Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

[DavidPalm]

Conclusion

Now, I’d like to step back for a moment and reiterate that I think you’re a very intelligent person in many ways and that you’ve done some good things for the Church. But, unfortunately, you’ve allowed yourself to degenerate into an anti-Jewish propagandist and conspiracy theorist. At this moment alone, there are almost 40 items attacking Jews and promoting various conspiracy theories about them on your website. You’re even promoting a video about Jews and the mafia by former “Grand Wizard” of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. And you also just put up a link to an article and gave it the title, “Bishop Williamson Wins His Appeal Against the Jews”. Bob, he won his appeal against the German government. This is just a simple fact anyone can see by glancing at your website, Bob. So, your attempt to portray yourself as a reasonable, objective participant in a simple discussion about Jewish issues just isn’t going to fly. Also unreasonable are your attempts to portray Michael and me as being completely biased in favor of Jews. You’ve told falsehoods about a number of people supposedly being “Zionists”, including me. You’ve tried to lead people to believe that Michael Forrest and I are Jews who are just hiding our identities. You’ve told falsehoods about us supposedly never criticizing anything involving Jews. This article alone completely disproves that contention (although there are more): thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2010/02/are-you-anti-semitic.html

Now, you’ve repeatedly promised to stop all this. Look at your own promises – they’re listed for you right here: sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/sungenis-broken-promises-to-stop-attacking-jews

You broke all of these promises shortly after you made them and you continue to break them. So, there are two possibilities: Either you never intended to keep them or you’re unable to control yourself. Either way, it’s a serious problem. It’s sad and frustrating. What’s also sad and frustrating is that these doctrinal issues involving Jews are very interesting and well worth examining and discussing. But unfortunately, at least in your current condition, you’re not a reasonable and reliable contributor. Your very presence only tends to poison the well. One of the most obvious illustrations of this is when the media used your self-proclaimed role in the U.S. bishop’s decision to change page 131 of the USCCA in order to discredit that very change. There was a reason they were all too glad to associate you with the change, Bob, and it wasn’t because they think you’re great. Whether it’s promoting your anti-Jewish agenda or geocentrism, you don’t seem to care that you’ve become a useful tool for those who want nothing more than to embarrass and marginalize the very Church that you claim to care so much about.

I’m sorry if that seems harsh. But it’s just a fact. And someone needs to help you see the reality of what you’re doing as opposed to what you think you’re doing. Believe me, Michael and I would like nothing better than to see you jettison this poison and return to reliably solid contributions. We would both rejoice at such a change of heart and direction and I believe many, many others would as well. We believe you’re better than this. But, failing that, it’s important to at least keep as many innocent people as possible from getting sucked into the ugly and paranoid view of the world and the Church that you’re currently promoting.

 

[Robert_Sungenis]

Palm: Do you have any objection to your friend Bob Sungenis promoting a video about Jews by former KKK Grand Wizard, David Duke?

R. Sungenis: I’ll answer for Yanni since I don’t want him to dirty his hands with Mr. Palm’s muck. David Duke is no longer with the KKK, just as Mr. Palm, as he claims, is no longer a non-Christian because he converted to the Christian faith. But unfortunately, Mr. Palm continues to sin as a Christian due to his slanderous attempts to dig up what Mr. Duke was 30 years ago and use it to prejudice the audience against what he has to say today. This is typical of irrational philosemites like Mr. Palm, that is: don’t listen to the facts about Jewish criminals and New World Zionists that Duke brings to the fore. Just slander Duke for what he was 30 years ago and the matter is settled. Yes, very typical.

Palm: Do you have any objection to Bob continuing to publicly slander his Bishop with bogus charges of heresy when Bob has privately admitted that he knows he may well not be right?

R. Sungenis:  “That he knows be may well not be right”?? This is the typical ambiguity Mr. Palm passes off as cogent argument. As for Bishop Rhoades, I’ve already pointed out that his Feb 2007 letter to Forrest shows he believes the Jews have a special relationship because of the Mosaic Covenant, not the Abrahamic covenant Mr. Palm is now trying to push as an alternative answer. So, by his own words Bishop Rhoades shows his views are erroneous, and Mr. Palm conceded to it by rejecting the Mosaic covenant answer.

Palm: Do you have any objection to Bob spreading a lie about Jewish convert Roy Schoeman’s beliefs and not retracting and apologizing for it even though he knows it’s a lie? pugiofidei.com/fraud.htm

R. Sungenis: Oh, here we go again, the old canard about Roy Schoeman. Roy Schoeman can tout erroneous statements about the Jews all over his “Salvation is from the Jews” book and Mr. Palm doesn’t say a word in criticism. But if I accuse Roy Schoeman of teaching errors about the Jews, Mr. Palm gets incensed and slanders me to no end. Sense an agenda here?

Palm: Do you have any objection to Bob trying to convince people that Michael Forrest, Jared Olar, Jacob Michael and I may secretly be Jews who are hiding our identities? Do you have any objection to the stunt that Bob pulled, enlisting a young man - against his conscience - to try to “out” Jacob Michael as a Jew (see here)?

R. Sungenis: I already explained that it was Jared Olar who brought the Jew issue up, not me? Go here to find out: catholicintl.com/index.php/component/content/article/35-covenant/660-response-to-michael-forrest-on-the-bishop-rhoades-affair. As for Forrest, he decided not to answer when the question was posed to him whether he was Jewish and thus the public cannot determine if he is prejudice. As for Mr. Palm, his Protestant seminary education (Trinity Evangelical Divinity) is pro-Israel and it sees modern Israel as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy – a classic case of a Catholic convert not leaving his baggage at the door.

Palm: Do you have any objection to any of the statements Bob has made about Jews, listed here?

R. Sungenis: Meanwhile, the Zionist Jews control our foreign policy and are just about to get us into World War III with their incessant hatred against Arabs and Iran in particular; falsely accusing Iran of both having nuclear weapons and a plan to destroy Israel (when they have never attacked another country, but the Israeli’s have slaughtered thousands of Palestinians) but Mr. Palm is concerned about statements I make about the Jews when I point out their malfeasance!! This is the typical way irrational philosemites deal with the issue: try your best to discredit the messenger and never pay attention to the factual information in the message.

Palm: Do you have any problem with the fact that Bob has broken multiple promises to stop attacking Jews and to at least stick to theological issues involving them (see here)?

R. Sungenis: First, in saying I “attack” Jews, Mr. Palm is implying that the Jews I write about (Zionists, Jewish criminals, anti-christian rabbis, etc) are innocent of the charges against them and that I just like to attack them because they are Jewish. Wrong, Dead wrong. If you don’t believe me, view the videos and read the articles about Jewish criminals and Zionist political activity on our website www.catholictintl.com. You will find out for yourself why say what I say about the Jews. Then go over to Mr. Palm’s website and see if you can find any statements critical of either Zionism, Jewish criminals, Israeli slaughter of Palestinians, Judaism, Jewish history, the Jewish banking cartel, or anything derogatory at all about the Jews. You will find nothing. Sense an agenda here?

Palm: Do you believe that the kind of material presented by Bob and the sources behind them represent the sort of balance you are seeking and are rightly viewed as an effective way to reach the Jewish people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

R. Sungenis: Obviously, when Mr. Palm doesn’t refute the material about the Jews in the news on our website but instead attacks those who bring it to you, then the “balance” he is seeking is not an open-minded discussion about the good and evil the Jews have done, but merely that you not be exposed to the evil things they have done and are still doing. In his world, you can only be pro-Jew and can never openly criticize the Jews, but you can slander people like Robert Sungenis who bring the other side of the story.

 

[Robert_Sungenis]

Palm: Have We “Changed Our Minds”? No. What’s actually happening is that you and “Yanni” are finally beginning to read our material for the first time and understand it a bit better.

R. Sungenis: First of all, Mr. Palm, “Yanni” is not Mark Wyatt, nor is it me. It is someone else who has finally seen your errors and isn’t afraid to point them out, even against the personal slander you spew out on a daily basis against him.

Palm: Supersessionism…Yet Again Neither sacred Scripture nor the Catholic Church has ever used this word. Yet you deploy it as an absolute litmus test of Catholic orthodoxy - even against a successor of the Apostles.

R. Sungenis: Wrong. The English translation of the Romans Catechism of 1566 uses it. Go talk to them. Scripture uses words even stronger then supersessionism, but Mr. Palm made an arbitrary and irrational decision not to accept synonyms!!

Here is what else I think. I think Mr. Palm is a racist, a Jewish racist. He is desperately trying to propagate a heresy that requires us to interpret history and Scripture through Jewish eyes. His fallacious idea that Deut 7:7 applies to Jews today is enough evidence of his racism. He wants to elevate the Jew to a “special relationship” with God just because they are Jews. That is racism. It is not Christianity. He is little different than the raving lunatic Protestant Zionist John Hagee who thinks that Israel is so special that the US should do a preemptive strike on Iran; and that the Jews, just because they are Jews, have the divine right to take over Palestine. This is where Jewish racism leads – straight to hell.

But, of course, Mr. Palm’s tactic is to make it appear that if I even “challenge a successor of the Apostle’s” on this issue then I’m the one in the wrong just for the challenge. This is typical of Mr. Palm’s cleaning the outside of the cup and drinking the poison inside, as Jesus pointed out about the Pharisees.

Palm: Revoked…Yet Again – Neither sacred Scripture nor the Catholic Church has ever used this word that you use as an absolute litmus test of orthodoxy and insist is one of “the most important legal words related to the topic of the Old Covenant today.”

R. Sungenis: Mr. Palm was shown that English dictionaries use “abrogation” and “annul” (which he has used for the Mosaic covenant) to define “revoke,” yet Mr. Palm decided he doesn’t want to use “revoke” for the Mosaic covenant!! Go figure. Bottom line: Mr. Palm is all over the proverbial map on this issue. That’s what happens when you are in error. It breeds contradictions.

Palm: Racism: The Conversion of the Jews – Your treatment of the future conversion of the Jews remains one of the clearest indications of your “theology of prejudice”. Here, I lay out additional examples of that. Most glaring is your treatment of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church and also Catechism of the Catholic Church 674. The Catechism speaks of the “full inclusion” of the Jews into the Church after (post in Latin) the full number of the Gentiles. In the CCC this information is placed under the section dealing with what will occur leading up to the Second Coming. Everything else listed there is something that a person could perceive—Christ’s return itself, the “final trial” of the Church that will “shake the faith” of her members, and the coming of Antichrist. And the recognition of the Messiah by “all Israel” is right square in the middle of that section. According to your unusual interpretation of Romans 11, this really isn’t really that big of a deal. Very odd, then, that the Church found it important enough to include along with the Great Tribulation, the Great Apostasy, and the Antichrist as signs of the Second Coming. See more details here

R. Sungenis: Notice that when I disagree with Mr. Palm’s view it’s a “theology of prejudice,” but when Bishop Rhoades defends the error on page 131 of the US Catechism as teaching that the Jews have a special relationship with God because of the Mosaic covenant, he is a “successor to the Apostles” that cannot be challenged.

Be that as it may, what is “very odd” is that Mr. Palm keeps reading into para 674 of the US catechism what he wants to see. He’s now telling us that because “full inclusion” comes “in the wake” of the fullness of the Gentiles, this MUST mean that there is a separate conversion of Jews after all the Gentiles are saved. Really? It’s amazing how Mr. Palm gets that out of the simple metaphor “in the wake”! Ever been water skiing Mr. Palm? Notice that one ski on the wake and moves right along with the wake at the same speed and goes the same distance. I never saw a wake that was behind the skier. Go back to the drawing board, Mr. Palm.

 

[DavidPalm]

Bob,

You caught me on my lunch break and I can spare a few minutes to respond.

You’re really going to stand by David Duke? You’re not concerned that Duke is still openly racist? See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_duke. I have an acquaintance who gets material from Duke which is blatantly racist–in fact this last year he got a Christmas card with the tender wish, “May All Your Christmases Be WHITE” (the emphasis is Duke’s, not mine.)

You write,

go over to Mr. Palm’s website and see if you can find any statements critical of either Zionism, Jewish criminals, Israeli slaughter of Palestinians…or anything derogatory at all about the Jews.

Well, not derogatory–that would be un-Christian. But critical, yes. I already gave the proof that you’re wrong, Bob.

thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2010/02/are-you-anti-semitic.html

Oh, here we go again, the old canard about Roy Schoeman…But if I accuse Roy Schoeman of teaching errors about the Jews, Mr. Palm gets incensed and slanders me to no end.

No, Bob. We’ve never had a problem with responsible and charitable criticisms of Roy’s work. In fact, we’ve made some ourselves: sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2007/02/ben-douglass-reviews-salvation-is-from.html. But we do have a problem when you spread lies about him that you know are lies and then refuse to set the record straight and forthrightly apologize.

Again, by your former vice president, Ben Douglass:

Origin of Schoeman Forgery Revealed: Sungenis Up to Old Tricks

As for your claim that I’m being ambiguous about your admission that you weren’t sure about Bishop Rhoades, let me be more clear. You wrote to me on September 2 of last year and admitted that:

I wasn’t quite sure whether it was Rhoades [sic] or [name deleted] who was the mastermind behind this whole thing. My suspicion now is that it was [name deleted], not Bishop Rhoades.

I’ve heard from someone very close to the Harrisburg diocese, who grew up with [name deleted], that he is “an evil man.” Those were his exact words. . . . Perhaps now that Rhoades [sic] is away from [name deleted], he may be more open to talk about these events and I would be more than willing to do so to clear up the issue. In fact, I think I am going to write Rhoades [sic] a letter and make some conciliatory gesture toward him based on how [name deleted] handled this whole thing. My present interpretation is that it is [name deleted] who is the real anti-supersessionist, not Bishop Rhoades. And if I am right, I will certainly apologize to Bishop Rhoades. But I need to know the truth, and that can only come from Bishop Rhoades.

I don’t think you did contact Bishop Rhoades, Bob, because if you did you would have found out that he does not hold the views you’ve accused him of. And yet in spite those doubts about your “case”, you went right ahead and re-posted your heresy charges against Bishop Rhoades. Twice now, in fact.

