judaism

[Oneofthewomen]

The fact that you do not understand that this was wrong shows that your faith has already been damaged.

I am not saying this to offend you (although I suspect that it will) but I am too tired to think of a tactful way to tell you this. I am sorry if it upsets you but I believe this needs to be said.

Not offended, but saddened.

Your presumptions are of me and my faith are exactly what makes me crazy about some of the so-called “traditionalists” I run into.

I am a student of theology.
You cannot take away the fact that the Liturgy of the Word
has it’s roots in a Jewish synagogue service.

The first Christians, for the most part were Jews,
they would have worshipped the way they knew how,
adding new rituals (i.e. the Eucharist) to expand on their new beliefs.

This is history. I am sorry to burst your bubble, but the Last Supper was not an EF Mass, in Latin, with all the bells & smells. Our faith and traditions grew out of the faith and traditions of the Jewish people, and to deny that, IMHO, is to deny Christ.

 

[floresco]

I am a student of theology.
You cannot take away the fact that the Liturgy of the Word
has it’s roots in a Jewish synagogue service.

The first Christians, for the most part were Jews,
they would have worshipped the way they knew how,
adding new rituals (i.e. the Eucharist) to expand on their new beliefs.

This is history. I am sorry to burst your bubble, but the Last Supper was not an EF Mass, in Latin, with all the bells & smells. Our faith and traditions grew out of the faith and traditions of the Jewish people, and to deny that, IMHO, is to deny Christ.

I have a Masters degree in theology which included studying Hebrew and Hebrew Scripture. My opinions are not based on ignorance. I know far more than most people about the history of Judaism and the influence of Jewish worship on Catholic worship. But this history is not relevant to the question of whether Catholics should attend religious services of non-Catholics.

Only a few decades ago every Catholic school child knew that this was wrong. Even today, children who are educated with traditional catechetical materials understand this. It is a fairly simple concept that does not require study of theology. Because we value our Catholic faith and believe it to be true, we do not put ourselves in a position to be taught things that are false and contrary to our faith. And if you think that modern Judaism does not contain things that are contrary to the Catholic faith, you had better continue your studies.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

This is history. I am sorry to burst your bubble, but the Last Supper was not an EF Mass, in Latin, with all the bells & smells. Our faith and traditions grew out of the faith and traditions of the Jewish people, and to deny that, IMHO, is to deny Christ.

Are you familiar with How Christ Said the First Mass? This is a good book about the development and history of the liturgy that is not influenced by the modern-day Judaisers.

 

[Genesis315]

This seems skeptical, and if it doesn’t need to be revised, it certainly is confusing. There needs to be a clear explanation that the Jews no longer have any hope of salvation without converting.

It’s not really confusing at all. See Romans 9:4-5.

That’s nice but not relevant to a dogmatic constitution. It is about doctrine, not history. It’s nice that they were of the Jewish race. The question is not about the Jewish race but Judaism (more properly, Talmudism, as Judaism no longer exists but has been superseded by the Church).

It is definitely relevant to a passage discussing the relationship between Jews and Christians. It shows how the Church sprung forth from and is a continuation of the chosen people of the OT–it’s the same root.

Um, source? Did the Council Fathers create this out of thin air? Far from this, the vast, vast majority of theologians till this time said precisely the opposite.

Of course not. It’s from Romans 11:28. St. Thomas explains this well (see below).

This is exceptionally unclear at best, if not a complete contradiction of the teaching of the Church that the Jews cannot be saved without converting to the one true Church outside of which no one can be saved.

It’s a direct quote from Scripture. Rom. 11:29. Again, see St. Thomas below.

This is one theological opinion. There will not necessarily be a mass-conversion of Jews at the end of time.

It’s taught by the Angelic Doctor (again see below)–I don’t think its wrong for an ecumenical Council to adopt that doctrine.

“So great” is an overstatement. “Mutual understanding”? Do you mean that we each understand what the other believes? It seems to imply an equality: “We understand each other and ‘respect’ each other, i.e., we’re both fine as we are.” This may be the fruit of false oecumenical dialogue, but it is not the fruit of true oecumenism.

