No Conversion of Jews?

[CarolsDaughter]

If the post V2 church feels Jews are OK without becoming Catholic, how does that square with Augustine’s replacement theology, that the church is the “new Israel”?

There are still Protestant groups which believe that, even though the Pentecostal groups generally don’t.

Speaking as a Jew, I feel that the replacement theology belief, though currently not politically correct, fits in more with what the Christian testament actually SAYS. Not that I want Christians to adhere to Augustine’s belief, but truthfully, it DOES fit more with what the NT actually says.

And as horrible as this may sound, so does the belief in collective guilt for the crucifixion. Matthew does have the Jews saying, “His blood be on us and upon our children”. However, we can’t be sure those Jews actually did say that, because IMO the NT was written after Jesus died, and when I read it, as a Jew, it reads like a 1st century infomercial for a new, struggling religion…so I’m not sure how much of it I regard as accurate anyway.

But there it is, I said it.

 

[Walking_Home]

Our Lord Jesus Christ brought the old covenant to fulfillment—He ended it—and in its place is the New Covenant. To believe the old covenant is still in effect—is to make our Lord into nothing other than a some sort of prophet and Not Lord and Savior—Not God.

 

[PPIX]

the Church’s current stance on Judaism suggests that Christ was not necessary. In fact, if salvation can be found through following the Old Covenant, then why did Christ come? Did Israel need a redeemer or not?

For this reason I see the prayer for Jews to grow in their covenant as being outside of Tradition.

Very true. Read St. John Chrysostom’s comments on Paul’s Letter to the Romans Chapter 11:

newadvent.org/fathers/210218.htm (begins midway through the page)

newadvent.org/fathers/210219.htm

It will take a couple of hours though.

 

[PPIX]

While Muslims believe in God. So what? They do not believe that the Trinity created the world. They do not believe in the Son of God. Is Islam a false religion or not?

From NOSTRA AETATE:

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Is this paragraph declarative? Is it something all Catholics must believe? Or is it like a encyclopedia, where Nostra Aetate is simply stating what Mohammedans believe, devoid of the teachings of the Catholic Church?

 

[Sure]

"

:
That is a call to conversion?
"

That is a call for conversion?
Sure, I know that you want Nostrae Aetate to be in line with traditional Church teaching but what a stretch. Using the word ‘burden’ is a call to conversion? Why not just call for conversion? No need to masked it in ambiguity.

What aligns perfectly with current teaching? That all religions are true?

No.

Perhaps, the reason why they don’t use the word conversion is because they want non-catholics to read this and become engaged in looking into the truth. This is common sense. If I walk up to a Mormon and say, “Hi, I want to convert you” I won’t get very far. If I walk up to him and say, “Do you believe in God?” I might actually open some lines of communication that could result in his CONVERSION.

It seems that you read these documents with a predisposition that they are OPPOSED to tradition. And Yes, I probably read them with a bias that they are in ACCORD with tradition. But then, that’s how we’re supposed to read them.

Happy Easter!

 

[SemperFidelis]

I think all my “Traditional” Catholic friends need to read and understand what the Church teaches about Judaism…and maybe read a bit of the New Testament as well, where Paul tells us the Call and Promise of God are Irrevocable (as regards the Covenant),

Or perhaps you should read the following before spouting off and accusing traditional Catholics of heresy:
The Council of Florence:

It [the Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation.

or this:
Pope Ven. Pius XII:

And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area – He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom. (Mystici Corporis, #29).

or this:
Pope Benedict XIV:

The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel. (Ex Cum Primum, #61)

or this:
Pope Benedict XVI:

By their mere existence, the Twelve [Jews] – called from different backgrounds – have become a summons to all Israel to conversion and to allow themselves to be reunited in a new covenant, full and perfect accomplishment of the old. By entrusting to them the task of celebrating his memorial in the Supper, before his passion, Jesus shows that he wanted to transfer to the entire community, in the person of its heads, the commandment of being a sign and instrument of the eschatological assembly begun by him.

or this: (Many Religions, One Covenant)
Pope Benedict XVI:

What strikes us first of all is that Paul makes a firm disjunction between the covenant in Christ and the Mosaic covenant; this is how we usually understand the difference between the “Old” and the “New” Covenant….In 2 Corinthians [3:4-18], Paul sets these two in diametrical opposition: the former is transitory; the latter abides perpetually. Transience is a characteristic of the Mosaic covenant.

again:
Pope Benedict XVI:

God, according to the Prophet, will replace the broken Sinai covenant with a New Covenant that cannot be broken….The conditional covenant [the Mosaic Covenant], which depended on man’s faithful observance of the Law, is replaced by the unconditional covenant [the New Covenant] in which God binds himself irrevocably.

and again:

The Old Covenant is conditional: since it depends on the keeping of the Law….By contrast, the covenant sealed in the Last Supper…is not a contract with conditions but the gift of friendship, irrevocably bestowed.

and clearly for everybody:

Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded.

Or these scripture verses:

2 Cor 3:14-16, Heb. 7:18-19, Heb. 8:7-8, Heb. 10:9, Gal 3:10-11, Gal 5:3-4

 

[jeanannemarie]

Maria, Are you including Orthodox Judaism in your definition of a “false religion”?

I would never think to declare Roman Catholicism a “false religion”, because although I believe Jews have an obligation to keep Torah (and therefore, Catholicism would be a “false religion” FOR JEWS), I would never call it that for Gentiles wishing to become Catholic.

As much as I admire traditional religions and dislike liberalized versions of them, I do think that mentalities that say 'we’re right and you’re wrong" contributed much to the hate that has been sadly propagated in the name of religion for many centuries.

Dialogue and ecumenism (both of which I have been actively involved in for decades) should not be about conversion but about understanding. Coming as I do from a family that is Jewish on one side and Catholic on the other, I have a special interest in trying to further Jewish-Catholic mutual understanding.

However, I am a traditionalist in other ways, in that I feel it was very wrong for the Catholic church to modernize as they did after Vatican 2. Just as I dislike those who seek to distort and corrupt Judaism by watering it down (as reform Jews do), I disliked when they did it in Catholicism also.

I have been reading thru these posts from everyone with great interest. Some of you then, do not believe that there is a single Truth? I would not be Catholic if I did not believe that there is one Truth.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

If the post V2 church feels Jews are OK without becoming Catholic, how does that square with Augustine’s replacement theology, that the church is the “new Israel”?

There are still Protestant groups which believe that, even though the Pentecostal groups generally don’t.

Speaking as a Jew, I feel that the replacement theology belief, though currently not politically correct, fits in more with what the Christian testament actually SAYS. Not that I want Christians to adhere to Augustine’s belief, but truthfully, it DOES fit more with what the NT actually says.

And as horrible as this may sound, so does the belief in collective guilt for the crucifixion.

CarolsDaughter,

I’ve been reading some of your posts and am impressed. The Jews, who are the chosen people according to the flesh, were given a lot of natural gifts - much more so than Gentiles. I’ve been able to see this in you. The Jews are, after all, the “natural branches”. When they become Catholics, they are usually some of the best.

Have you ever visited this website? salvationisfromthejews.com I think you might find it interesting.

 

[stmaria]

=Sure;3459934]

Perhaps, the reason why they don’t use the word conversion is because they want non-catholics to read this and become engaged in looking into the truth

.
Non Catholics and especially non-christians will read *Nostra Aetate *and believe that they are fine right where they are. No need for conversion since they can reach “supreme illumination”
in their false religion

This is common sense. If I walk up to a Mormon and say, “Hi, I want to convert you” I won’t get very far. If I walk up to him and say, “Do you believe in God?” I might actually open some lines of communication that could result in his CONVERSION.

O.K… It has been over 40 years since the writing of Nostra Aetate. Isn’t it about time that the dialogue has gotten around to conversion? How many souls have been lost over the last 40 years because of this “dialogue”?

It seems that you read these documents with a predisposition that they are OPPOSED to tradition. And Yes, I probably read them with a bias that they are in ACCORD with tradition. But then, that’s how we’re supposed to read them.