As for the rest of what you wrote, I think it pretty much makes my point.

 

[DavidPalm]

PalmThe English translation of the Romans Catechism of 1566 uses it. Go talk to them. Scripture uses words even stronger then supersessionism, but Mr. Palm made an arbitrary and irrational decision not to accept synonyms!!

The English translation? We’ve been over this. It’s English, for starters. Second, it doesn’t use the word “supersessionism”. I don’t know how we can we make this any clearer. The Church has never used the word supersessionism, we’ve repeatedly shown that it commonly has a pejorative nuance and many variations, yet you use it as an absolute litmus test of orthodoxy. You know very well why this precise word is so important to you Bob. Your entire “case” again Bishop Rhoades hangs on the allegation that his vicar general used it. You had no justification at all to conclude that Bishop Rhoades is teaching heresy based on this.

Here is what else I think. I think Mr. Palm is a racist, a Jewish racist. He is desperately trying to propagate a heresy that requires us to interpret history and Scripture through Jewish eyes. His fallacious idea that Deut 7:7 applies to Jews today is enough evidence of his racism. He wants to elevate the Jew to a “special relationship” with God just because they are Jews. That is racism. It is not Christianity. He is little different than the raving lunatic Protestant Zionist John Hagee who thinks that Israel is so special that the US should do a preemptive strike on Iran; and that the Jews, just because they are Jews, have the divine right to take over Palestine. This is where Jewish racism leads – straight to hell.

John Hagee? I think I’ve made my own position very clear here and I’ve provided a great number of clarifications. I’ve also provided citations from the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, something that you have so far failed to do. Again, more on your false charges of “racism” here: sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/critique-of-all-in-the-family#_Toc255151551

But, of course, Mr. Palm’s tactic is to make it appear that if I even “challenge a successor of the Apostle’s” on this issue then I’m the one in the wrong just for the challenge. This is typical of Mr. Palm’s cleaning the outside of the cup and drinking the poison inside, as Jesus pointed out about the Pharisees.

I just think that if you’re going to publicly charge a Catholic bishop of having a “war with Catholic doctrine”, of attempting to “propagate a heresy” to “unsuspecting Catholics”, or having greater “allegiances” to Jewish interests than to Catholic doctrine, of being afraid of Jews because they supposedly hold the mortgages on diocesan property (as you have) then you actually need to cite his own words, again, something you have failed to do.

Mr. Palm was shown that English dictionaries use “abrogation” and “annul” (which he has used for the Mosaic covenant) to define “revoke,” yet Mr. Palm decided he doesn’t want to use “revoke” for the Mosaic covenant!! Go figure. Bottom line: Mr. Palm is all over the proverbial map on this issue. That’s what happens when you are in error. It breeds contradictions.

We illustrated the negative nuance of “revoked”.

sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/answers-to-bob-from-the-catholic-answers-forum#RevokedAgain

sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/critique-of-all-in-the-family#_Toc255151556

And no one gets to create his own personal vocabulary and then use it to condemn other people of heresy. Again, I don’t know what is so hard to understand about that.

R. Sungenis: Notice that when I disagree with Mr. Palm’s view it’s a “theology of prejudice,” but when Bishop Rhoades defends the error on page 131 of the US Catechism as teaching that the Jews have a special relationship with God because of the Mosaic covenant, he is a “successor to the Apostles” that cannot be challenged.

Bishop Rhoades didn’t defend an error. He gave a perfectly orthodox interpretation of a problematic passage in the USCCA. He was obviously trying to be as charitable as possible with his interpretation. Yet, it was clear he recognized there was an issue with the wording. In fact, he voted to change it - contrary to the impression you’ve given. And what I pointed out is that the bishop’s wording was not even erroneous, let alone heretical. However, in my view, there is a better, more accurate way to word it. Do you see the difference between that and publicly condemning him of heresy?

Be that as it may, what is “very odd” is that Mr. Palm keeps reading into para 674 of the US catechism what he wants to see. He’s now telling us that because “full inclusion” comes “in the wake” of the fullness of the Gentiles, this MUST mean that there is a separate conversion of Jews after all the Gentiles are saved. Really? It’s amazing how Mr. Palm gets that out of the simple metaphor “in the wake”!..I never saw a wake that was behind the skier. Go back to the drawing board, Mr. Palm.

First, again, this is the English translation, not the original language. Regardless, “in the wake of” as a temporal metaphor means “after”. But more importantly, I have already pointed out here in this thread that the Latin of the Catechism uses the word “post”, which means temporally after (as in post hoc, ergo propter hoc). It does not mean “at the same time”, as you’re trying to interpret it. And this contradicts your view of “all Israel” being solely a continuous trickle of Jewish converts throughout time, coming in simultaneously with the Gentiles.

 

[YanniP]

Mr. Palm: I now understand the propriety of your moniker “Reluctant” Traditionalist. You are trying very hard to maintain consistency with the Tradition of the Church, yet you are conflicted. That conflict is creeping out as novelty.

First, please realize that you are transposing anger and spite you have for another onto me. You have gone so far as to allege that I am someone I am not. Quite an elaborate conspiracy theorist you are! I’m not Mark Wyatt, Wyatt Erp, nor Robert Sungenis’ lackey. You have been condescending and quite rude. The only “glasses” I wear were given to me at my confirmation by the Church. Please quell the anti-sungenis fetish. If you don’t like his website, don’t go to it. Last I checked, he’s not claiming his political commentary is magisterial- you are. If you don’t want to discuss the issues, don’t post any further.

Yes, I have posted similar arguments on the (c)atholics for Israel website after seeing a post here on CA that was very troubling. The poster had that website’s banner attached to his post. I researched the website, and was very, very concerned. Thank you for pointing out that my arguments were consistent. I have researched this issue myself, and obviously raised arguments that are my own.

Onto the substance if you will join me, but this will be my last post if you continue with your attempt to divert the conversation. This discussion WAS very on-point for the topic of the thread, and as you probably saw, your article was cited by a very kind poster in the catholics for Israel forum discussion I was having regarding similar covenant issues. The tone of that conversation was very professional. Hint.

Seeing as you didn’t answer any of my last questions or address any of the theological arguments I raised, I’ll make one last point in response to your post #75, you state:

“The place where your fundamentally flawed approach to Romans 11 really comes to the fore is in your treatment of the olive tree in vv. 17-24. First, you have previously gone to great lengths to deny that the “olive tree” of which St. Paul speaks is Israel. You’ve claimed that the olive tree is Christ and that “this was also the constant teaching of the Fathers” (CASB2, p. 149), going so far as to publicly castigate Jewish converts for saying that the olive tree was Israel. Of course, you seem to have forgotten that Jesus is a Jew. He is the Israelite par excellence, the representative head of Israel. So, even if you were correct, to be grafted into Christ is still to be grafted into Israel.

And although you offered a few citations from the Fathers as a “representative sample” of your claim, it turns out that you missed in the very same context of those citations where those Fathers made it quite clear that they saw Israel as the Olive Tree.”

To say the “tree” in this analogy is Christ is completely consistent with Church teaching. The tree and roots have specifically been referenced as the Church, which is consistent with the Fathers teaching that the tree is rooted in the patriarchs. Do you see the consistent thread here to this position? Why is it that the tree is rooted in the Patriarchs? Let’s find out.

Pope Pius X proclaimed it in his encyclical Iucunda Sane:

“13. But in those days the people, albeit rude, ignorant, and still destitute of all civilization, were eager for life, and this no one could give except Christ, through the Church, who “came that they may have life and have it more abundantly” (John x. 10). And truly they had life and had it abundantly, precisely because as no other life but the supernatural life of souls could come from the Church, this includes in itself and gives additional vigor to all the energies of life, even in the natural order. “If the root be holy so are the branches,” said St. Paul to the Gentiles, "and thou being a wild olive art ingrafted in them, and art made partaker of the root and of the fatness of the olive-tree (Rom. xi. 16, 17).
14. To-day, on the contrary, although the world enjoys a light so full of Christian civilization and in this respect cannot for a moment be compared with the times of Gregory, yet it seems as though it were tired of that life, which has been and still is the chief and often the sole fount of so many blessings–and not merely past but present blessings. And not only does this useless branch cut itself off from the trunk, as happened in other times when heresies and schisms arose, but it first lays the ax to the root of the tree, which is the Church, and strives to dry up its vital sap that its ruin may be the surer and that it may never blossom again.”

 

[YanniP]

The Church is the root. Unless you define Israel as the New Israel, you are off target. Seeing as you quickly disregard my comments, and attribute them to another, I’ll keep mine to a minimum and rely on the words of St. Augustine:

“The wild olive is cut off from its stock, to be grafted into the olive: now they belong to the olive, no longer ought they to be called nations, but one nation in Christ, the nation of Jacob, the nation of Israel…What is Israel? Seeing God. Where shall he see God? In peace. What peace? The peace of Jerusalem; for, says he, He has set peace for your borders. There shall we praise: there shall we all be one, in One, unto One: for then, though many, we shall not be scattered.” Ex Ps 147

But does Augustine mean a physical, eternal, Israel? No, he means the New Israel, more definitvely Christ. The old Israel, the children of the flesh are NOT the children of God, as it depends entirely upon circumcision of the heart:

“Why then would we have some great mystery to be understood in this superscription, wherein it was written, King of the Jews, if Christ is king also of the Gentiles? For this reason, because it was the wild olive tree that was made partaker of the fatness of the olive tree, and not the olive tree that was made partaker of the bitterness of the wild olive tree. Romans 11:17 For inasmuch as the title, King of the Jews, was truthfully written regarding Christ, who are they that are to be understood as the Jews but the seed of Abraham, the children of the promise, who are also the children of God? For they, says the apostle, who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. Romans 9:7-8 And the Gentiles were those to whom he said, But if you be Christ’s, then are you Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:29 Christ therefore is king of the Jews, but of those who are Jews by the circumcision of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God; Romans 2:29 who belong to the Jerusalem that is free, our eternal mother in heaven, the spiritual Sarah, who casts out the bond maid and her children from the house of liberty.” Tractate 117, para. 5

Finally, as for your complaint that in interpreting Romans 11 you cannot seperate “Israel” into two groups, isn’t Augustine saying exactly the contrary?

“Because God’s hand and counsel predestinated such things to be done by the hostile Jews as were necessary for the gospel, for our sakes. But what is it that follows? But as concerning the election, they are beloved for their fathers’ sakes. For are those enemies who perished in their enmity and those of the same people who still perish in their opposition to Christ—are those chosen and beloved? Away with the thought! Who is so utterly foolish as to say this? But both expressions, although contrary to one another— that is, enemies and beloved— are appropriate, though not to the same men, yet to the same Jewish people, and to the same carnal seed of lsrael, of whom some belonged to the falling away, and some to the blessing of Israel himself.” On the Predestination of Saints, Book I, para. 33.

See, Mr. Palm, old truths from wise men. Tradition without reluctance.

 

[Robert_Sungenis]

Palm: So what’s behind all of this? I believe the problem is that you’re beginning with unbalanced, faulty presuppositions. It is no wonder that you come to erroneous conclusions, which do not reflect what the Magisterium teaches.

R. Sungenis: Sure. I expose the error of the US Catechism; the bishops vote 243 to 14 to remove the error; the Vatican confirms the change, yet Mr. Palm claims I’m “not reflecting what the Magisterium teaches.”

Palm:I believe you have a fundamentally unbalanced and confused understanding of God’s relationship with Israel according to the flesh, the Jewish people. You have adopted what we’ve called a “theology of prejudice”, but upon further reflection it might also be called a “theology of punishment.” From this flows your private choice of a word that the Magisterium has never used: “revoked”. From this flows your denial that the Jewish people retain any special place in salvation history (unless it’s at the service of Satan, of course).

R. Sungenis: Notice Mr. Palm avoids Scripture which is crystal clear that the Mosaic covenant is revoked (Hebrews 7:18; 8:13; 10:9). Notice that he avoids the Romans Catechism (after, of course, he used his own judgment to nullify its English translation). Notice how he avoids the Council of Trent reference to the “abrogation of the Mosaic covenant,” and, by his own private judgment, says that “revoked” is not the same as “abrogate.” Notice how he avoids Pius XII’s Mystici Coroporis that also says the Mosaic covenant was abrogated. Notice how he then implies that if I disagree with him its possibly because it is at the “service of Satan.” Where does Mr. Palm get off?

Palm: From this flows your insistence that the Jews have no special ongoing relationship with God (again, unless it’s negative. For more, see Internal Contradictions in Sungenis’ Own Theology here). From this flows the great double standards you employ, latching onto any negative thing the Fathers or Scripture might say about Jews, while working desperately to explain away the instances in which Scripture, the Fathers, and the Magisterium affirm positive things about them. From this flow your extremely tendentious readings of Romans 11. From this flow all of the contortions you go through to try to divorce the Church as much as you can from its inherent Jewishness.

R. Sungenis: There he goes again. Mr. Palm wants race to be the basis of how we distinguish the Catholic Church! Not only are we to give unsaved and anti-Christian Jews some kind of “special relationship” with God, but the Church is “inherently Jewish”!! No wonder he claims that “the election” of Romans 11:28 refers to the Jewish race! Really, Mr. Palm? Is that why St. Paul, a Jew, said he was leaving the Jews because they didn’t accept the Gospel, and was turning to the Gentiles, and was doing so in direct fulfillment of OT prophecy (cf. Acts 13:43-48; Romans 9:24-26; 10:16-21)? Is that why Paul says in 1 Thess 2:14-16 that the Jews, at large, are a menace to the whole world? Is that why you can’t find any positive statement about the Jews from Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate and CCC 674 except for what these documents quote from Scripture? Is that why you keep twisting words of the English language (e.g., revoked, abrogate, annul, supersede) to confirm to your Israel first theology?

Palm:Let’s look at this more closely. More examples could be cited, but the following will suffice.

From your “Question 231”, you write:
Also, your insistence that the revoke or annulling of the Old Covenant had nothing to do with “rebuke” or “disownership” is incorrect. Whether we use “revoke,” “annul,” “set aside,” “take away,” “cancel” or any other similar term, the fact remains that the legal or covenantal commission that God had originally given to the Jewish nation was revoked, and in the process of the revocation, the Jews were, indeed, “rebuked” for their sins and they were also severed from “ownership” of the Mosaic law. No longer could the Jews have a relationship with God based on the Mosaic law, legally speaking. No longer would the Jews be the “chosen people” or “the people of the covenant” in opposition to everyone else in the world. As a national or ethnic entity, God, indeed, has “repudiated” the Jews. . . . *n regards to national or ethnic aspects, the Jews have, indeed, been rejected. God no longer deals with or has a relationship to the Jews based on their Jewishness or their national origin. God will only relate to the Jews as he relates to everyone else in the world – accept Jesus Christ for the salvation of your souls or perish.

And then the following, from your critique of our Lay Witness article:

“The only way a Jew can become a member of the “Chosen People” today is if he accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior…If he is unconverted, he is not of the “Chosen People.” In fact, a Jew, because he denies that Jesus Christ is the divine Savior, is consigned to hell by “divine choice.”

You sure can feel the love.

R. Sungenis: Notice how Mr. Palm resorts to sarcasm and demagoguery instead of the issue. You can sure feel his love, can’t you? Mr. Palm needs to ask himself the $64,000 question: which gospel is he going to preach? The one in the NT that says the Jews are not special because of their Jewish race and says that there is no longer Jew nor Greek but only those in Christ Jesus, or his race-based Gospel that says Jews are special just because they are Jewish? This is the crux of the issue. Mr. Palm has finally laid his cards on the table.*

 

[Robert_Sungenis]

Palm: I submit that this is at the heart of your whole approach to the Jews. You believe that the replacement of the Mosaic covenant with the New Covenant was a “rebuke” of Israel according to the flesh. The Jewish people, according to you, were “repudiated” by God and have no special relationship with God, as Jews and as a people. God only deals with Jews as individuals and their Jewishness is irrelevant now. That’s your position.

R. Sungenis: Mr. Palm, I suggest you go back and read the OT, and when you do, stop reading it behind your Deut 7:7 rose-colored glasses. Page after page after page of the OT deals with the sins of the Jews. Consult my review of David Klinghoffer’s book Why the Jews Rejected Jesus to get a bird’s eye view of their inordinate sins and why God finally rejected them for those sins
(catholicintl.com/index.php/component/content/article/35-covenant/259-a-review-of-david-klinghoffers-why-the-jews-rejected-jesus).

The NT is crystal clear that God rejected the Jewish nation because of those sins, yet He held out his merciful hand to those Jews who accepted Christ, and continues to do so. You are a racist. God is not, since he shows no respect of persons (Romans 2:9-10).

 

[Robert_Sungenis]

Palm: Bob, You caught me on my lunch break and I can spare a few minutes to respond. You’re really going to stand by David Duke? You’re not concerned that Duke is still openly racist? See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_duke. I have an acquaintance who gets material from Duke which is blatantly racist–in fact this last year he got a Christmas card with the tender wish, “May All Your Christmases Be WHITE” (the emphasis is Duke’s, not mine.)

R. Sungenis: If he is a racist, I’m not condoning it. You don’t see anything on my website that does so. What you see is Duke’s information on Jewish gangsters and bankers and Zionist hegemony. Besides, what’s worse? David Duke’s alleged white racism or your blatant Jewish racism?

 

[Robert_Sungenis]

Palm: Well, not derogatory–that would be un-Christian. But critical, yes. I already gave the proof that you’re wrong, Bob.

thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2010/0…i-semitic.html

R. Sungenis: Sorry, I’m not going to wade through your magniloquence. You can state here what criticisms you have of Israel and the Jews, and then we will judge how fair you are.

 

[Robert_Sungenis]

Palm: No, Bob. We’ve never had a problem with responsible and charitable criticisms of Roy’s work. In fact, we’ve made some ourselves: sungenisandthejews.blogspot.c…n-is-from.html. But we do have a problem when you spread lies about him that you know are lies and then refuse to set the record straight and forthrightly apologize.

Again, by your former vice president, Ben Douglass:

R. Sungenis: It’s a canard, Mr. Palm, because you know very well I gave a conditional apology to Mr. Schoeman due to the fact that I received information about a derogatory statement he alledgedly made. I also stated I would give him an unconditional apology if he would assure me, through written statement signed by him, that he did not say the statement in question. To this day he has not done so, and you have not encouraged him to do so. The only thing you do is spread slander about me claiming that I’m “lying” about about the original statement Mr. Schoeman allegdegly said and that I still accuse him of saying it!! Mr. Palm, get a grip on yourself. Stop digging up canards to prejudice the audience.

 

[Robert_Sungenis]

Palm: Quoting a private email I sent to you, you quote me as saying: I wasn’t quite sure whether it was Rhoades [sic] or [name deleted] who was the mastermind behind this whole thing. My suspicion now is that it was [name deleted], not Bishop Rhoades. I’ve heard from someone very close to the Harrisburg diocese, who grew up with [name deleted], that he is “an evil man.” Those were his exact words. . . . Perhaps now that Rhoades [sic] is away from [name deleted], he may be more open to talk about these events and I would be more than willing to do so to clear up the issue. In fact, I think I am going to write Rhoades [sic] a letter and make some conciliatory gesture toward him based on how [name deleted] handled this whole thing. My present interpretation is that it is [name deleted] who is the real anti-supersessionist, not Bishop Rhoades. And if I am right, I will certainly apologize to Bishop Rhoades. But I need to know the truth, and that can only come from Bishop Rhoades.

R. Sungenis: This goes right to your character, Mr. Palm. I believe when I wrote that email to you it said that it was private between us and not to be disseminated in public. Obvioiulsy, you can’t be trusted, and thus this conversation is over, and I will never communicate with you again.

Palm: I don’t think you did contact Bishop Rhoades, Bob, because if you did you would have found out that he does not hold the views you’ve accused him of.

R. Sungenis: Well, thanks for your opinion, Mr. Palm, but it’s wrong, as usual. We’ve already shown that Rhoades’ letter to Forrest stated that he believed the Jews presently have a special relationship with God based on the Mosaic covenant. Since that is the case, then he does hold an erroneous view of the Jews, since neither the Magisterium, Scripture or Tradition teach such a thing.

Palm: And yet in spite those doubts about your “case”, you went right ahead and re-posted your heresy charges against Bishop Rhoades. Twice now, in fact.

R. Sungenis: YOU said I called him a heretic. I did not. I said he holds a heretical view of the Jews and the Mosaic covenant, just as you do. And you helped in comfirming this for us by making a shift from the Mosaic covenant to the Abrahamic, but not realizing that the letter Rhoades wrote to Forrest shows he is still using the Mosaic covenant! Get your story straight, Mr. Palm. Goodbye.

 

[DavidPalm]

Well, perhaps “Yanni” and I can continue for some time yet and I’ll have a bit more to say about Bob’s latest postings. Thanks as always for your patience.

 

[DavidPalm]

This goes right to your character, Mr. Palm. I believe when I wrote that email to you it said that it was private between us and not to be disseminated in public. Obvioiulsy, you can’t be trusted, and thus this conversation is over, and I will never communicate with you again.

