The wall belongs to all Jews

[CopyBoy]

There should be a new Jewish holiday. The 21st day of the Hebrew month Shevat is now Western Wall Liberation Day! The Israeli government has decreed that a section of the Western Wall in Jerusalem must be set aside for egalitarian prayer. They have essentially created a new, ancient synagogue in Jerusalem — this time, for non-Orthodox Jews and for all those who want to be able to pray with men and women together. The Western Wall (in Hebrew, the Kotel) (and sometimes, and unpleasantly, called the “Wailing Wall”) is the most iconic place in the Jewish world. It is the holiest place in the Jewish world.

• See more at: jeffreysalkin.religionnews.com/2016/02/02/western-wall/#sthash.Jid8zMpa.dpuf

 

[ialsop]

It belongs to the Church, as WE are the successors of those who practiced Sacrifice in the Old Covenant, not the so called “Jews”.

 

[Padres1969]

It belongs to the Church, as WE are the successors of those who practiced Sacrifice in the Old Covenant, not the so called “Jews”.

Um, no? Why would you think that people who are followers of a religion that grew out of Judaism (and has no particularly strong ties to the temple other than as a place Jesus once worshipped and taught (among many others)) would have more claim to the place than those who still are members of the Jewish religion and for whom the temple ruins and temple mount are still their most holy place?

 

[ialsop]

Um, no? Why would you think that people who are followers of a religion that grew out of Judaism (and has no particularly strong ties to the temple other than as a place Jesus once worshipped and taught (among many others)) would have more claim to the place than those who still are members of the Jewish religion and for whom the temple ruins and temple mount are still their most holy place?

Because the Jews in the Temple once officiated Sacrifice to God-the TRUE Sacrifice, to bridge God and Man, as God wanted.
Now Christians share in the Sacrifice of the Cross, which is the fulfillment of all the animal sacrifice. The Church of Christianity is the New Israel, the Bride of Christ.

The ENTIRE POINT OF THE TEMPLE was to prepare the Jews for the Messiah and HIS grand sacrifice.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

It belongs to the Church, as WE are the successors of those who practiced Sacrifice in the Old Covenant, not the so called “Jews”.

Yeah… No. The Jews are not “so called,” and the Old Covenant was not completely abolished (I have come not to destroy the law but to fulfill it). It is true that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, but this does not make Judaism as it is/was irrelevant or “so called”, as the Church has gone to great pains to make clear. I do not think you should be making claims on behalf of the Church that the Church does not make itself.

 

[ialsop]

Yeah… No. The Jews are not “so called,” and the Old Covenant was not completely abolished (I have come not to destroy the law but to fulfill it). It is true that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, but this does not make Judaism as it is/was irrelevant or “so called”, as the Church has gone to great pains to make clear. I do not think you should be making claims on behalf of the Church that the Church does not make itself.

If the Jewish Traditions were sufficient for Salvation, why did Christ even come?
And if they are not, HOW can it be said that the Old Covenant is still in effect in the original form? Yes, it exists, but ina different manner We don’t sacrifice bulls on the altar, we sacrifice the Son of God in the form of bread.

Judaism doesnt sacrifice anything anymore. How is that sufficient, when the Jewish scriptures command the sacrifice to God to continue forever?

Anyways…the Church takes great pain to…
“But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ”-The council of Laodicea, cannon 29

ALSO from Pope Eugene IV…in the Infallible Ecumenical Council of Florence…
“It 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.”

Sorry, I dont mean to hijack the thread at all, carry on discussing the Wall, I just offered my (name removed by moderator)ut.

PAX

 

[Iron_Donkey]

If the Jewish Traditions were sufficient for Salvation, why did Christ even come?

I’m not going to continue this discussion any further than this post to avoid a tangent, but I do need to point out that I didn’t say that Jewish Traditions were sufficient for Salvation. But neither did God abandon His chosen people (not really His style). Referring to the “so called Jews” etc is incorrect and unhelpful.

Don’t be so quick to assume that you know what the old councils mean so well that you can ignore what the Church has said recently. We have a Church rather than a book we each interpret (whether that book include old councils or not) in part because we as individuals can misunderstand old councils and old documents.

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)

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

 

[jschwartz]

The Church repudiates Replacement Theology in this day and age. God’s grace, which is the grace of Jesus Christ according to our faith, is available to all. Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, [as] the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.

 

[ialsop]

I’m not going to continue this discussion any further than this post to avoid a tangent, but I do need to point out that I didn’t say that Jewish Traditions were sufficient for Salvation. But neither did God abandon His chosen people (not really His style). Referring to the “so called Jews” etc is incorrect and unhelpful.

Don’t be so quick to assume that you know what the old councils mean so well that you can ignore what the Church has said recently. We have a Church rather than a book we each interpret (whether that book include old councils or not) in part because we as individuals can misunderstand old councils and old documents.

Interesting quote. But…what makes the CURRENT Vatican documents more reliable than the “Old” documents? The Church teachings NEVER change, do they?

 

[ialsop]

The Church repudiates Replacement Theology in this day and age. God’s grace, which is the grace of Jesus Christ according to our faith, is available to all. Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, [as] the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.

Bold-The Church teaching doesn’t change, so teaching “In this say and age” and in the past cannot be different.

And as the church taught…(and teaches still)…
It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. -Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, Pope Eugene IV-1445.

Now, if the Church is capable of changing her teachings, I want to hear where I can find this new doctrine.

 

[jschwartz]

Bold-The Church teaching doesn’t change, so teaching “In this say and age” and in the past cannot be different.

And as the church taught…(and teaches still)…
It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. -Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, Pope Eugene IV-1445.

Now, if the Church is capable of changing her teachings, I want to hear where I can find this new doctrine.

I can see you’re not a fan of Vatican II.

 

[ialsop]

I can see you’re not a fan of Vatican II.

I accept Vatican II.

But Vatican II said that people of other religions can be saved…just as St. Thomas Aquinas said. But Vatican II NEVER said that ANY other religions are salvific religions.

In fact Vatican II looked more at the Church like a pilgrim people, and EMPHASIZED more than the past, how the Catholic Church is a pilgrim people, like the Hebrews in Egypt, and Vatican II talks about how the Catholic Priesthood is a successor to the Jewish priesthood.

Also, on the liturgy, Vatican II emphasized that the Sacrifice of Calvary made present at the Mass was the successor of the Jewish sacrifice rituals in the Temple.

So I accept Vatican II. I am curious(not presuming), but have you read the documents of Vatican II? If so, which ones?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Um, no? Why would you think that people who are followers of a religion that grew out of Judaism (and has no particularly strong ties to the temple other than as a place Jesus once worshipped and taught (among many others)) would have more claim to the place than those who still are members of the Jewish religion and for whom the temple ruins and temple mount are still their most holy place?

So will you sign my petition to return all the English Catholic Holy places back to their rightful bishops?