Obstacles preventing conversion or leading to certain enmities are often not based on truths but misunderstanding and myths. Is it not a good thing to eliminate these? Similarly, Catholics and Jews should give each other basic human respect–which has not always been the case (by members of both religions).

The opposite of this statement is certainly the consensus of theologians. I simply disagree with this statement. I will continue to say with St. Paul: “the Jews, Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men” (I. Thess. ii. 14-15).

In the context of that verse, he is speaking of those who were persecuting Christians at the time. A Jewish person who dies without faith or repentence will be punished for his own sins, not those of his ancestors.

Ditto. Re-read I. Thess. from above, along with the plethora of Old Testament prophicies frequently mentioned by theologians as prefigurments of the Jews. Consider also the destruction of the temple, the Diaspora, etc. “Adversaries to all men”–that’s pretty strong. Sounds almost like a curse.

This statement is directed to those who would portray the Jews as no longer dear to God, that the promises He made to them have been revoked, or that their covenantal relationship with God ruptured on their part by infidelity, is not reparable–thus discounting the promise of God that they will all be saved in the end (some being saved before that as well). St. Thomas refutes the same people. See below.

Um, define persecution.

You seemed pretty clear on the meaning of this word when you quoted Scripture using it.

Define anti-Semitism. I hate the false religion of Talmudism. Is that wrong?

It’s hatred of the people–hatred of any man is a mortal sin, but hatred of Jews in particular was common in the decades preceding Vatican II. Anyway, St. Ephrem puts it poetically: “If you should insult the King’s image, you shall pay the penalty of murder; and if you revile a man, you revile the image of God.” (Sermon on Admonition and Repentence).

That’s true, but it’s also true that Christ couldn’t kill himself. “The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born.”

Right, but some Jewish guy in the 21st century didn’t literally kill Him just like I, a descendant of Romans, did not literally kill Him (although my sins are an ultimate cause of His death.).

To clear up the misunderstandings you’ve presented, and to see the Scriptural and doctrinal justification for these statements by Vatican II, read paragraphs 915-932 of St. Thomas’ commentary on Romans found here:

aquinas.avemaria.edu/Aquinas_on_Romans.pdf

(it starts on page 454)

I hope that helps!

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Of course not. It’s from Romans 11:28. St. Thomas explains this well (see below).

It’s a direct quote from Scripture. Rom. 11:29. Again, see St. Thomas below.

I assume you’ve read the link you sent me. He is speaking of the Jews who convert at the end of time, not the Jews who are currently alive. Consider 923 (and 922). From 923: “For if they are dear to God, it is reasonable that they be saved by God,” yet they are not saved who do not convert. The use of the passage in Nostra Aetate leads to a misunderstanding of this.

It’s taught by the Angelic Doctor (again see below)–I don’t think its wrong for an ecumenical Council to adopt that doctrine.

I didn’t mean to insinuate that it was false or that I disagreed with it. I was just posing possible objections. Someone asked me why I wouldn’t start with Nostra Aetate to know what the Church teaches about Judaism.

Similarly, Catholics and Jews should give each other basic human respect–which has not always been the case

In this you are right, for you must be familiar with the immense number of children Jews have crucified throughout history, many of whom are included in the Martyrology.

In the context of that verse, he is speaking of those who were persecuting Christians at the time. A Jewish person who dies without faith or repentence will be punished for his own sins, not those of his ancestors.

That is one interpretation. Another is that they have a certain inherited guilt that they must repent of by conversion. Lacking this, they will suffer more greatly in hell for this added sin of unfaithfulness to the promises they made to God through their forefathers (who are the reason for their election, which St. Thomas also explains).

This statement is directed to those who would portray the Jews as no longer dear to God, that the promises He made to them have been revoked, or that their covenantal relationship with God ruptured on their part by infidelity

All of that is true with regard to those who do not convert.

You seemed pretty clear on the meaning of this word when you quoted Scripture using it.

Yes, but modern man uses the word differently. A lot of assumption are included in such a word. For example, people today would say that the Jewish ghettos were a persecution. This is not the case.

It’s hatred of the people–hatred of any man is a mortal sin, but hatred of Jews in particular was common in the decades preceding Vatican II.

“Have I not hated them, O Lord, that hated thee?” (Ps. 138. 21.) This passage presents a perfect example of why it was entirely ridiculous for NA to quote from Romans as it did without providing an explanation. If someone were to say: “We can’t presume that we are supposed to hate sin and love the sinner because look at Ps. 138,” without any explanation, he would be doing the scripture a grave injustice and confusing everyone who heard him.

Right, but some Jewish guy in the 21st century didn’t literally kill Him just like I, a descendant of Romans, did not literally kill Him (although my sins are an ultimate cause of His death.).

The Jews had (and have) a greater culpability than the Romans, not only in the execution of the plot but also insofar as they rejected the promises of God.

 

[Joe_5859]

It appears Genesis315 already went point for point on your response, IntegraCatholic.

In any case, do you have a better source of information on the subject, preferably one of magisterial origin?

 

[IntegraCatholic]

It appears Genesis315 already went point for point on your response, IntegraCatholic.

Unfortunately, not entirely satisfactorily. The fact that the document is unclear is another reason it is not to be recommended.

In any case, do you have a better source of information on the subject, preferably one of magisterial origin?

St. John Chrysostom’s sermons on the Jews.

 

[Joe_5859]

Unfortunately, not entirely satisfactorily. The fact that the document is unclear is another reason it is not to be recommended.

It seems clear enough to me.

St. John Chrysostom’s sermons on the Jews.

That’s not exactly magisterial, though.

Are those sermons online? NewAdvent.org has loads of his homilies online (newadvent.org/fathers/), but I don’t see a category of homilies on the Jews. Did he simply talk about the Jews in another series of homilies?

 

[IntegraCatholic]

That’s not exactly magisterial, though.

Are those sermons online? NewAdvent.org has loads of his homilies online (newadvent.org/fathers/), but I don’t see a category of homilies on the Jews. Did he simply talk about the Jews in another series of homilies?

That’s true, it’s not (to some extent… some of his sermons * and those of St. Augustine concerning the Jews are included in the divine office, which–to me, at least–is better than a Magisterial pastoral discussion of the issue. I will continue to interpret NA in light of Tradition and, where that’s impossible, simply ignore it, for it doesn’t seem to bind in conscience, being merely a discussion of the topic.)

Here is a link to the sermons: fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html.

Here is what St. Augustine has to say, which the Church has required all priests and religious bound to the office to say on Good Friday, perhaps the most important liturgical day of the year. It certainly is the most vivid (sixth lesson):

Exacuerunt tamquam gladium linguas suas. Non dicant Judæi : Non occidimus Christum. Etenim propterea eum dederunt judici Pilato, ut quasi ipsi a morte ejus viderentur immunes. Nam cum dixisset eis Pilatus : Vos eum occidite : responderunt, Nobis non licet occidere quemquam. Iniquitatem facinoris sui in judicem hominem refundere volebant : sed numquid Deum judicem fallebant? Quod fecit Pilatus, in eo ipso quod fecit, aliquantum particeps fuit : sed in comparatione illorum multo ipse innocentior. Institit enim quantum potuit, ut illum ex eorum manibus liberaret : nam propterea flagellatum produxit ad eos. Non persequendo Dominum flagellavit, sed eorum furori satisfacere volens : ut vel sic jam mitescerent, et desinerent velle occidere, cum flagellatum viderent. Fecit et hoc. At ubi perseveraverunt, nostis illum lavisse manus, et dixisse, quod ipse non fecisset, mundum se esse a morte illius. Fecit tamen. Sed si reus, quia fecit vel invitus : illi innocentes, qui coëgerunt ut faceret? Nullo modo. Sed ille dixit in eum sententiam, et jussit eum crucifigi, et quasi ipse occidit : et vos, o Judæi, occidistis. Unde occidistis? Gladio linguæ : acuistis enim linguas vestras. Et quando percussistis, nisi quando clamastis : Crucifige, crucifige?

They have whet their tongue like a sword. Let not the Jews say : We did not kill Christ. [He is speaking to Christians who ought not to let Jews at that time, hundreds of years after the death of Christ, say that they did not kill him.] For they delivered him up to Pilate’s tribunal in order that they should themselves seem innocent of his death. Thus when Pilate said to them : Take ye him, and crucify him : they answered : It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. So it was that they sought to cast the guilt of their crime upon a human judge: but by this could they deceive God the Judge? What Pilate did, made him perforce in some sort partaker of their crime. But in comparison with them, he was by far more innocent. For he did what he could to rescue him out of their hands, and therefore ordered him to be scourged and brought before them. That is to say, not by way of persecution did he scourge the Lord, but as wishing to satisfy their rage, that when they saw him scourged, they might relent, and cease to desire his death. Nevertheless he did do it. But if we hold him to be guilty who did it against his will, shall they be innocent who did force him to do it? By no means. Pilate did pronounce sentence on him, and commanded him to be crucified, and so in some wise it might be said that he did kill him. But O ye, his own Jewish people, ye in full truth did kill him. And how did ye kill him? With the sword of the tongue. For like a sword ye whet your tongue. And when did ye strike the blow, but when ye cried out : Crucify him, crucify him?

Notice how he continually uses “you,” speaking to the Jews of his day. They, too, are guilty of whetting their tongues against Christ by continuing this day in their fathers’ sin, by following their Talmudic religion that blasphemes our Lord, calls him a devil, among hundreds of other offenses against the holy faith. They are enemies to God and all men.*

 

[patrick457]

Why not?
Jesus did!

I have attended synagogue services with friends,
and have found that they have given me a lot of insight,
and a different perspective on liturgy.
It in no way "endangered" my faith.

In fact, I find myself much more appreciative of the origins of the catholic liturgy,
now that I have seen how Jesus and the apostles worshipped.

Well, from a historical POV, synagogue services were still in a pretty much flexible form during the time of Jesus, so one can debate as to how similar these were with the ones being held today. We must remember that a good number of modern-day ‘Jewish’ stuff only developed and crystallized in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple and the shift towards the rabbis, so we shouldn’t automatically think that Rabbinic Judaism today is similar to the manifold ‘Judaisms’ of the Second Temple period.

• Finally, we must also remember that the term synagogue (from Greek synagogē ‘a bringing together’), like the term church (ekklēsia), originally referred NOT to the building, but to the gathering of people who meet in that edifice.

 

[patrick457]

Catholics are the spiritual descendants of the Israelites, the promises of God to Israel where fulfilled by Christ and the Jews became Catholics, the Pharisees however continued to deny Christ and went on to become the people who today are most commonly referred to as Jews.

Good point. That said, Rabbinic Judaism is not the WHOLE of the Jewish people, since we need to take into consideration Karaite Jews (who never accepted it anyway, if we take the opinion that they have an early origin) and Ethiopian Jews (who are too far off in the south to be even influenced by this thing). And if we use ‘Jewish’ as a synonym for ‘Israelite’, we’ll also have to include Samaritans into the mix (they reject the term Yehudim for themselves, however)*. It is certainly the majority, but the idea that “each and every ‘Jew’ worldwide subscribes to rabbinic Judaism” is a flatout error.

• Which brings us into another trivia: the Talmudic attitude towards Samaritans is that they are to be treated as Jews in matters where their practice coincides with the ‘mainstream’ but are treated as non-Jews where their practice differs.

 

[patrick457]

Yes He did, and He taught Christianity there, and they crucified Him for it.

Um, I thought the Romans crucified Jesus for being ‘King of the Judeans’…(that what it says on the placard, right?)
Then again, you’re correct: Jesus ticked off both sides - Jewish and Roman, what with all the talks of “I and the Father are one” (insert cries of ‘blasphemy’ here) and the “Kingdom of God” (in an Empire that already had Caesar).