Question from a Seeking Jew

[Ghosty]

There are TONS of Catholic rituals that are “pre-figured” in Judaism. The Mass is a perfect example of this, as it’s a direct combination of the Temple Sacrifice and the Passover. When the Church was founded, it didn’t have any interest in abandoning Judaism and Jewish ritual, it merely opened up an intense new meaning for those same actions.

In essence, we absolutely believe that the Jews were/are God’s Chosen People, and God was building the Church, and the Kingdom to Come, starting with them. God built the Jewish people from the ground up, and built into them and their culture the founding elements of the Kingdom to Come.

I went into this before on another one of your threads, Jew_Man, I just figured I’d throw it in here again

 

[Walburga]

This is so interesting about the mikveh, which I never knew about being a cradle Catholic. But this week I heard someone say that really we are to be baptised in living water or moving water and if that is not available that we can use stationary water. I think this is why in the newer Catholic churches in our area they are putting in fountains for baptismal founts. And recently I saw a painting of Jesus’ baptism, I think it was on the front of Magnificat magazine, and Jesus was nearly nude, just as you were describing JM! I also didn’t know that about Shabbat Shalom and the sign of peace. This is so wonderful to learn!

I found the website for the book, Why Jews Become Catholics. It is at BooksforCatholics.com.

In reference to the story of Jesus and the almost-stoning of the woman: I believe at the end of the sacrament of reconciliation the priest says the same thing to the one confessing: Go and sin no more.

It also sounds like you may end up bringing some of your Protestant friends into the Catholic church with you!

I hope you find the mass in Hebrew. It certainly will be a special day for you when that happens!

I’m praying you find the TRUTH and inner PEACE!

Shalom

 

[Zooey]

Oh, wow, this is so great…I had heard about the mikvah, but I never made the connection before with John the Baptist! What that brought to mind is that at least once in Acts, some of John’s followers were given Christian baptism, & when I read this, I thought: Oh, that’s why they had to be baptized…Because, you know, it had always seemed odd to me, since baptism is done only once in a lifetime.
It also explains the full meaning of Jesus being baptized. He was fulfilling His duty as a religious Jew.
I am so glad this question was brought up. I have :yup: learned something again.

 

[Jew_Man_73]

Ghosty:

There are TONS of Catholic rituals that are “pre-figured” in Judaism. The Mass is a perfect example of this, as it’s a direct combination of the Temple Sacrifice and the Passover. When the Church was founded, it didn’t have any interest in abandoning Judaism and Jewish ritual, it merely opened up an intense new meaning for those same actions.

In essence, we absolutely believe that the Jews were/are God’s Chosen People, and God was building the Church, and the Kingdom to Come, starting with them. God built the Jewish people from the ground up, and built into them and their culture the founding elements of the Kingdom to Come.

I went into this before on another one of your threads, Jew_Man, I just figured I’d throw it in here again

Thank you. I’ve been able to do a little bit of reading about the birth of the Church, and it seems it did actually start within Judaism. From what I can gather, the Church was not actually considered to be a separate religion at first. It was only after the Jews started disassociating themselves from the Jewish followers of Jesus that Christianity actually began to be considered as a separate religion. (By the way, I’ve also been researching church history. How can Protestants honestly believe that their churches are the ones established by Jesus? And how can they believe that their doctrines are actually right, when most of their doctrines can’t be traced back to the apostles and the early church? Just a side note.) I definitely see where the Catholic Church came out of Judaism, but not Protestant Christianity. It seems to me that Protestants have stripped the faith of most of its meaning and made up their own religion. By the way, some Protestants have been harassing me on here with private messages. To those of you who are doing this (and you know who you are) PLEASE STOP. I WILL BE PRAYING FOR YOU.

 

[Jew_Man_73]

Walburga:

This is so interesting about the mikveh, which I never knew about being a cradle Catholic. But this week I heard someone say that really we are to be baptised in living water or moving water and if that is not available that we can use stationary water. I think this is why in the newer Catholic churches in our area they are putting in fountains for baptismal founts. And recently I saw a painting of Jesus’ baptism, I think it was on the front of Magnificat magazine, and Jesus was nearly nude, just as you were describing JM! I also didn’t know that about Shabbat Shalom and the sign of peace. This is so wonderful to learn!

