Opus Dei

[Edward_H]

For one, the Talmud consists of anti-Catholic Jewish writings written after the time of Our Lord once Judaism became a false religion, not recognizing Jesus Christ. A view of work rooted in these writings, seems to raise red flags at the least.

Secondly, how can a Catholic organization justify encouraging people to pursue “vocations” in a false religion that denies Christ?

Well, in my opinion only, we need to be strong enough and confident enough to be open to dialogue across faiths, to respect their freedom; to follow the model of Jesus in His dialogue with pharisees and sadducees, not to shut down charitable conversations, not to maintain a hermetically sealed world of conversation. Far from that.

Cardinal George’s book “The Difference God Makes” is (so far, 1/2 of the way through it) provides a great set of points about dialog, all without diluting our faith or hold of Truth.

Regarding vocations, again the point is freedom. If our children leave the faith when they grow up, we don’t shut down conversation, and we certainly don’t try to deny their freedom, which is God given, not our given.

 

[JReducation]

For one, the Talmud consists of anti-Catholic Jewish writings written after the time of Our Lord once Judaism became a false religion, not recognizing Jesus Christ. A view of work rooted in these writings, seems to raise red flags at the least.

Secondly, how can a Catholic organization justify encouraging people to pursue “vocations” in a false religion that denies Christ?

The same way that among the best biblical scholars and professors at our major Pontifical universities in Rome are Jewish Rabbis and some have been given honorary membership and one full membership in Catholic Orders, by papal mandate. Some major scholars in rabbinical schools are Catholic exegetes.

Rabbi Klonicke (or something like that), who recently died, was the top Vatican scholar on Carmelite spirituality and Pope Benedict made him the first non-Catholic member of the Order of St. Gregory, the most prestigious Catholic order of thoelogians. They’re like the Knights of Columbus for theologians.

This competition between Judaism and Catholicism exists in the mind of the laity, not in the mind of the papacy or the Vatican. It is one thing to embrace Judaism and quite another thing to embrace Jewish people, Jewish leadership and Jewish scholarship. The Church acknowledges Judaism, not as a false religion, but as our ancestors in the faith. That position (false religion) was never a doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church. It was a position commonly heald by many throughout history, but not part of our canon of faith. There were other reasons for that position. The greatest of all had to do with economics and security at a time when Jewry was very powerful in Christian Europe and it was feared that Christians would succumb to becoming Jewish as a means to achieve economic prosperity. A campaign to thwart conversions from Catholicism to Judaism was necessary. That’s no longer the threat today. Secularism does much more harm to both Judaism and Catholicism than Judaism does to Catholicism.

Many holy and scholarly men who worked alongside Jews and Muslims helped today’s Catholic hierarchy, especially the Vatican, learn much more about Jewry than ever before. The list of men who encouraged the Church to take a second look and adopt a softer stance on Judaism includes people as:

Francis of Assisi, who negotiated with the Muslims for the fait treatment of Jews and Christians and introduced many Jewish customs (and some Islamic ones to) into his order

Teresa of Avila, who was of Jewish ancestry and introduced the Jewish rhythm of prayer into Carmelite contemplative life.

Bl. John XXIII, who served as a Rabbi for Jewish children who were trapped on ships that were not allowed to disembark in European ports and worked closely with the Jewish underground during WW II

The Franciscans, who established and ran the Assisi underground during WW II; and negotiated the longest lasting treaty between the Church and Islam and Judaism,
Maximilian Kolbe, who defended the Jews and was arrested for his protest, later released, but arrested again–the only religious superior in town to print a protest in a news paper, led Shabbat services for Jews in hiding, and later gave his life for a Jewish inmate

John Paul II, who as a young man forged baptismal certificates to get Jews out of Poland, doubled as a Rabbi when the Jews needed one

Benedict XVI, whose father was an outspoken defender of the Jews

Teresa Benedicta (Edith Stein), who having been a Jew, wrote a great deal clarifying Jewish mysticism and spirituality that was often misunderstood by the average Catholic

Jose Maria Escriva, who supported the need to protect Judaism from extinction through violence

Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who had excellent relations with Jews and saw them as sons and daughters of the same Father, not as the enemy

When people deal with others as real people, not as concepts, perspectives change and people learn to see the good that can be found in others. These experiences have influenced a reformation of our Catholic thinking about Jewish people and Jewish leaders. They are not all anti-Catholic, but rather are often defensive, because they too had many erroneous preconceived notions about Catholics and Christians in general.

Preconceived notions have two sides. When these notions are built on fear, they can lead to very harsh condemnations and even discrimination on both sides. If we are ever to build a unified Church, we must learn to put aside the hatred, anger and hurt of our ancestors.

We have to learn to deal with the people before us, not with the ones who lived hundreds of years ago. What happened between them was their problem. How often do people throw out there the race card and remind other people that this group enslaved that group? The fact is that you and I have never enslaved anyone and would not do such a thing. Our ancestors did. We have to get past the battles between our ancestors or we will never be able to sit down at a table a discover what we have in common and try to dialogue about our differences.

Evangelization and apologetics is not supposed to be antagonistic. It’s an exposition that invites others to embrace truth. You begin by embracing truth found on both sides of the table. To support a young man whose faith drives him to want to serve God and his people is a good thing. Today, that once young man is now a link between Catholicism and Judaism that was not there before. I would call him a Catholic-Friendly Jew. I’d rather have one of those than one who perpetuates the conflicts of our past.

I trully believe that the strong anti-Jewish sentiment or anti-Muslim sentiment is a remnant from another era and it is more prominent among Protestant leaders.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Student09]

EXCELLENT post, Brother JR!

 

[Archie_Leech]

The Church acknowledges Judaism, not as a false religion, but as our ancestors in the faith. That position (false religion) was never a doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church. It was a position commonly heald by many throughout history, but not part of our canon of faith.

Infallible Teaching of the Catholic Church from the Council of Florence

It firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ’s passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation

.

So you are saying that Opus Dei members were morally justified in encouraging rabbis in some sort of “vocation” (calling by God) to advance further in their false religion (see above) which DENIES Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and leads to eternal damnation?

 

[JReducation]

Infallible Teaching of the Catholic Church from the Council of Florence

.

So you are saying that Opus Dei members were morally justified in encouraging rabbis in some sort of “vocation” (calling by God) to advance further in their false religion (see above) which DENIES Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and leads to eternal damnation?

This prescription was put in place for Catholics, not for Jews. Catholic law is very clear. The Church has no formal jurisdiction outside of its members. Therefore, she cannot anathemize those who are not formally Catholic. Also, the prescription does not use the term “false religion”. This was a term that was in popular use, not canonical. In fact, Pope John Paul II explicitly instructed Catholics not to use such terms as “false” and “heretic”; because they are incorrect and the way that the laity uses it is not the way that the hierarchy and canonists use it. He said that it only aggravates the wounds of the past rather than heal.

We have a choice, we can perpetuate the anger, pain and hostility of our ancestors or we can try something new. Obviously, their method of preserving the faith did not work for either side. Both used horrible methods and both did a great deal of harm to each other. Is this what you want to perpetuate? It’s not what the hierarchy and the papacy of today wants to perpetuate. Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict have been very clear in reminding us that it is time to put aside the past and begin to work on unity. You cannot achieve unity through attacks. You cannot achieve unity by attempting to apply laws to people who are outside of those laws.

The citation that you gave is a disciplinary law, not a dogma. The dogma is still the same, “The fulness of Truth subsists only in the Catholic Church.” This is not to say that there is no truth to be found in any other faith. Where ever there is a search for God, there are shadows of the Truth and even tangible truths.

This is not only the belief of Opus Dei, but also the Church’s current understanding of the dogma. It goes back long before Opus Dei existed. Don’t forget the Treaty of Dalmietta between Francis and the Sultan. Francis promised that his brothers would never attempt to convert the Sultan’s people and the Sultan promised not to persecute the Christians in his region. That treaty was accepted by the Church under Nicholas IV, who was a Franciscan and to this day, it is observed. Evangelization takes place through the ministry of presence, not words that injure, anger, and aggravate old wounds. We need to learn from what works.

Though we may not be able to convert all of Jewry today, we can plant the seed for the future. If you spread salt on the soil, you’ll never see fruits. Offensive words are just that, salt.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Archie_Leech]

This prescription was put in place for Catholics, not for Jews. Catholic law is very clear. The Church has no formal jurisdiction outside of its members. Therefore, she cannot anathemize those who are not formally Catholic.

Those who ascribe to the false religion of Judiasm and deny Christ are already anathematized and outside the Church. The Church was certainly not speaking of Catholics who hold to Judiasm. They would already be apostates. The Council refers to the general practices and beliefs of the Old Covenant which no longer save and the denial of Christ Our Lord.

Also, the prescription does not use the term “false religion”. This was a term that was in popular use, not canonical. In fact, Pope John Paul II explicitly instructed Catholics not to use such terms as “false” and “heretic”; because they are incorrect and the way that the laity uses it is not the way that the hierarchy and canonists use it. He said that it only aggravates the wounds of the past rather than heal.

Judiasm is a false religion whether the term is used or not. The quote I gave from a Council clearly states this religion leads to damnation. It goes beyond “false religion”.

We have a choice, we can perpetuate the anger, pain and hostility of our ancestors or we can try something new. Obviously, their method of preserving the faith did not work for either side. Both used horrible methods and both did a great deal of harm to each other. Is this what you want to perpetuate?

This is insulting to the Church and ridiculous. There were many Jewish conversions in the past as Christ’s Church heeded Christ’s command to go make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. He did not say, “leave your fellow Jews in their darkness to deny me and never know the Truth, they’ll be ok.” True charity demands we attempt to share the Truth with those of false religions so they might be saved. Only hatred would pursue a course to leave them in their faithlessness on a course of damnation.

It’s not what the hierarchy and the papacy of today wants to perpetuate. Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict have been very clear in reminding us that it is time to put aside the past and begin to work on unity. You cannot achieve unity through attacks. You cannot achieve unity by attempting to apply laws to people who are outside of those laws.

The only true unity belongs to Christ and his Church. The only true unity is to try to work for these people’s conversion, not encouraging them in their error. Respect for Jewish individuals and Christian charity towards their person is completely different from condemning the errors of their false religion.

The citation that you gave is a disciplinary law, not a dogma. The dogma is still the same, “The fulness of Truth subsists only in the Catholic Church.” This is not to say that there is no truth to be found in any other faith. Where ever there is a search for God, there are shadows of the Truth and even tangible truths.

The citation I gave is completely dogmatic and doctrinal. It speaks to those who think they can still attain salvation through Judiasm after the time of Christ and after he established His one true Church for salvation.

Though we may not be able to convert all of Jewry today, we can plant the seed for the future. If you spread salt on the soil, you’ll never see fruits.

Why would we have a need to convert any Jew? According to what you have stated they practice a true religion and can be saved by it. How is helping Jews to pursue “vocations” to become rabbis helping them to convert to Catholicism?

Offensive words are just that, salt.

Wishing the conversion of someone so that they may be saved is not “offensive”.

 

[Archie_Leech]

Those who ascribe to the religion of Judiasm and deny Christ are already anathematized and outside the Church. The Church was certainly not speaking of Catholics who hold to Judiasm. They would already be apostates. The Council refers to the general practices and beliefs of the Old Covenant coupled with denial of Christ Our Lord, which no longer saves.

The quote I gave from a Council clearly states this religion leads to damnation.

There were many Jewish conversions in the past as Christ’s Church heeded Christ’s command to go make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. He did not say, “leave your fellow Jews in their darkness to deny me and never know the Truth, they’ll be ok.” True charity demands we attempt to share the Truth with those of other religions so they might be saved. Why would we pursue a course to leave them in their faithlessness on a course of damnation.

The only true unity belongs to Christ and his Church. The only true unity is to try to work for these people’s conversion, not encouraging them in their error. Respect for Jewish individuals and Christian charity towards their person is completely different from condemning the errors of their religion.

The citation I gave is completely dogmatic and doctrinal. It speaks to those who think they can still attain salvation through Judiasm after the time of Christ and after he established His one true Church for salvation.

Why would we have a need to convert any Jew? According to what you have stated they practice a true religion and can be saved by it. How is helping Jews to pursue “vocations” to become rabbis helping them to convert to Catholicism?

Wishing the conversion of someone so that they may be saved is not “offensive”.

 

[Archie_Leech]

Brother, I meant you no disrespect by any of my posts. I’m trying to address ideas, not you personally.

 

[Edward_H]

The tenor of some of the responses here seem a bit hypersensitive and out of breath. The Church takes a far calmer and deeper approach to evangelism. It doesn’t damn out of hand. That’s God’s business.

The Church is here to serve people, help them come to truth on their own, in full freedom and dignity. Not to flame-throw people into corridors of truth.

 

[JReducation]

Brother, I meant you no disrespect by any of my posts. I’m trying to address ideas, not you personally.

I understand what you’re saying and I do not take it personally. Howeaver, I am going to disagree with your interpretation of the following. Allow me to explain why I disagree.

Those who ascribe to the religion of Judiasm and deny Christ are already anathematized and outside the Church. The Church was certainly not speaking of Catholics who hold to Judiasm. They would already be apostates. The Council refers to the general practices and beliefs of the Old Covenant coupled with denial of Christ Our Lord, which no longer saves.

The quote I gave from a Council clearly states this religion leads to damnation. ".

Aside from the fact that we all know that the old laws that the Jewish nation observed in preparation for the comming of the Messiah become obsolete once the covenant is fulfilled, we also know that not every law given to Israel is abrograted (sp does not look right). Anwyway, many of them were carried over into Christianity and many practices as well. Just to name two: The Ten Commandments and the Liturgy of the Hours.

In addition, if the council had dogmatically stated that Judaism leads to damnation then no saint, Vatican II, none of the popes, nor St. Jose Maria, would have been supportive of any Jewish person who practices his or her faith. Obviously, your understanding of the nature of this statement and the understanding that Vatican II, Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, also saints and blesseds such as Maximilian Kolbe, Mother Teresa and Jose Maria differ greatly.

These people did not become saints and blessed for heresy or for leading people to hell. The Vatican II did not set out to lead people to hell. The Church can make prudential judgments, but she cannot lead people to hell. The popes can make prudential judgments, but they cannot teach anything that leads people to hell.

The Church has clearly sated that the Jewish people have not realized the fulfillment of the covenant. She also teaches us that Christ can and does use Juadaism to save and that through some mysterious way that is out of our range of understanding, he does save those who are faithful, even if their communion with the Catholic Church is incomplete or imperfect. Today, more than ever, the Church goes to grat lengths to explain to us the importance of the truths that we share and how the Church makes herself present in other faith communities, even though it may be imperfectly.

What do we have here? Either your undestanding of the nature of this statement is incorrect or these people are incorrect. They all seem to believe that this satement is not a doctrinal decree, but a disciplinary decree to warn Catholics who were converting Judaism and Islam at the time, because it was economically expedient. We have to look at these statements in their historical context and see their intent.

While they may be speaking about a doctrine, the fullness of truth found in Catholicism, they are not condemning those who are not Catholic to hell. The Church does not even have that kind of power. She can’t condemn anyone to hell. She can teach and warn. That’s it. She certainly does not have the power to handcuff Christ and say that he cannot save Jews or Protestants, et al.

Do you see what I’m saying? In light of the fact that your understanding of the nature of this statement: you say its doctrinal and all of these heavy-weights in theology and spirituality say its disciplilnary, in light of this discrepancy, most of us will have to go with the heavy-weights understanding. Jose Maria would never have been canonized had there been any suspiscion of heresy, nor would Mother Teresa or John XX III been beatified. John XXIII, filled in for rabbis during WW II. Maximilian Kolbe is also canonized and he too filled in for rabbis. Neither Pope John or Br. Max were lightweights in theology or very liberal. Both were very orthodox. Today, we see Pope Benedict praying at synagogues with Jews. He encourages their celebrations every year when he sends his greetings for Passover, Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashannah.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[BrotherPaulMary]

Brother JR,

You have forgotten the fact that it is the Opus Dei and the Jesuits who are in cahoots behind the scene that do all kinds of super dodgy stuff. You Know Right!

Br. Paul

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I do not intend to contribute to this thread. I lack the necessary experience and knowledge. I would like to ask you a few questions Br. JR, simply because some of the things you said in Post #2 were contrary to what I believed. I am not saying you are wrong, clearly you are far more experienced in these matters. I would just like to clear up some things. And, please don’t think I am trying to pedantic, I really am trying to learn.

There are four kinds of religious institutes:

May I clarify, do you refer to what the Code of Canon Law calls Institutes of Consecrated Life?

congregations, orders, societies and abbeys.

I thought abbeys were part of orders. I thought there were several types of orders, e.g. mendicant, monastic.

In the Catholic Churches (all 22 of them)

I thought there were 23.

Hermits, monks, friars and clerks regular.

Where do canons regular (e.g. Norbertines) fit in here?

 

[JReducation]

I do not intend to contribute to this thread. I lack the necessary experience and knowledge. I would like to ask you a few questions Br. JR, simply because some of the things you said in Post #2 were contrary to what I believed. I am not saying you are wrong, clearly you are far more experienced in these matters. I would just like to clear up some things. And, please don’t think I am trying to pedantic, I really am trying to learn.

Your questions are valid. I should explain it better. Let me try.

May I clarify, do you refer to what the Code of Canon Law calls Institutes of Consecrated Life?

The institutes of consecrated life include: orders, secular institutes, congregations, and some societies of apostolic life (for ex. Oratorians). These make a public commitment and live very similar lives to that of religious, but are not canonically religious. Each house is autonomous and they do not make public vows.

I thought abbeys were part of orders. I thought there were several types of orders, e.g. mendicant, monastic.

That’s an interesting point. Abbeys are autonomous. They often form what I call clusters, the Benedictines often call them congregations. Other groups do not have such clusters. They are part of an order in as much as the fact that they follow a common rule. For example:

Cistercians, Trappists, Camaldolese and Benedictines all follow the Rule of St. Benedict. They are all part of the Benedictine family. But canonically, they are autonomous. They do not have a central government that binds all of them together as do the Dominicans, for example.

You may have many Benedictine abbeys and all are independent of each other. They are all part of the Order of St. Benedict, but they are not one canonical institute. Each one is dealt with separately. The abbot is the highest ranking authority. There is no Superior General or Provincial Superior to bind them together. In my own Franciscan family, we have the Poor Clares. Each house becomes an autonomouse abbey as soon as it meets the canonical requirements. For example, the Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration came out of the PCPAs in Cleveland. Once they reached maturity, they were cut off. They become autonomous. Now, they are sending nuns to AZ and TX. Those houses will eventually become autonomous PCPA abbeys. The government of one house has no jurisdiction over the daughter house, once it reaches maturity. They remain Franciscans, but not one cohesive body.

I thought there were 23.

You are correct. I forgot to count the Roman Church. My bad.

Where do canons regular (e.g. Norbertines) fit in here?

Canons can be either an order or a congregation. There are the Augustinian Canons. They’re an order. Usually known as the OSA. There are the Canons of St. John Cantius. They are a congregation. I don’t know if the Norbertines are an order or a congregation. I don’t know much about them. I believe that they do make public vows. They may even follow the Rule of St. Augustine. Many orders do, such as the Dominicans.

Communities like the Vincentians, Salesians, Jesuits, Redemptorists are clerks regular. These are religious, hence the term regular and they are communities of clerics, hence the term clerk. They are neither mendicant nor monastic. They are totally apostolic. The community is founded around a ministry and their life is governed by the ministry. Unlike the Dominicans whose life is to preach, but the conventual life takes precedence over the work. Dominicans don’t cut back on the Liturgy of the Hours or on community life in order to go on preaching assignments. They may allow individuals to do so, but the entire family is very faithful to the common life and very strict about its observance. They are not Clerks Regular. They are mendicants. The same is true of the Carmelites.

It is also important to know that among monks and mendicants, some communities are clerical. This means that only the ordained can govern. Some mendicant and monastic communities are either mixed or lay. This means that you can have a superor who is not a priest over a house full of priests. For example, in the Franciscan tradition, we have only one kind of friar (brother). Some are ordained and some are not, but all have equal rights and equal duties. We have clerical brothers and non-clerical brothers who are superiors and our houses are mixed. We have cleicall and non-clerical brothers. They are all brothers. We do not have cooperator brothers, lay brothers (as monks do), coadjutor brothers, or oblate brothers. Sometimes, outsiders will use the term “lay brother” for the purpose of distinction, but it’s not one that we use, because it does not work. The difference between us only exists during the celebration of the sacraments, that’s only a few minutes a day.

Besides having: orders, congregations, societies, autonomous abbeys and secular institutes, you have great diversity within these groupings.

These groupings are for legal purposes. The diversity within the community is internal. It does not affect the universal Church. It does not affect the universal Church that Franciscans can have a non-ordained friar as superior and Dominicans must have an ordained friar. As far as the universal Church is concerned, they are both religious orders and they make the same kind of vows, have the same rights in the Church and the same duties to the Church. What they do internally, it their problem and the problem of the people with whom they work.

Does that help or confuse you even more? ::crossing fingers::

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I haven’t quoted what you said - it was making this post too long. Thank you so very much. I am very interested in the religious life. Sometimes the more you learn a topic becomes more complex but a lot of what you said clarified a lot of thinks for me, and I’m much obliged. I cannot promise not to re-read your post which may generate other questions.

I think the thing with abbeys can raise two issues, I think. First it is a rank of conventus. In another sense, among the monastics they are independent and I know they guard their autonomously jealously. I believe some Popes have tried to regulate monastic houses into orders on the basic structure of a superior general below him provinces with a provincial superior and then each convent with its superior. I know monastics have vigorously resisted this.

I read early today that the 16 or so Benedictine congregations are analogous to orders. I think the Trappists are are a little more ordered together in a sort of order. I believe when each abbey elects an abbot the election has to be confirmed by the Abbot General.

I am aware however that in general Benedictines, Camaldolese, Carthusians, Cistericians (Common Observance), and Cistercians (Strict Observance) do have independent houses. Give great value to their independence and that they existed before religious orders really came into existence.

 

[JReducation]

I haven’t quoted what you said - it was making this post too long. Thank you so very much. I am very interested in the religious life. Sometimes the more you learn a topic becomes more complex but a lot of what you said clarified a lot of thinks for me, and I’m much obliged. I cannot promise not to re-read your post which may generate other questions.

I think the thing with abbeys can raise two issues, I think. First it is a rank of conventus. In another sense, among the monastics they are independent and I know they guard their autonomously jealously. I believe some Popes have tried to regulate monastic houses into orders on the basic structure of a superior general below him provinces with a provincial superior and then each convent with its superior. I know monastics have vigorously resisted this.

I read early today that the 16 or so Benedictine congregations are analogous to orders. I think the Trappists are are a little more ordered together in a sort of order. I believe when each abbey elects an abbot the election has to be confirmed by the Abbot General.

I am aware however that in general Benedictines, Camaldolese, Carthusians, Cistericians (Common Observance), and Cistercians (Strict Observance) do have independent houses. Give great value to their independence and that they existed before religious orders really came into existence.

In simple English, monastic relationships are very complex. LOL

I figure it this way, as long as they live holy lives, I don’t care how the govern themselves.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Archie_Leech]

Brother,

Christ does not use Judaism to save. IF anyone is saved who practiced Judaism, they were saved in spite of Judaism and not because of it.

The following beliefs were condemned by Pope Pius IX

Syllabus of Errors, Pope Pius IX

1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

1. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. – Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.

1. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

Full membership in the Catholic Church is the only sure means of salvation Christ established. To knowingly encourage someone to advance in a non-Catholic religion that denies Christ and cannot save instead of encouraging their conversion is evil. I know no other word for it.

By your statements, it sounds like you are agreeing with #16 & #17 which are both condemned errors. If not, please explain.

The old covenant is not superseded for us Catholics and still valid for those who follow Judaism. There is only one Truth, one Faith, one Baptism. One Church Our Lord Jesus Christ established for salvation. And it is the Church’s duty to go out and to try to make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost to save their souls. Not to encourage them in their errors.

 

[DogmaticFaith]

If we hold the Gospel of Christ to be true, any religion which denies Christ is a false religion.

He that despiseth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

bible.cc/john/12-48.htm

There is only one TRUE FAITH. It is a dogmatic faith. I do not see how a Catholic who holds to dogma can be “too dogmatic” simply because he believes what Christ and the Church have taught.

. . . in non-Catholic Christian bodies a general decay of supernatural Christian life follows the dissolution of dogmatic religion. Were the dogmatic system of the Catholic Church, with its authoritative infallible head, done away with, the various systems of private judgment would not save the world from relapsing into and following pagan ideals. Dogmatic belief is not the be-all and end-all of Catholic life; but the Catholic serves God, honours the Trinity, loves Christ, obeys the Church, frequents the sacraments, assists at Mass, observes the Commandments, because he believes mentally in God, in the Trinity, in the Divinity of Christ, in the Church, in the sacraments and the Sacrifice of the Mass, in the duty of keeping the Commandments, and he believes in them as objective immutable truths.

newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm

 

[OraLabora]

If we hold the Gospel of Christ to be true, any religion which denies Christ is a false religion.

Judaism is not a “false” religion. It is a superseded religion, one that has been superseded by a new covenant. That does not make the old one “invalid”, but rather superseded. It served its purpose prior to Christ.

It is therefore a “true” religion. Nothing about it is false, but simply, is outdated, but as Br. JR pointed out many elements have carried over.

Therefore Judaism, even as practiced today carries elements of deep truth within it and therefore the religion itself and especially its practitioners are worthy of our deepest respect.

In fact I would dare venture that Judaism is a completely truthful religion (when practiced in an orthodox manner and within the limits of mankind’s ability to understand God) rooted in the Old Covenant with God. It doesn’t lack truth. It lacks completeness.

 

[DogmaticFaith]

Judaism is not a “false” religion. It is a superseded religion, one that has been superseded by a new covenant. That does not make the old one “invalid”, but rather superseded. It served its purpose prior to Christ.

I am speaking of modern Judaism. Do the people we call Jews today accept the Gospel, or do they reject it?

It is therefore a “true” religion. Nothing about it is false, but simply, is outdated, but as Br. JR pointed out many elements have carried over.

Therefore Judaism, even as practiced today carries elements of deep truth within it and therefore the religion itself and especially its practitioners are worthy of our deepest respect.

But it is still a Christ denying religion and its adherents who continue to adhere to the ritual circumcision and old Law sin mortally, according to the Council of Florence. Objectively speaking, to adhere to Judaism and to reject Christ is a mortal sin.

In fact I would dare venture that Judaism is a completely truthful religion (when practiced in an orthodox manner and within the limits of mankind’s ability to understand God) rooted in the Old Covenant with God. It doesn’t lack truth. It lacks completeness.

The Catholic Church burned the Talmud and Pope Pius V expelled the Jews from the Papal States because of its evil teachings. For example, Judaism permits divorce. But since the time Christ announced that marriage is indissoluble, all the divorces and remarriages permitted by the Jews, objectively speaking, have been grave sins.

Either you believe in Christ and that the Jewish religion has been superseded and those that practice it today reject Christ - or you reject Christ.

That is authentic Catholicism. All other religions are false religions and their beliefs put them outside the Church which is the only Ark of Salvation. That is immutable Catholic dogma. Either the Church was right for 2000 years or the people who say the contrary since the “aggiornamento” are right. If the latter are right then the Church is not a Divine Institution that teaches immutable dogmas but rather one religion among many.

There is only ONE TRUE FAITH. All who deny that cannot be Catholics.

 

[JReducation]

Lumen Gentium in very clear in its summary of these teachings. Observe how it makes a very clear distinction between those who knowingly reject truth and those who through no fault of their own have not embraced the truth of Jesus Christ. If its important to remember that knowing truth is not just a matter of someone telling another person that Jesus is the Messiah and the other person buying into it. There is much more to it than that. To know truth one must understand it, be able embrace it intellectually and emotionally, as they say in common English, one must be able to wrap his head around it.

For many devout Jews, this presents a great challenge, because the Incarnation and the Trinity are stumbling blocks. The Jewish faith has always taught two very important points. First, the man cannot be God. Second, that God is one. Now you have the Christian delivering a message that is incarnational and trinitarian. To the devout Jew, this is sinful. To him, to embrace such a message is a grave sin. In reality, he is not rejecting Jesus Christ, he is rejecting what he believes to be grave sin. Are not all men called to reject sin? Is it not better to reject what one believes to be a sin, even if one is mistaken, than to take the risk of offending God? One has to look at this from the point of view of the Jewish believer to understand how the Church applies the teachings that have been handed down before us.

For this reason, Lumen Gentium tried to clarify for us the following.

**Lumen gentium 16

Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator.

In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. **

Nostra Aetate reminds us of the following:

**As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and “serve him shoulder to shoulder” (Soph. 3:9).(12)

Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues. **

She does not send us out to condemn, but to understand, respect and dialogue as brothers, not as judges. There is nothing here that refers to Judaism as a false religion or that encourages such insult. Nor is there anything here that changes the Church’s eternal teaching that only in the Catholic Church subsists the fulness of truth, which is dogma. Everything else about false this or that is commentary around the dogma.

If you do not want to agree with the way that the Church explains this today, that is your right to disagree. But it is not your right to contradict those who speak authoritatively on the matter. You cannot say that they are wrong and that you are right. Nor can you go around saying that you understand what previous popes, councils and doctors taught better than current popes, councils and doctors teach. This places you and the current authorities in an antagonistic relationship with each other and you’re encouraging others to assume the same antagonistic relationship with current Church authoritiest.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF