Vatican takes on tense question of salvation for the Jewish people

[commenter]

• This is not a Magisterial document. It is a discussion starter, and deserves consideration.
• There are Magisterial documents that call for evangelism of all peoples.
• This new document says that proselytizing or targeting Jews is wrong. It doesn’t cite any current examples where the Church is doing this, nor do the several threads now on CAF cite any current examples. I suppose it’s not a bad idea to reinforce this point, in case someone is thinking of doing it.
• Several posts on the various threads point out theological insights that remind us God has other ways of salvation besides our evangelism. His plan is larger than our efforts. But his plan includes our efforts. His plan for us, is to evangelize.
• I work at a mission to provide food to hungry people in the inner city. It is humbling to remember that God has many ways of helping people besides our food programs. But still, we continue our food programs. God’s plan is larger than our efforts, but our efforts are part of His plan.

 

[eazyduzit]

As a Pentecostal you can do as you please.

Catholics listen to the wisdom of our Bishops and Magisterium.

Catholics fall into two groups:

1. Those who hear Rome and do as they please.
2. Those who hear Rome and do as Rome advises

I veer into the second category. When two Bishops who are/were Popes say the same thing, I listen and pay attention.

Having said that, It isn’t dogma/doctrine so Catholics are not required to follow. On the other hand it is an educated, thoroughly informed and researched stance.

I am paying attention also and to me it sounds like a kind of compromise, possibly a step towards the one world religion predicted in Revelation.

 

[LongingSoul]

• This is not a Magisterial document. It is a discussion starter, and deserves consideration.
• There are Magisterial documents that call for evangelism of all peoples.
• **This new document says that proselytizing or targeting Jews is wrong. It doesn’t cite any current examples where the Church is doing this, nor do the several threads now on CAF cite any current examples. I suppose it’s not a bad idea to reinforce this point, in case someone is thinking of doing it. **
• Several posts on the various threads point out theological insights that remind us God has other ways of salvation besides our evangelism. His plan is larger than our efforts. But his plan includes our efforts. His plan for us, is to evangelize.
• I work at a mission to provide food to hungry people in the inner city. It is humbling to remember that God has many ways of helping people besides our food programs. But still, we continue our food programs. God’s plan is larger than our efforts, but our efforts are part of His plan.

One of the highlighted examples is within the language of the traditional Good Friday liturgy as recently raised by the Bishops of England and Wales. Language has a significant mission role in our relationship with non Catholics and non Christians. In its basic form it needs to reflect evangelism rather than proselytism.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

I am paying attention also and to me it sounds like a kind of compromise, possibly a step towards the one world religion predicted in Revelation.

Can you flesh out your “one world religion” argument. I don’t see how Catholics not actively prosletysing Jews is a step towards “one world religion”. The natural outcome would be more Jews…that to me indicates two separate religions…how does that equate to “one world religion”?.

Pentecostals will continue prosletysing Jews along with others. The natural outcome of that would be a “one world religion”.

These statements by Benedict and the current Pope is based on our belief that the Old Covenant was never revoked by God, The Abrahamic covenant is “unbreakable”, since God made it by an oath he swore to Abraham (Heb 6:13-18).

Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. (Matthew 5:17)

If the Law of Moses has been revoked its penalties cannot apply to those who seek salvation through it. Yet both Jesus and Paul make it very clear to any who seek salvation by the Law that (in the words of John 5:45), **“it is Moses who accuses you, on whom you set your hope.” **

So far from saying the Law of Moses is “revoked” (which would necessarily mean it no longer has the power to condemn) Jesus, John and Paul assume unbaptized Jews are still bound by the Law. Paul makes it a cornerstone of one of his arguments for the necessity of baptism:

Do you not know, brethren–for I am speaking to those who know the law–that the law is binding on a person only during his life? Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. (Romans 7:1-4)

Paul’s entire point is that unbaptized Jews are “married” to the Law of Moses (and its condemnation of sin) and cannot escape that covenant except by one means: death and resurrection to new life through the body of Christ. So,the notion that the Mosaic covenant has been “revoked” is false, according to both our Lord and the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Apart from Christ, says Paul, the Law of Moses still has the power to condemn and has therefore not been rendered null and void.

 

[JimG]

The old covenant was not revoked, it was fulfilled. Did all those in the Jewish community who accepted Jesus continue to follow every precept of the Mosaic law after they were baptized? Did the Church have a separate law for Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, requiring Jewish Christians to continue to follow the entirety of the Mosaic Law but not requiring the same of Gentile Christians? I think that is a concept that would have been foreign to St. Paul, along with all of the Apostles, particularly after the Council of Jerusalem.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

It should be noted–as I have several times before–that Judaism does not believe its faith is the only one that leads to salvation. Further, the basis of Judaism is not even salvation but rather obedience to the will of G-d regardless of whether or not there is an afterlife. The latter is not, and should not be, our concern in this earthly life.

The vast majority of humanity is gentile. There must be a plan for us, a way to bring us into the obedience designed for us. I think both Islam and Christianity have helped billions of gentiles progress toward this. Our conscience tells us to do the right thing, to treat others well. I think these religions can also help us to obey this interior voice. This is not to say that everything they teach is 100% true and worthy of belief, but we cannot discount the great good of each tradition.

Animals obey because they fear beatings and desire treats. Children obey because they love their parents. I agree, we should principally concern ourselves with doing the right thing and loving others in the here and now.

 

[Seamus_L]

So once again we’re faced with the question. What would the Vatican have us say if a Jew asks us if they can be saved without believing in Jesus Christ ?

 

[meltzerboy]

So once again we’re faced with the question. What would the Vatican have us say if a Jew asks us if they can be saved without believing in Jesus Christ ?

Any Jew that knows the teachings of their own religion would not ask such a question since it has no meaning within Judaism, which is not a salvation-oriented religion either by faith or by works.

 

[Seamus_L]

You see no situation where the question might arise ?

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Any Jew that knows the teachings of their own religion would not ask such a question since it has no meaning within Judaism, which is not a salvation-oriented religion either by faith or by works.

Meltzerboy, could you possibly say this two or three times more? I think people need to let it sink in.

 

[JimG]

So, let’s say that a Jewish person, (such as Rosalind Moss) should approach a priest asking to join RCIA and be received into the Church at its conclusion. What should the priest say?

a) Sorry, you cannot do that, you are still bound by the old covenant which remains valid for you, and which you must follow.

b) Yes, you can join the RCIA and become Catholic but after you are Baptized you must continue to follow all the precepts of Jewish law.

c) Yes, you are welcome to join RCIA and become Catholic, being baptized at its conclusion. You need not continue to follow the Jewish law.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

So, let’s say that a Jewish person, (such as Rosalind Moss) should approach a priest asking to join RCIA and be received into the Church at its conclusion. What should the priest say?

a) Sorry, you cannot do that, you are still bound by the old covenant which remains valid for you, and which you must follow.

b) Yes, you can join the RCIA and become Catholic but after you are Baptized you must continue to follow all the precepts of Jewish law.

c) Yes, you are welcome to join RCIA and become Catholic, being baptized at its conclusion. You need not continue to follow the Jewish law.

I have to wonder how assiduously people commenting on this document have actually read and studied the document. Attentively reading the document, as it is written and even without theological commentary, would frankly resolve many questions being raised in this thread…as for example:

*39. Because it was such a theological breakthrough, the Conciliar text is not infrequently over–interpreted, and things are read into it which it does not in fact contain. An important example of over–interpretation would be the following: that the covenant that God made with his people Israel perdures and is never invalidated. Although this statement is true, it cannot be explicitly read into “Nostra aetate” (No.4). This statement was instead first made with full clarity by Saint Pope John Paul II when he said during a meeting with Jewish representatives in Mainz on 17 November 1980 that the Old Covenant had never been revoked by God: “The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God … and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and the second part of her Bible” (No.3). The same conviction is stated also in the Catechism of the Church in 1993: “The Old Covenant has never been revoked” (121).

1. It is easy to understand that the so–called ‘mission to the Jews’ is a very delicate and sensitive matter for Jews because, in their eyes, it involves the very existence of the Jewish people. This question also proves to be awkward for Christians, because for them the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ and consequently the universal mission of the Church are of fundamental importance. The Church is therefore obliged to view evangelisation to Jews, who believe in the one God, in a different manner from that to people of other religions and world views. In concrete terms this means that the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews. While there is a principled rejection of an institutional Jewish mission, Christians are nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ also to Jews, although they should do so in a humble and sensitive manner, acknowledging that Jews are bearers of God’s Word, and particularly in view of the great tragedy of the Shoah. *
   Of course individuals who are Jewish who seek admission to the Church are to be admitted.

The text of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations With the Jews: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html#6._The_Church%E2%80%99s_mandate_to_evangelize_in_relation_to_Judaism

 

[Tigre]

Ignoring the salvation question, what would the Vatican have us say to a Jew who asks whether he can live an upright life, pleasing to G-d and consistent with His will and commandments, if he denies that Jesus Christ is the Messiah?

The working answers seem to be either: (a) yes, the old covenant hasn’t been revoked; or (b) well, no, but the great end time Jewish conversion will occur in His time, without Catholic evangelizing (hence no formal outreach) so any rejection of Christianity by the Jews until that time is part of His mysterious plan.

Jesus Christ provokes a radical choice: He is who He claimed to be, or He is not. One side is wrong. It cannot be any other way.

 

[irenaeus1]

These statements by Benedict and the current Pope is based on our belief that the Old Covenant was never revoked by God, The Abrahamic covenant is “unbreakable”, since God made it by an oath he swore to Abraham (Heb 6:13-18).

Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. (Matthew 5:17)

If the Law of Moses has been revoked its penalties cannot apply to those who seek salvation through it. Yet both Jesus and Paul make it very clear to any who seek salvation by the Law that (in the words of John 5:45), **“it is Moses who accuses you, on whom you set your hope.” **

So far from saying the Law of Moses is “revoked” (which would necessarily mean it no longer has the power to condemn) Jesus, John and Paul assume unbaptized Jews are still bound by the Law. Paul makes it a cornerstone of one of his arguments for the necessity of baptism:

Do you not know, brethren–for I am speaking to those who know the law–that the law is binding on a person only during his life? Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. (Romans 7:1-4)

Paul’s entire point is that unbaptized Jews are “married” to the Law of Moses (and its condemnation of sin) and cannot escape that covenant except by one means: death and resurrection to new life through the body of Christ. So,the notion that the Mosaic covenant has been “revoked” is false, according to both our Lord and the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Apart from Christ, says Paul, the Law of Moses still has the power to condemn and has therefore not been rendered null and void.

I think you may be confusing the Mosaic Law with the Abrahamic covenant. While the Abrahamic covenant could be regarded as eternal and irrevocable (since as Christians, we are considered children of the promise), the covenant with Moses cannot be considered eternally valid or “unrevoked” (for anyone, Jew or Gentile). The Mosaic covenant was transitional and has clearly been abrogated as testified by the scriptures, the consensus of the Church fathers, and the Church Councils (e.g., Rom 7:1-25; 2 Cor 3:4-18; Gal 3:10-11; 4:21-31; Heb 7:18; 8:7-8; 10:9; St. Augustine; St Thomas Aquinas; Council of Florence; Council of Trent). Even then-Cardinal Ratzinger stated in his book Many Religions – One Covenant on p.70, “Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded.”

 

[ComplineSanFran]

I have to wonder how assiduously people commenting on this document have actually read and studied the document. Attentively reading the document, as it is written and even without theological commentary, would frankly resolve many questions being raised in this thread…as for example:

The text of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations With the Jews: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html#6._The_Church%E2%80%99s_mandate_to_evangelize_in_relation_to_Judaism

Don Ruggero, in my work in Jewish-Christian Relations, there has been an uncomfortable topic and I was wondering if you have any thoughts on it. That is to say, the emergence of groups such as Jews for Jesus, or Messianic Jews. The groups tend to follow evangelical Christian theology and worship and at the same time Jewish worship. Some think that Jews who convert to Christianity see themselves as early Church converts. I personally am not too comfortable with this ideology.

 

[LongingSoul]

Ignoring the salvation question, what would the Vatican have us say to a Jew who asks whether he can live an upright life, pleasing to G-d and consistent with His will and commandments, if he denies that Jesus Christ is the Messiah?

The working answers seem to be either: (a) yes, the old covenant hasn’t been revoked; or (b) well, no, but the great end time Jewish conversion will occur in His time, without Catholic evangelizing (hence no formal outreach) so any rejection of Christianity by the Jews until that time is part of His mysterious plan.

Jesus Christ provokes a radical choice: He is who He claimed to be, or He is not. One side is wrong. It cannot be any other way.

Coming from my experience in general relationships work… I can assert that grey areas aren’t the death of relationships. People can focus on what unites them and entrust the unknowns to God/destiny/fate. A lot of people feel that clear answers are necessary for faith in a relationship but in fact the irony is that to say ‘I don’t know’, is a quite healthy admission for a relationship.

 

[irenaeus1]

These statements by Benedict and the current Pope is based on our belief that the Old Covenant was never revoked by God, The Abrahamic covenant is “unbreakable”, since God made it by an oath he swore to Abraham (Heb 6:13-18).

Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. (Matthew 5:17)

If the Law of Moses has been revoked its penalties cannot apply to those who seek salvation through it. Yet both Jesus and Paul make it very clear to any who seek salvation by the Law that (in the words of John 5:45), **“it is Moses who accuses you, on whom you set your hope.” **

So far from saying the Law of Moses is “revoked” (which would necessarily mean it no longer has the power to condemn) Jesus, John and Paul assume unbaptized Jews are still bound by the Law. Paul makes it a cornerstone of one of his arguments for the necessity of baptism:

Do you not know, brethren–for I am speaking to those who know the law–that the law is binding on a person only during his life? Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. (Romans 7:1-4)

Paul’s entire point is that unbaptized Jews are “married” to the Law of Moses (and its condemnation of sin) and cannot escape that covenant except by one means: death and resurrection to new life through the body of Christ. So,the notion that the Mosaic covenant has been “revoked” is false, according to both our Lord and the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Apart from Christ, says Paul, the Law of Moses still has the power to condemn and has therefore not been rendered null and void.

Or are you saying that the Mosaic Law is not revoked only inasmuch as that it is still condemnatory???

 

[Don_Ruggero]

• This is not a Magisterial document. It is a discussion starter, and deserves consideration.

In the context of the Holy See, there are magisterial documents promulgated directly by the Holy Father. There are curial documents which receive an approbation by the pope…but the pope does not, as it were, “counter-sign” every document issued by the various dicasteries. Nevertheless, they remain official curial documents. Curial offices are properly organs of the Holy See and the documents are not without their own proper authority and effect, when issued by the Cardinal Prefect/President. To say that such documents deserve only “consideration” is at best theologically imprecise and bishops receiving them would assuredly not agree that they merit mere consideration.

This is a profoundly significant document that is to be executed in practice at subordinate levels – and it will be received as such by the various conferences of bishops – as well as by the individual dioceses.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Or are you saying that the Mosaic Law is not revoked only inasmuch as that it is still condemnatory???

Yes. The Covenant of Moses cannot save but it is well within Catholic orthodoxy to regard it as still binding upon unbaptized children of the Old Covenant, pointing the way to Christ as it was designed to do (Galatians 3:22-26). It is well within Catholic orthodoxy to believe that the Law and the Prophets continue to do their job: pointing to Christ who alone can help the child of the Old Covenant to transcend (not revoke) the Law through Christ and enter into the new and everlasting covenant. For he came to fulfill, not abolish, the Law.

Saint Pope John Paul II said the Old covenant has in fact "never been revoked by God.” (Address to Representatives of the Jewish Community in Mainz, West Germany). In this, he follows Nostra Aetate which declares that “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” and cites Romans 11:28-29:

As regards election the Jewish people are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

In the context of the Holy See, there are magisterial documents promulgated directly by the Holy Father. There are curial documents which receive an approbation by the pope…but the pope does not, as it were, “counter-sign” every document issued by the various dicasteries. Nevertheless, they remain official curial documents. Curial offices are properly organs of the Holy See and the documents are not without their own proper authority and effect, when issued by the Cardinal Prefect/President. To say that such documents deserve only “consideration” is at best theologically imprecise and bishops receiving them would assuredly not agree that they merit mere consideration.

This is a profoundly significant document that is to be executed in practice at subordinate levels – and it will be received as such by the various conferences of bishops – as well as by the individual dioceses.