Unfortunately, what can’t be trusted is your memory, Bob. Here’s what I wrote to you before you sent me the email about Bishop Rhoades:

D. Palm; “P.S. Please note that while I have no intention of publicizing this discussion, based on past experience I have to keep that option open in case it becomes necessary to defend myself or others. Also, per your request I did forward your note to Michael Forrest.”

So according to your standards of “character” it’s no problem that you continue to publicly slander Bishop Rhoades as a dual covenant proponent”peddling” the dual covenant “heresy” to “unsuspecting Catholics”, while failing to bring one bit of evidence to back up your charge and ** while privately admitting that you don’t believe it’s true anymore**. The real problem is that I defended Bishop Rhoades by exposing that fact, even though I told you straight up front that I kept that option open. I just don’t know what to say to this sort of thing anymore. I don’t understand the moral compass that’s behind this sort of behavior.

Bob, you were right years ago when you recognized in Bishop Rhoades the "[shepherd] that God has placed as [overseer] of my life ". Your descent into the fever swamps of conspiracy theories and your scandalous attacks on Bishop Rhoades do nothing but harm you and the Body of Christ. Listen to the voice of the Good Shepherd, that came to you through the voice of the earthly shepherd that God placed over you, your bishop. For the sake of those you lead astray and for the sake of your own soul, Bob, leave this garbage behind and return to the good work you did when you first returned to the Church.

[More to follow.]

 

[DavidPalm]

Now, to deal with a few of Bob’s final criticisms before moving on:

There he goes again…Not only are we to give unsaved and anti-Christian Jews some kind of “special relationship” with God, but the Church is “inherently Jewish”!

No, Bob. We don’t “give” Jews a special relationship with God. God gave it to them. The Church has simply acknowledged the relationship and so should we. But there’s no cause for sibling jealousy.

And of course the Church is inherently Jewish, Bob. You’re flirting with multiple heresies by denying that fact. Are you a Docetist? Jesus Christ is both true God and true man. That “true man” is a Jewish man. The head of your Church, which is His Body, was, is and forever will be a Jew. Do you deny the Real Presence? Whose Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity do you receive at Holy Communion, Bob? That of the Jewish God-man, the King of Israel, right? Who is our Mediatrix of all graces, Bob and our spiritual Mother? Miriam, the Jewess. Who will sit in judgment with the Jewish God-man? Twelve Jews, representing the twelve tribes of Israel. Who wrote your Bible, Bob? All Jews (with only one exception). Who are the “natural branches” of the Olive Tree, compared to those who are grafted in “contrary to nature”? Do you see how inherently Jewish the Church is now?

Sure. I expose the error of the US Catechism; the bishops vote 243 to 14 to remove the error; the Vatican confirms the change, yet Mr. Palm claims I’m “not reflecting what the Magisterium teaches.”

Bob, I know for a fact that others recognized the problem before you did. And they continued to stay in communication with the USCCB about it without making a spectacle of themselves. The problem is not that you oppose the dual covenant heresy. Nobody in the apologetics community has ever criticized you for that and you will never be able to show a shred of evidence to the contrary, because we all (including Bishop Rhoades) agree with you that the dual covenant theory is a heresy. The problem is with the rest of what you teach, things that make you a crude supersessionist (to use Cardinal Dulles’ words)—like teaching that “the Jews are godless”, that they “have infected our Catholic Church”, that they won’t ever be restored as a people alongside us Gentiles, that there is no further unique role for them in salvation history unless it is at the service of Satan. All accented with a continuous stream of anti-Jewish propaganda gleaned from white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and Holocaust deniers. You know, those kinds of things. Those have been and continue to be the problem, Bob.

If [David Duke] is a racist, I’m not condoning it. You don’t see anything on my website that does so. What you see is Duke’s information on Jewish gangsters and bankers and Zionist hegemony. Besides, what’s worse? David Duke’s alleged white racism or your blatant Jewish racism?

David Duke is only an “alleged” racist? That’s pretty much what you said about National Vanguard—the white supremacist group that you’ve used as a source of material on Jews.

I continue to find it remarkable that you don’t seem to think that David Duke’s prior leadership of one the world’s most notorious racist (and anti-Semitic) groups and his continuing racist views have any bearing on his ability to speak credibly on Jewish issues. But your mere suspicion that we have Jewish ancestry has a huge bearing on our ability to speak credibly on Jewish issues in your mind.

R. Sungenis: It’s a canard, Mr. Palm, because you know very well I gave a conditional apology to Mr. Schoeman due to the fact that I received information about a derogatory statement he allegedly made. I also stated I would give him an unconditional apology if he would assure me, through written statement signed by him, that he did not say the statement in question. To this day he has not done so, and you have not encouraged him to do so. The only thing you do is spread slander about me claiming that I’m “lying” about about the original statement Mr. Schoeman allegdegly said and that I still accuse him of saying it!!

Bob, please allow me refresh your memory. After the president of your board of directors (Mark Wyatt) discovered what Roy Schoeman had actually written, as opposed to what you falsely attributed to him, you wrote to the young man (Steve Tolles) who gave you the bogus quote of Schoeman and you told Tolles that you believed it was fraudulent. Not only that, but you sent him some bizarre, threatening emails. Yet, in public, you completely stuck by the quote and defended Tolles. Then you even publicly suggested that Roy Schoeman had changed the quote just to hide what he had said—basically calling him a liar. Only after sustained public pressure did you eventually send an email to Schoeman in which you said he had to get an affidavit swearing that he didn’t write the bogus quote and only then you would retract and apologize for it!

Do you really not understand why Roy never responded to that “apology”, Bob? You’ve also forgotten that Tolles wrote to Ben Douglass and told him straight out that the quote of Schoeman was bogus and how it happened. Tolles gave Douglass your strange and threatening emails. And your response? Complete silence.

It was a lie, Bob. You made very public and very false charges against Roy Schoeman. But you’ve allowed it to stand because of your animus against a Jewish convert. Now you’re upset when Roy is defended publicly. Again, the whole story is right here, written by your own former vice president in defense of Roy Schoeman: Origin of Schoeman Forgery Revealed
.

 

[DavidPalm]

Mr. Palm, I suggest you go back and read the OT, and when you do, stop reading it behind your Deut 7:7 rose-colored glasses. Page after page after page of the OT deals with the sins of the Jews…The NT is crystal clear that God rejected the Jewish nation because of those sins, yet He held out his merciful hand to those Jews who accepted Christ, and continues to do so. You are a racist. God is not, since he shows no respect of persons (Romans 2:9-10).

You’re studiously avoiding my point. I showed where you have described the replacement of the Old Covenant with the New as God’s punishment of Israel. It was not. It was an act of God’s mercy. And you neglected the fact that I showed, yet again, where you were completely wrong about the context of Romans 11. You’ve repeatedly said that the context of Romans 11 comes out of the destruction of the Jerusalem. That is impossible because the destruction of the Temple happened AFTER Romans 11 was written, indeed, after St. Paul was dead. So there’s a fundamental error in your understanding of the context of Romans 11 and that has in turn skewed your entire theology about the relationship between God and Israel according to the flesh.

With regard to your repeated charge of “spiritual racism”, let’s look at a few points. First, as your own former vice president, Ben Douglass, has previously noted, you openly acknowledge that God had a “special relationship” with Israel in the Old Testament. In fact, you used those precise words.

R. Sungenis : “The reference to Israel as God’s “firstborn” does not refer to being born first (Ex 4:22-23). It refers, rather, to the special relationship between God and his chosen people.”(web.archive.org/web/20101120124023/http://catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/marysaints/svend-heos4.htm)

Therefore, if such a “special relationship” between God and the Jewish people is “racist” now, as you charge, it was racist then. Similarly, if such a special relationship represents an immoral sort of partiality now, in violation of Rom 2:9-10, then it represents an immoral partiality then. And just a few chapters later in this same epistle, was it spiritual racism for St. Paul to state that the Jews remain the “natural branches” – literally “the branches according to nature” – and that the Gentiles are grafted into the Olive Tree “contrary to nature” (Romans 11)? Was it spiritual racism for him to teach that the Olive Tree remains the Jews’ “own tree”? Was it spiritual racism for St. Paul to teach that Jews are more easily grafted into the tree than the Gentiles?

Your complaint against the appearance of divine “favoritism”, then, is fraught with problems. But it’s easily solved. While God gives sufficient grace to everyone, He gives differing actual graces. If you are to be consistent, this discrepancy—or apparent “favoritism”—shouldn’t be possible. Yet, God has singled out certain individuals and even entire nations (such as Saul /St. Paul and the Aztecs/Guadalupe or Fatima/Portugal-Russia) —whether under the Old or the New Covenant—for “special” treatment. However, we see no charges of “racism” or “favoritism” from you in regard to these instances. Your ire is reserved solely for the Jewish people. But if God preserves them through history as a people and chooses at some time to bestow special graces upon the Jewish people so that they might in great abundance be restored alongside the Gentiles in the Body of Christ, what is that to you, Bob? What possible ground can you have to complain about the Divine mercy?

The charge of “spiritual racism” makes for great rhetoric, but it doesn’t stand up to theological scrutiny. Regardless, the fact is that even your own theology still gives witness to the fact that the Jewish people still have a special relationship with God, Bob. We invite you to read this again: Internal Contradictions in Sungenis’ Own Theology.

But to bring this full circle—again, neither Michael nor I care if you disagree with our presentation of the Church’s teaching in these areas. But we do care when you start throwing around irresponsible and unjustified charges of heresy in public—especially when it’s against a successor to the Apostles: Bishop Rhoades.

You haven’t supported your charges at all. I’ve asked you repeatedly to show us the magisterial statements that we deny or contradict and you haven’t even made an effort to do so. The same is true of your charges against Bishop Rhoades. I think you know very well that you’ve completely violated your own publicly stated standards sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/sungenis-standards-of-heresy.

You have no evidence, Bob. So it’s time to publicly retract and apologize for these false charges against Bishop Rhoades and us. It’s that simple. And then simply honor the multiple promises you’ve made to stop attacking Jews. (You can see your own promises right here) Return to the kind of good, honorable work you did shortly after your reversion to the Catholic faith. If you did that, I think you’d be pleasantly surprised by the kind of response you’d receive.

 

[DavidPalm]

“Yanni”,

I don’t know for certain who you are—that’s why I didn’t come out and accuse you. Some very interesting “coincidences” remain, nonetheless. Whoever you are it’s plain that you know Bob well enough that he promptly came out to defend and support you. I’ve known Bob long enough to know that he doesn’t do that for just anyone. He rarely ventures onto Internet venues where he doesn’t have a lot of support. It’s also plain that the comments you initially made about our article came from reading Bob’s material. In fact, when I pointed that out, you didn’t deny it and Bob suddenly came out of the woodwork. And now he’s even fielding questions that were directed to you. That’s something considering the fact that he won’t answer an apologetic question on his website unless you pay him $4 first. And I find it highly unlikely that it’s a mere coincidence that you and Mark Wyatt, both collaborators with Bob, just happened to pick the very same on-line moniker “truthseeker” independently of each other. But hey, I suppose stranger things have happened

Yet, your identity is just an interesting question, “Yanni.” I don’t care if you use a pseudonym. What I mostly care about is the blatant double standards I illustrated. You ignored my entire first post and the questions I ended with in the second. You ignored the plain heresy right in front of your face on this thread–that Jesus was not the Messiah for the Jews–and instead only felt compelled to come out of the woodwork in order to warn people about how dangerous our article supposedly is, even though we’re both on the same side, in opposition to that heresy. In fact, you’ve now admitted that you were wrong to assert that we held a heresy ourselves, but you’re still more concerned about our article than the true heresies right in front of you. And you’re apparently not the least bit concerned about the plainly offensive and objectionable material put out by your friend, Bob Sungenis, either. That’s telling.

Please go back and read this post.

Please note again the questions I ended with. Will you answer those, or are you content to let your friend Bob Sungenis answer for you?

I’d like your own answer on all of them, but by far the most salient is this one: Do you believe that the kind of material presented by Bob and the sources behind them represent the sort of balance you are seeking and are rightly viewed as an effective way to reach the Jewish people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

To say the “tree” in this analogy is Christ is completely consistent with Church teaching. The tree and roots have specifically been referenced as the Church, which is consistent with the Fathers teaching that the tree is rooted in the patriarchs. Do you see the consistent thread here to this position? Why is it that the tree is rooted in the Patriarchs? Let’s find out.

Pope Pius X proclaimed it in his encyclical Iucunda Sane: etc.

Yes, of course “Yanni”. What makes you think we would disagree?

Ever since 2006 we’ve been taking the “both/and” approach. We’ve been completely consistent on this. Once again, it’s Bob Sungenis who has taken the absolute either/or approach, condemning people with whom he disagrees. Here’s what Michael documented back in September, 2006:

Sungenis: “This is certainly a novel interpretation. Unfortunately for Moss, it totally distorts the words of Romans 11:17-20… Moss believes that the “root” of Romans 11 is Israel, not Christ, and that as the Gentiles are saved as they are grafted into Israel. This is wrong. The root is Christ, not Israel.

Notice that it is Bob who is insisting that the view that Israel is the Olive Tree is a “novel interpretation” and that it is “wrong” to say that the root is Israel. (Do please note that David Moss never implied, let alone stated, that the root is “not Christ”) That’s why it was important to point out that, in the very context of the citations from the same Fathers he cited, those Fathers made clear that they interpreted the tree as Israel.

As Ben Douglass, Bob’s former vice-president, said to him while Ben was still helping Bob at CAI:

St. Augustine read the root of Romans 11 as Israel, and he says so in the immediate vicinity of the passages you quoted to argue that the root is Christ and not Israel. Again, you’re lobbing softballs at your critics, and it’s a good thing I caught this before they did. There could hardly be a clearer illustration of Forrest’s thesis that your use of the Fathers is highly tendentious when the subject is Jews and Israel (emphasis mine).

This was a few months before CASB2 was released. Yet, Sungenis allowed the book to go to print without correcting this obvious error and it remains in his published work.

Similarly, Bob quotes a passage from St. John Chrysostom in which he applies the metaphor of an olive tree to the Church, but ignores the passage in which this Doctor of the Church actually interprets Romans 11:17ff. There he interprets the olive tree not as Christ but as “Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, the prophets, the patriarchs, all who were of note in the Old Testament”. Michael Forrest brought this to Bob’s attention in September of 2006, but Bob refused to change CASB2 to reflect this fact. See complete documentation in “The Theology of Prejudice: The Olive Tree or ‘Root’ of Romans 11”

To summarize: we have always acknowledged the validity of the various interpretations of the Olive Tree of Romans 11 – they are complementary and not contradictory (see: sungenisandthejews.com/uploads/ROOT-LINK.doc). It is Bob Sungenis who has created the false dichotomy, suppressing the evidence on this matter to fit his theology of prejudice.

 

[DavidPalm]

Finally, as for your complaint that in interpreting Romans 11 you cannot seperate “Israel” into two groups, isn’t Augustine saying exactly the contrary?

What I stated is that there are “exegetical difficulties” associated with that approach (post #76). Then I documented that the Magisterium of the Church does not separate Israel into two separate groups in its use of Rom 11:28-29 and I supported the Church’s teaching exegetically and gave other support from both popes and respected Catholic scholars.

Remember, when St. Augustine wrote, the Church had obviously not yet produced the magisterial documents I cited. As such, he was not contradicting the Church. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for Bob’s writings. And also unlike Bob, St. Augustine readily acknowledged that his private interpretations could be wrong and are not the official teaching of the Church:

In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush headlong and so firmly take a stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture (The Literal Meaning of Genesis 1.18).

Here are a few other salient facts:

Bob has contradicted himself on this passage right here in this thread. He has said that “there is a smaller group of elect Jews who are beloved of God” but he has also stated that “the Jews, at large, are beloved”. So, depending on which Bob one wants to quote, he also disagrees with St. Augustine’s exegesis.

Contrary to Bob, St. Augustine expected a future significant conversion of the Jews. See citations in Compilation on the Conversion of the Jews.

More importantly, in his CASB3 volume on Romans, Bob accused St. Augustine of “exegetical duplicity” involving his treatment of Jewish issues, because St. Augustine’s exegesis supported the traditional Catholic teaching about a future special conversion of the Jews. Here is Bob’s remarkable accusation against this Doctor of the Church:

As a result of this exegetical duplicity, Augustine and his followers subsequently produced many forced interpretations of Ap 11:5-8 and Rm 11:25-26 to make room for both a Jewish conversion and a Jewish evangelism to the Gentiles (CASB3, p. 454).

Just so we’re clear on definitions, “duplicity” is defined as “deception; double-dealing”.

So you and we acknowledge that St. Augustine was indeed a wise man – certainly wise enough, we believe, to humble himself in the face of the application of a passage of Scripture by the Magisterium that may differ from his own. Bob, on the other hand, considers the saint to be duplicitous, at least if he writes anything positive about Jews.

Candidly, “Yanni”, you seem more balanced about these matters than Bob. I don’t think we disagree on much. I do wonder if you don’t too lightly dismiss the ramifications of the Catholic teaching on a future special conversion of the Jewish people to Christ and perhaps that’s something we should discuss. But the only place in which you seem to be noticeably out of balance is in regard to your determination to try to find or manufacture something wrong with what Michael and I believe and have written on this issue. It seems that the material you’ve read from your friend Bob about us has created an impression in search of a justification. Again, it would also be helpful if you would look a bit more closely at what your friend has written about Jews and decide if you genuinely want to stand behind it.

 

[YanniP]

Mr. Palm:

You are persistent, I’ll give you that. I’ll save your first question for last, but address your other points in seriatim:

Condemning the real heresy: In a dual covenant discussion, the ambiguities in your article are unhelpful and may lead readers to heretical conclusions. That has been my point all along. Your article supports the exact racial pride that was the basis for the breaking of the covenant. So my warning still remains justified.

The Olive Tree: The only magisterial statement I have seen directed to this specific analogy, is the one I quoted above from Pope Pius X. The Roots of the tree is the Church. End of story. The portion of the Roman Catechism section cited by Mr. Forrest in his short piece on the Olive Tree stated: “On that land the ancient olive tree grows whose holy roots were the prophets”. But let’s read that entire section 755:

"The Church is a cultivated field, the tillage of God. On that land the ancient olive tree grows whose holy roots were the prophets and in which the reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles has been brought about and will be brought about again. That land, like a choice vineyard, has been planted by the heavenly cultivator. Yet the true vine is Christ who gives life and fruitfulness to the branches, that is, to us, who through the Church remain in Christ, without whom we can do nothing.”

You can see why Pope Pius X was clear to define the Roots as the Church, and why the Catechism was clear in its use of the analogy not to limit the interpretation to the Prophets. In fact, it clarified that the olive tree analogy in Romans 11 was Christ, just as in the vine analogy used elsewhere! In order to call the tree or roots Israel, you would have to do as Augustine did and clarify the separation from those claiming to be Israel who don’t belong:

“For thus do they become of the house of Israel, when their uncircumcision is accounted circumcision, by the fact that they do not exhibit the righteousness of the law by the excision of the flesh, but keep it by the charity of the heart. If, says he, the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? Romans 2:26 And therefore in the house of the true Israel, in which is no guile, they are partakers of the new testament, since God puts His laws into their mind, and writes them in their hearts with his own finger, the Holy Ghost, by whom is shed abroad in them the love Romans 5:5 which is the fulfilling of the law. Romans 13:10” Spirit of the Letter, 46

This separation is necessary to eliminate the possible interpretation that we are engrafted into a racial group or a temporal nation.

As we see just right before and after the section in the CCC cited by Mr. Forrest, the continuity of the Church, and of Christ, is clearly explained, and it is that continuity which your ambiguities eviscerate. As I’ve argued before, to which you have not responded, the “Church” has usurped the Chosen, and therefore there is no group presently chosen outside of the Church. Suggesting otherwise, is suggesting love and election outside of Christ. See, as the catechism states, the old Chosen has deceased(interesting theme, as it’s used for the Old Covenant also), and the official Church of Christ becomes the “heir”. There is no “heir” unless there is a death:

751 The word “Church” (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to “call out of”) means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose.139 Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people.140 By calling itself “Church,” the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is “calling together” his people from all the ends of the earth. The equivalent Greek term Kyriake, from which the English word Church and the German Kirche are derived, means “what belongs to the Lord.”

Yes, the Church, the True Israel, or Chosen if you will, existed throughout the beginning of time: “The gathering together of the People of God began at the moment when sin destroyed the communion of men with God, and that of men among themselves. The gathering together of the Church is, as it were, God’s reaction to the chaos provoked by sin.” CCC 761

This history of the Church reveals more:

“The remote preparation for this gathering together of the People of God begins when he calls Abraham and promises that he will become the father of a great people.157 Its immediate preparation begins with Israel’s election as the People of God. By this election, Israel is to be the sign of the future gathering of all nations.158 But the prophets accuse Israel of breaking the covenant and behaving like a prostitute. They announce a new and eternal covenant. “Christ instituted this New Covenant.” CCC 762