledge to just start citing documents and I’m too tired to research right now.

However, a while ago, there was a thread on the prayer in the 1962 missal for the conversion of the “faithless” Jews, which was later changed. If the Church never thought the Jews needed to convert, that would not have been there.

Now that doesn’t mean that the Jews are not to be respected as the people who received God’s law. We are Jews by adoption. But to say that they do not need to convert? That’s what confuses me.

Part of this may also have to do with the Church’s dislike for Protestant proselytism. You know, the guys who knock on your door on a Saturday morning asking you if you have been saved or who want to tell you about the bible.

Yes, the same guys who are converting Catholics to Protestants in droves.

 

[jam070406]

Hi Brother JR,

I don’t have the knowledge to just start citing documents and I’m too tired to research right now.

However, a while ago, there was a thread on the prayer in the 1962 missal for the conversion of the “faithless” Jews, which was later changed. If the Church never thought the Jews needed to convert, that would not have been there.

Now that doesn’t mean that the Jews are not to be respected as the people who received God’s law. We are Jews by adoption. But to say that they do not need to convert? That’s what confuses me.

Yes, the same guys who are converting Catholics to Protestants in droves.

I’m not confused, I think Br. is wrong.