I am trying to read them in the light of Tradition and I don’t believe it can be done. It is a very misleading document. Even the Jews have taken* Nostra Aetate to mean that they do not need to convert.*
bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/interreligious/ncs_usccb120802.htm
The Roman Catholic reflections describe the growing respect for the Jewish tradition that has unfolded **since the Second Vatican Council. A deepening Catholic appreciation of the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people, together with a recognition of a divinely-given mission to Jews to witness to God’s faithful love, lead to the conclusion that campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.
The gifts brought by the Holy Spirit to the Church through the Second Vatican Council’s declaration Nostra Aetate **continue to unfold. The decades since its proclamation in 1965 have witnessed a steady rapprochement between the Roman Catholic Church and the Jewish people. …**Nostra Aetate **also inspired a series of magisterial instructions, including three documents prepared by the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews…
This work inspired by Nostra Aetate has involved interfaith dialogue, collaborative educational ventures, and joint theological and historical research by Catholics and Jews. It will continue into the new century… Nostra Aetate initiated this thinking by citing Romans 11:28-29 and describing the Jewish people as "very dear to God, for the sake of the patriarchs, since God does not take back the gifts he bestowed or the choice he made."1 John Paul II has explicitly taught that Jews are “the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God,” "the present-day people of the covenant concluded with Moses,"and “partners in a covenant of eternal love which was never revoked.”
The post-Nostra Aetate Catholic recognition of the permanence of the Jewish people’s covenant relationship to God has led to a new positive regard for the post-biblical or rabbinic Jewish tradition that is unprecedented in Christian history
…Prof. Tommaso Federici examined the missiological implications of Nostra Aetate. He argued on historical and theological grounds that there should be in the Church no organizations of any kind dedicated to the conversion of Jews. This has over the ensuing years been the de facto practice of the Catholic Church.
As Cardinal Kasper noted, "God’s grace, which is the grace of Jesus Christ according to our faith, is available to all. Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises
Thus, while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges **that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant **with God. …However, it now recognizes that Jews are also called by God to prepare the world for God’s kingdom. Their witness to the kingdom, which did not originate with the Church’s experience of Christ crucified and raised, **must not be curtailed **by seeking the **conversion of the Jewish people to Christianity. **

 

[CarolsDaughter]

CarolsDaughter,

I’ve been reading some of your posts and am impressed. The Jews, who are the chosen people according to the flesh, were given a lot of natural gifts - much more so than Gentiles. I’ve been able to see this in you. The Jews are, after all, the “natural branches”. When they become Catholics, they are usually some of the best.

Have you ever visited this website? salvationisfromthejews.com I think you might find it interesting.

Yes, I’m familiar with that website. I’m also familiar with the Drogins (Remnant of Israel), the late Father Klyber, Edith Stein Guild, Assn of Hebrew Catholics, as well as all the Protestant groups seeking to deprive Jews of our birthright as Jews.

Maybe you should check out my profile. I’ve been a Jewish countermissionary for about 30 years, which of course requires that I know the NT and Christian teachings often better than Christians do themselves.

Let me tell you a little secret that Gentiles in churches (esp. Catholic) might not be aware of.

In times past (before V2), when both Jews and Catholics were generally far more familiar with the teachings of their faiths, the only time Jews converted away from Judaism (usu. to Catholicism) was when they saw something to be gained from it…either financial (better standard of living), to avoid persecution (think: Marranos), or because for some reason they wanted to spite the Jewish community (think: Rabbi Zolli from Italy.) I find that in past times, the church such Jews usually chose was the Catholic one…this is because they see that church as having more ‘shock appeal’ if their aim is to be a shmad le’hakhis (apostate for spite.) This was due to the very obviously non-Jewish aspects of Catholicism (statues, belief in transubstantiation, Mary’s perpetual virginity, etc) Protestants churches were not seen as being AS “goyish” (Gentilized), hence less shock appeal.

In more modern times when Jews convert out, its often because they were almost completely ignorant of genuine Judaism. I have met MANY Jews who have converted to Christianity (all forms) in my life, and without exception they were Jewishly ignorant prior to their conversions. Curiously, they only seem to become “Jewish” AFTER their conversion, no doubt because they see it as a way to snare other Jews into doing what they did. I find that in more modern times, when the motive of a Jew is less shock appeal/spite and more just plain ignorance of Judaism, they tend to gravitate toward “messianic” groups because they enable them to still “feel Jewish” (whatever that means), yet have a new belief that seems to give them a deeper spirituality than cultural Judaism.

 

[Yerusalyim]

I would like to suggest that you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is the current understanding of the Church on these matters. Unless you have a degree in thse issues I doubt any of us here are competent authority to interpret what the Fathers of the Church said on this issue and you lean on your own understanding of it.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I would like to suggest that you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is the current understanding of the Church on these matters. Unless you have a degree in thse issues I doubt any of us here are competent authority to interpret what the Fathers of the Church said on this issue and you lean on your own understanding of it.

Does the CCC clarify what the word covenant it is referring to? Perhaps, you have misunderstood not only the perennial teaching of the Church regarding the Old Covenant, but also the current “teaching.” I don’t think Pope Benedict XVI could get any clearer than saying the “Sinai [Mosaic] Covenant is indeed superceded [replaced].” Maybe you should put into context what the CCC is referring to in paragraph 121. It’s talking about the Old Testament, not the Mosiac Covenant. Covenant and Testament are interchangeable when referring to the actual books of the Old Testament. This is not to be confused with the actual Old Covenant itself (which could be one of many covenants, but is commonly used in referring to the Mosaic Covenant.) Read this for clarification on paragraph 121 of the CCC, courtesy of Dr. Robert Sungenis:

catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/pastoral/ccc-heresy1.htm

 

[Yerusalyim]

Semper,

I won’t reproduce it here because of time issues, however, if you see the seperate post started by Pax Caritas you’ll see from the CCC what the Church says about the Mosaic Law.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

SemperFidelis:

Nice post.

 

[CarolsDaughter]

I don’t know why, but I have a hard time grasping what post-V2 documents are saying. I have a much easier time of it with pre-V2 documents, encyclicals, writings, etc

Ditto for the writings of liberal (reform) rabbis as opposed to those of traditional (Orthodox) rabbis, and the writings of mainline liberal Protestants as opposed to Protestant fundamentalists.

 

[Genesis315]

I think we need to distinguish the difference between evagelization and “poslytism” as the Church defines it:
the recent doc from the CDF on evangelization:

The term proselytism originated in the context of Judaism, in which the term proselyte referred to someone who, coming from the gentiles, had passed into the Chosen People. So too, in the Christian context, the term proselytism was often used as a synonym for missionary activity. More recently, however, the term has taken on a negative connotation, to mean the promotion of a religion by using means, and for motives, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel; that is, which do not safeguard the freedom and dignity of the human person.

That same document also notes a common error:

1. There is today, however, a growing confusion which leads many to leave the missionary command of the Lord unheard and ineffective (cf. Mt 28:19). Often it is maintained that any attempt to convince others on religious matters is a limitation of their freedom. From this perspective, it would only be legitimate to present one’s own ideas and to invite people to act according to their consciences, without aiming at their conversion to Christ and to the Catholic faith.

This whole text is a good treatment of this subject:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20071203_nota-evangelizzazione_en.html

Pope Benedict in an audience not too long ago affirmed the call for Jews to convert:
Benedict XVI:

In choosing the Twelve, introducing them into a communion of life with himself and involving them in his mission of proclaiming the Kingdom in words and works (cf. Mk 6: 7-13; Mt 10: 5-8; Lk 9: 1-6; 6: 13), Jesus wants to say that the definitive time has arrived in which to constitute the new People of God, the people of the 12 tribes, which now becomes a universal people, his Church.

Appeal for Israel

With their very own existence, the Twelve - called from different backgrounds - become an appeal for all of Israel to convert and allow herself to be gathered into the new covenant, complete and perfect fulfilment of the ancient one.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060315_en.html

 

[SemperFidelis]

I don’t know why, but I have a hard time grasping what post-V2 documents are saying. I have a much easier time of it with pre-V2 documents, encyclicals, writings, etc

You hit the nail on the head here. Unfortunately it’s sad that even those outside the Church can see the kind of plague many post-Vatican II documents have been. This unfortunately includes even some Vatican II documents.