I found the website for the book, Why Jews Become Catholics. It is at BooksforCatholics.com.

In reference to the story of Jesus and the almost-stoning of the woman: I believe at the end of the sacrament of reconciliation the priest says the same thing to the one confessing: Go and sin no more.

It also sounds like you may end up bringing some of your Protestant friends into the Catholic church with you!

I hope you find the mass in Hebrew. It certainly will be a special day for you when that happens!

I’m praying you find the TRUTH and inner PEACE!

Shalom

Thank you for the prayers and the information about the book. Now that you mention it, the first time I attended the Catholic church here I noticed that the baptismal font was a fountain. I was struck by it’s similarity to the concept of a mikveh (Even though it wasn’t exactly like one) due to the fact that the water was moving.
I was also reading on a Catholic website the other day (Sorry, I don’t remember which one. I’ve read so many. I really need to keep a record.) and I read an article about early Christian baptism. This article stated that early baptisms were done in moving water, nude. Sounds alot like a mikveh to me. Thanks, I’m going to do my best to find a Mass in Hebrew. It’s worth a try. Shalom!

 

[theMutant]

Jew_Man_73:

I don’t understand what this is though. How does the Catholic Church know it has Apostolic succession? I don’t remember reading anything about it in the gospels or in Acts. Is there anything written on it, something I can read?

I try to show the Biblican and historical support for Apostolic succession in another thread. If you’re interested, here’s a link to that thread. The posts where I address apostolic succession are posts 51, 52, 53, 58, and 59.

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=17067

 

[Jew_Man_73]

Zooey:

Oh, wow, this is so great…I had heard about the mikvah, but I never made the connection before with John the Baptist! What that brought to mind is that at least once in Acts, some of John’s followers were given Christian baptism, & when I read this, I thought: Oh, that’s why they had to be baptized…Because, you know, it had always seemed odd to me, since baptism is done only once in a lifetime.
It also explains the full meaning of Jesus being baptized. He was fulfilling His duty as a religious Jew.
I am so glad this question was brought up. I have :yup: learned something again.

Exactly. The people in Acts being rebaptized after having already been baptized by John clued me in. When I read that, I started thinking, “He was performing mikvehs!” And you’re right, Jesus was fulfilling his religious duty as a Jew. Since the Church hadn’t been founded yet, his baptism must have been a mikveh. I’m amazed at all the Jewishness I’m finding in the New Testament. It’s really cool.:yup:

 

[Jennifer123]

Jew_Man_73:

As for the Pharisees clearly not being innocent, that crossed my mind while I was reading that passage. Why didn’t they stone her themselves, without getting Jesus involved? It makes me wonder if maybe they were the ones committing adultery with the woman, so they could take her to Jesus and have someone to accuse in order to trap him. I also love his response. If Jesus really did write down the sins of the Pharisees that day, it would have made it even more humiliating for them if they actually had committed adultery with the woman.

I think you’ve really gotten to the point of his passage, but if I may add some insight (whatever I may have :whacky: )…

Yes, like another had posted, they indeed were trying to trap Jesus. But I believe it is b/c the Romans did not allow the Jewsish authority to carry out capital punishment, adultery being punishable by death. Hence why the Priests had to go to Pilate to put Jesus to death as an enemy to the Roman Empire.
If Jesus had said yes to stoning the woman, they could turn Him in as an enemy. If He had said no to stoning her, He would equally be condemned as a heretic.
Yes - He wrote their sins in the sand, turning the question of guilt upon themselves, thereby ingeniously avoiding their trap.
Jesus didn’t condemn her, nor does He condemn us. We do that by our choices, our sins. Jesus condemns sin, not people.

John 3:17: For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

I love that you loved this passage. It’s very interesting reading your posts about the Bible and the faith. It’s helping me see things again in a different light, like rediscovering it and re-appreciating its beauty. Thank you.

 

[Jew_Man_73]

theMutant:

I try to show the Biblican and historical support for Apostolic succession in another thread. If you’re interested, here’s a link to that thread. The posts where I address apostolic succession are posts 51, 52, 53, 58, and 59.

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=17067

Thank you. I’ll check it out tomorrow when I’m more alert. (It’s late here.)

 

[Jew_Man_73]

Jennifer123:

I think you’ve really gotten to the point of his passage, but if I may add some insight (whatever I may have :whacky: )…

Yes, like another had posted, they indeed were trying to trap Jesus. But I believe it is b/c the Romans did not allow the Jewsish authority to carry out capital punishment, adultery being punishable by death. Hence why the Priests had to go to Pilate to put Jesus to death as an enemy to the Roman Empire.
If Jesus had said yes to stoning the woman, they could turn Him in as an enemy. If He had said no to stoning her, He would equally be condemned as a heretic.
Yes - He wrote their sins in the sand, turning the question of guilt upon themselves, thereby ingeniously avoiding their trap.
Jesus didn’t condemn her, nor does He condemn us. We do that by our choices, our sins. Jesus condemns sin, not people.

John 3:17: For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

I love that you loved this passage. It’s very interesting reading your posts about the Bible and the faith. It’s helping me see things again in a different light, like rediscovering it and re-appreciating its beauty. Thank you.

You’re welcome, and thank you. I didn’t know the Romans wouldn’t allow the Jews to carry out capital punishment. This certainly would explain why Pilate had to condemn Jesus to death. I’m glad this thread has helped you see some things in a new light. That’s always refreshing, and helps us learn. I’ve learned alot from reading the posts here as well.

 

[Ghosty]

I definitely see where the Catholic Church came out of Judaism, but not Protestant Christianity. It seems to me that Protestants have stripped the faith of most of its meaning and made up their own religion.

The saddest thing is that some Protestant groups, like Jews for Jesus and other “Messianic Jewish” movements try to fill in those gaps with whatever Judaic filler they can, completely missing the very real continuation of the Hebrew Covenant that is present in the Church. Now personally I’m all for educating Catholics on being more aware and observant of our Jewish roots, but I’m completely against the process of just ripping bits and pieces out of Judaism and throwing Jesus in it.

The Catholic Church doesn’t need to do that because it is an organic growth out of Judaism, just like the Laws that Moses brought were an organic growth from the Covenant with Abraham. We don’t have to walk around calling ourselves “Jews for Jesus” because when you actually look at our services and rituals with a knowledgable mind, the continuation is often startlingly obvious. It’s something that many Catholics actually take for granted, like our many hymns and prayers involving the “People Israel”. Many Catholics are so used to them that they don’t even think about the implications, though these things were obvious to the Apostles and the Early Christians (most of whom were Jews). This is why, when I came to believe that Jesus was the Messiah that I was studying about from Orthodox Jews, I came straight to the Church. It was so obvious to me that, if Jesus WAS the Jewish Messiah, then the Catholic Church is the clearest example of that continuity, often in ways that Catholics don’t even realize. Having an outsider’s perspective on the Church can give a much greater initial appreciation of such things.

 

[Jew_Man_73]

Ghosty:

The saddest thing is that some Protestant groups, like Jews for Jesus and other “Messianic Jewish” movements try to fill in those gaps with whatever Judaic filler they can, completely missing the very real continuation of the Hebrew Covenant that is present in the Church. Now personally I’m all for educating Catholics on being more aware and observant of our Jewish roots, but I’m completely against the process of just ripping bits and pieces out of Judaism and throwing Jesus in it.

The Catholic Church doesn’t need to do that because it is an organic growth out of Judaism, just like the Laws that Moses brought were an organic growth from the Covenant with Abraham. We don’t have to walk around calling ourselves “Jews for Jesus” because when you actually look at our services and rituals with a knowledgable mind, the continuation is often startlingly obvious. It’s something that many Catholics actually take for granted, like our many hymns and prayers involving the “People Israel”. Many Catholics are so used to them that they don’t even think about the implications, though these things were obvious to the Apostles and the Early Christians (most of whom were Jews). This is why, when I came to believe that Jesus was the Messiah that I was studying about from Orthodox Jews, I came straight to the Church. It was so obvious to me that, if Jesus WAS the Jewish Messiah, then the Catholic Church is the clearest example of that continuity, often in ways that Catholics don’t even realize. Having an outsider’s perspective on the Church can give a much greater initial appreciation of such things.

I know what you mean. I couldn’t have said it better myself. I see so much of Judaism in the Catholic faith, and it really does lend credence to the belief that the Catholic Church arose out of the Jewish faith. I don’t see that in Protestant Christianity. (And yes, I have visited various denominational Protestant churches in the past.) I have been to Protestant churches and “Messianic synagogues” that rip little bits and pieces here and there out of the Jewish faith in order to try to give their services some sense of meaning or history. Honestly, I found it all to be quite insulting. This is the first time I’ve ever noticed Jewish elements in a Christian worship service and not felt insulted or ripped off. That says alot to me.

 

[theMutant]

Jew_Man_73:

Is there something I can read about the Orthodox churches too? If they reject Peter and the papacy, how can they have Apostolic Succession?

Ordination imparts a permanent character on the one ordained. The Orthodox bishops remained bishops even though they broke with the Catholic Church. Since bishops have the fullness of Christ’s ordained priesthood, including the power to ordain, and this ability only comes through Apostolic succession which originates in the Catholic Church, they also retain this succession even though they have broken with the Church herself.

To see the full view of the Church on this matter, we could compare the Orthodox with the Anglican bishops. At one point, the Anglican church changed the form of ordination to one that was not valid. Although their bishops were truly bishops in the beginning, their use of an invalid form - which means that they changed it to the point where it no longer truly passed on ordination - continued for so long that, when they finally changed back to a valid form, they no longer had any valid bishops to ordain any one else. This is why the Catholic Church says that the Orthodox has a valid priesthood (which, by our definition must include bishops who have the fullness of the priesthood). They also have a valid Eucharist and valid Confession because it requires a valid pirest to act in the person of Christ. The Anglicans, however, do not.

 

[Ghosty]

Here’s an example of what is perhaps one of our most beloved and well-known hymns, in both Latin and English. It’s over a thousand years old. This is a perfect example of the innate continuity that has been present since the very beginning, but is often over-looked.

Latin:

Veni, veni, Emmanuel
captivum solve Israel,
qui gemit in exsilio,
privatus Dei Filio.

Gaude, gaude, Emmanuel
Nascetur pro te, Israel.

Veni, O Sapientia,
quae hic disponis omnia,
veni, viam prudentiae
ut doceas et gloriae.

Gaude, gaude, Emmanuel
Nascetur pro te, Israel.

Veni, veni, Adonai,
qui populo in Sinai
legem dedisti vertice
in maiestate gloriae.

Gaude, gaude Emmanuel
Nascetur pro te, Israel.

Veni, O Iesse virgula,
ex hostis tuos ungula,
de spectu tuos tartari
educ et antro barathri.

Gaude, gaude Emmanuel
Nascetur pro te, Israel.

Veni, Clavis Davidica,
regna reclude caelica,
fac iter tutum superum,
et claude vias inferum.

Gaude, gaude Emmanuel
Nascetur pro te Israel.

Veni, veni O Oriens,
solare nos adveniens,
noctis depelle nebulas,
dirasque mortis tenebras.

Gaude, gaude Emmanuel
Nascetur pro te Israel.

Veni, veni, Rex Gentium,
veni, Redemptor omnium,
ut salvas tuos famulos
peccati sibi conscios.

Gaude, gaude Emmanuel
Nascetur pro te Israel.

English:

Come, O come, Emmanuel,
and ransom captive Israel,
that morns in lonely exile here
until the Son of God appear.

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel!

O come, Thou Wisdom, from on high,
and order all things far and nigh;
to us the path of knowledge show,
and teach us in her ways to go.

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel!

O come, o come, Thou Lord of might,
who to thy tribes on Sinai’s height
in ancient times did give the law,
in cloud, and majesty, and awe.

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel!

O come, Thou Rod of Jesse’s stem,
form ev’ry foe deliver them
that trust Thy mighty power to save,
and give them vict’ry o’er the grave.

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel!

O come, Thou Key of David, come,
and open wide our heav’nly home,
make safe the way that leads on high,
that we no more have cause to sigh.

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel!

O come, Thou Dayspring from on high,
and cheer us by thy drawing nigh;
disperse the gloomy clouds of night
and death’s dark shadow put to flight.

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel!

O come, Desire of the nations, bind
in one the hearts of all mankind;
bid every strife and quarrel cease
and fill the world with heaven’s peace.

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel!

EDIT: I just copy-pasted, didn’t realize there were so many spelling errors! My apologies!

 

[Jew_Man_73]

theMutant:

Ordination imparts a permanent character on the one ordained. The Orthodox bishops remained bishops even though they broke with the Catholic Church. Since bishops have the fullness of Christ’s ordained priesthood, including the power to ordain, and this ability only comes through Apostolic succession which originates in the Catholic Church, they also retain this succession even though they have broken with the Church herself.

To see the full view of the Church on this matter, we could compare the Orthodox with the Anglican bishops. At one point, the Anglican church changed the form of ordination to one that was not valid. Although their bishops were truly bishops in the beginning, their use of an invalid form - which means that they changed it to the point where it no longer truly passed on ordination - continued for so long that, when they finally changed back to a valid form, they no longer had any valid bishops to ordain any one else. This is why the Catholic Church says that the Orthodox has a valid priesthood (which, by our definition must include bishops who have the fullness of the priesthood). They also have a valid Eucharist and valid Confession because it requires a valid pirest to act in the person of Christ. The Anglicans, however, do not.

Thanks. That helps me understand it better. That also explains why I’ve read online articles about debates between Catholic and Anglican religious leaders. Does the Catholic Church still beleive that the Anglicans don’t have Apostolic Succession, or have the Anglicans changed somehow?

 

[Jew_Man_73]

Ghosty:

Here’s an example of what is perhaps one of our most beloved and well-known hymns, in both Latin and English. It’s over a thousand years old. This is a perfect example of the innate continuity that has been present since the very beginning, but is often over-looked.

I’ve heard this before. I had no idea it was that old. It sounds quite Jewish too.

 

[theMutant]

Jew_Man_73:

Thanks. That helps me understand it better. That also explains why I’ve read online articles about debates between Catholic and Anglican religious leaders. Does the Catholic Church still beleive that the Anglicans don’t have Apostolic Succession, or have the Anglicans changed somehow?

Apostolic succession is something that can only be passed on by one who already possesses it. Therefore, the only way that Anglicans can recover it is for at least one of them to be ordained a bishop by a valid bishop (from the Catholic or Orthodox Churches). There may be a couple of other offshoots that have maintained valid ordination but I’m not to up to date on that. That bishop would then have to ordain others as bishops and so on.

This was actually an issue when the recent document, “Dominus Iesus” was presented. In it, the Catholic Church explicitly states that the Orthodox Church is considered to be an authentic Church because it has Apostolic succession but that Protestants, while certainly maintaining a Christian character, are not.

 

[Jew_Man_73]

theMutant:

Apostolic succession is something that can only be passed on by one who already possesses it. Therefore, the only way that Anglicans can recover it is for at least one of them to be ordained a bishop by a valid bishop (from the Catholic or Orthodox Churches). There may be a couple of other offshoots that have maintained valid ordination but I’m not to up to date on that. That bishop would then have to ordain others as bishops and so on.

This was actually an issue when the recent document, “Dominus Iesus” was presented. In it, the Catholic Church explicitly states that the Orthodox Church is considered to be an authentic Church because it has Apostolic succession but that Protestants, while certainly maintaining a Christian character, are not.

Wow, thank you. That’s very interesting. I remember last year there some kind of uproar because someone at the Vatican said that Protestants, including Anglicans, didn’t have a valid Eucharist. I remember reading that the Archbishop of Canterbury was really upset about it.

 

[antiaphrodite]

Jew_Man_73:

Interesting. I would love to attend a Hebrew Mass.

i would so like to attend a Hebrew Mass too!

(p.s. i know this has been said before, but this is a great thread! God Bless you, jew man!)

 

[antiaphrodite]

Jew_Man_73:

Wow, thank you. That’s very interesting. I remember last year there some kind of uproar because someone at the Vatican said that Protestants, including Anglicans, didn’t have a valid Eucharist. I remember reading that the Archbishop of Canterbury was really upset about it.

i can imagine.