Jews as the Chosen people?

[meltzerboy]

Hail Linus, I have noticed a very curious but sad phenomenon not only in this thread, but elsewhere, whereever Christians of all denominations assemble.

They all seem desperately eager to “prove” they love Jews, even to the point of denying the very words of Scripture. What I find interesting is that its the Jewish Christians, like you and me and others, who try to tell them to wake up!

However, Catholicism is based not only on Scripture, but also on Church Tradition and the Magisterium. And, while some Catholics such as yourself don’t approve of Vatican II, doesn’t that document make clear that the Jews are to be regarded as elder brethren since they were the first to receive the Law and worship in essence the same monotheistic G-d as Catholics (and Muslims)? Further, haven’t Pope John Paul II (who had maintained Jewish friends since his childhood) and Pope Benedict both said as much, speaking ex cathedra? Finally, isn’t there also something essentially anti-Christian and in opposition to the teaching of Jesus in harboring harsh sentiments against the Jews or any people? It seems to me you are speaking more like a sola scriptura Protestant or perhaps like an Orthodox Christian, who does not accept the infallibility of the Pope ex cathedra, than a Roman Catholic or a Jewish Christian.

 

[Zhenia]

A Large Contingent of Traitors

Did you know that almost ALL Chasidic Jews are not zionists, and many are actively anti-zionist? Did you know they have always believed this way, for religious reasons? Did you know that it was the normal state of affairs until modern times, for Orthodox Jews to be non-zionists?

Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism; it is a manmade political philosophy, first developed by nonreligious and even antireligious Jews.

Did you know that? How odd that today, the secular Jews with the secular philosophy are somehow turned into the “real” Jews!

 

[Zhenia]

Would you agree that we should also condemned the Italians today for the barbarism of their soldiers during the crucifixion? Why blaim the the Jews only? And please recall, that through OUR sins He was condemned and crucified.

YES, both Romans and Jews are culpable. As someone who is half Jewish and half Italian, I will be the one to say that here. And yes, our sins are foremost to blame!

 

[Zhenia]

However, Catholicism is based not only on Scripture, but also on Church Tradition and the Magisterium. And, while some Catholics such as yourself don’t approve of Vatican II, doesn’t that document make clear that the Jews are to be regarded as elder brethren since they were the first to receive the Law and worship in essence the same monotheistic G-d as Catholics (and Muslims)? Further, haven’t Pope John Paul II (who had maintained Jewish friends since his childhood) and Pope Benedict both said as much, speaking ex cathedra? Finally, isn’t there also something essentially anti-Christian and in opposition to the teaching of Jesus in harboring harsh sentiments against the Jews or any people? It seems to me you are speaking more like a sola scriptura Protestant or perhaps like an Orthodox Christian, who does not accept the infallibility of the Pope ex cathedra, than a Roman Catholic.

The last time any Pope spoke ex cathedra was 1950, when the Dogma of the Assumption was declared. Popes are only considered infallible when explaining a dogma and informing the Church that it must be fully believed. Popes do that very, very rarely.

Nothing in Vatican II was spoken ex cathedra.

These are the only times in history when Popes spoke ex cathedra:

1.“Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
2.Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
3.Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
4.Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
5.Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
6.Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
7.Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

You seem desirous of having Catholics accept what came out of V2, but what about the pronouncements of Church councils before that? Or is it only because some of the documents to emerge from V2 were favorable to Jews?

As for me, I am not a Protestant or an Orthodox Christian. I am a baptized Roman Catholic of Jewish birth and upbringing.

And if you want to know why a lot of Christians (and Jewish Christians like me) have issues with the idea of being asked to love the antics of people who hate our Faith, this is one example of why: (NOTE: profanity in this video; watch with caution)

youtube.com/watch?v=6Ek5G6337yU

 

[Michael19682]

NO. The Jews (if anyone would so enlighten me as to a definition of that noun) would probably never change their Talmud to avoid offending Christians. I agree. However, Paul loves Israel very much (see Rom 9:1-5).

The very verses you use to show their condemnation are written by them. That makes a very tricky situation. Recall chapter 18 verses 23-33 of Genesis. God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah but the conditions for their destruction was anything but stringent. 10 non sinners could not be found. I don’t care if it is a number symbolic of the ten commandments–its still a very lenient condition. For all we know there might have been 9; we are only told that Lot was moved somewhere else. So there you have it in the old testament. The spirit of God apparently advocated for them long ago and has a tradition of relenting and making compromises even when he says otherwise. It is the whole human instrument debate: either the prophet got it imperfectly in his telling, or God was speaking to children and feeding them liquids instead of solids (1 Cor 3:2-4), in other words, he loves them so much that he maturely demands they at least commit his money to the bankers, when in fact no one makes such demands of free children but only of adult servants (Mt 25:14).

In my opinion, which as you can see is addled on many matters, many Jews renounce gospel because they cannot comprehend freedom amidst slavery to Christ. They are living off the good name of Jesus, who was a Jew by birth. But we too live by that same name of Christ, don’t we? For as long a time as people know that Jesus was a Jewish man, the Jews of this present time will always have ***the argument ***to clemency and indulgence on account of their heritage and their holocausts. Such is embedded in the logic of our spirituality and cannot be changed. How that bears out for them temporally is entirely another issue. Perhaps Christianity represents to those of uninformed naivete a maturity they do not want, preferring, as it might be, to remain free children with no awareness or culpability. A garden of Eden fantasy.

 

[meltzerboy]

Did you know that almost ALL Chasidic Jews are not zionists, and many are actively anti-zionist? Did you know they have always believed this way, for religious reasons? Did you know that it was the normal state of affairs until modern times, for Orthodox Jews to be non-zionists?

Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism; it is a manmade political philosophy, first developed by nonreligious and even antireligious Jews.

Did you know that? How odd that today, the secular Jews with the secular philosophy are somehow turned into the “real” Jews!

Mainly the Haredi Litvish (Neturei Karta) Jews–who are a different sect compared to the Haredi Chasidic–are in opposition to Zionism. Among the Chasidic, the Satmar Jews are also in opposition to Zionism, but other Chasidic Jews are not in opposition. Non-Chasidic Traditional Orthodox and Modern Orthodox Jews are supportive of Zionism’s role in the formation of the Jewish State. I’m not sure where the Karaite Jews stand. I agree that Zionism is a political philosophy and not a religious branch of Judaism. However, many anti-Semites–unlike the Satmar Chasidic and Litvish–don’t make these fine distinctions between politics and religion, and their opposition to Zionism is often motivated by their inherent anti-Semitism.

 

[meltzerboy]

The last time any Pope spoke ex cathedra was 1950, when the Dogma of the Assumption was declared. Popes are only considered infallible when explaining a dogma and informing the Church that it must be fully believed. Popes do that very, very rarely.

Nothing in Vatican II was spoken ex cathedra.

These are the only times in history when Popes spoke ex cathedra:

1.“Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
2.Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
3.Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
4.Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
5.Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
6.Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
7.Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

You seem desirous of having Catholics accept what came out of V2, but what about the pronouncements of Church councils before that? Or is it only because some of the documents to emerge from V2 were favorable to Jews?

As for me, I am not a Protestant or an Orthodox Christian. I am a baptized Roman Catholic of Jewish birth and upbringing.

And if you want to know why a lot of Christians (and Jewish Christians like me) have issues with the idea of being asked to love the antics of people who hate our Faith, this is one example of why: (NOTE: profanity in this video; watch with caution)

youtube.com/watch?v=6Ek5G6337yU

No, you should not love the antics of people who hate your faith, and neither should I love the antics of people who hate my faith. The behavior should be condemned in fact. But the people themselves who commit the behavior? What ever became of love the sinner, hate the sin? And attributing almost universal guilt to the Jewish people as a whole (those who did/do not accept Jesus as G-d) is, I believe, not very Christian-like in either spirit or theology.

Thanks for the information on ex cathedra pronouncements.

 

[Kaninchen]

I’m not denying that happened. The point I am making is that POPES did not order these things to be done, CATHOLIC MONARCHS did, and Popes often opposed their actions.

However you spin it, the Head of the Inquisition, appointed by the Pope told them to do it. Yes, they did it, yes they were told to.

 

[John7]

youtube.com/watch?v=6Ek5G6337yU

as for the enflamed person above, on the video:

typical antiChristian
digusting and not too bright

1 Thess 2:14-16 the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus,
and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God,
and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles
that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come
upon them to the uttermost.

Hi Zhenia,
Just wondering, how as Catholics should we look on these verses?
Are they outdated? Do you think they contribute to antisemitism as
some also purport John’s writings do? Should we not mention them
for fear of being labeled an antisemite. Is Paul inherently antisemitic?
I don’t believe so. Paul loved his countrymen…

Romans 9:3
For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ
for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: