Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

[YanniP]

Therefore, the people founded by the patriarchs, is the Church itself. Abraham, the patriarchs, and Israel, refer to the “True Israel”, the group of those who see God. Disconnecting these groups is the substance of your misconception regarding the revocation of the Mosaic Covenant. The thread has always been the same, and your attempt to carve out “Israel” without properly identifying it, creates that ambiguity I have been decrying.

This is exactly why Augustine calls your position “utterly foolish”. In fact, you disparage Mr. Sungenis for saying: “You claim that I say “Rom 11:28 that you say only applies to Jews who have accepted Christ.” No I don’t. I said that the Jews, at large, are “beloved,” but only because they are given a chance to become saved, to become “the elect.”” But, that is the exact dichotomy that Augustine made in On the Predestination of the Saints, Book I, 33, and that St. Paul in Romans 9!

Now quickly to your first point. I have not viewed every video on Mr. Sungenis’ website, but quickly looking at them, I again don’t see any that claim to represent official Church teaching. They are political and cultural commentaries. Yes, at first some appear controversial, but looking at one at your instigation has actually enlightened me. I was not aware of the rampant underreporting of Palestinian deaths from our media. Since 2000, 1463 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis while 124 Israeli Children have been killed by Palestinians. Altogether horrendous, but that ratio is not what I have been told by our media. This is from ifamericansknew.org. I do not see the hateful, racist propaganda that you are trying to paint him with.

As for the premise of that type of website, you can contest the veracity of a news item, but identifying the attacks on our culture (Christian culture) is crucial to our faith.

All men, without the Spirit, will eventually crepe into immorality. Those rejecters of Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, have laid waste to our culture. So calling sin sin, and exposing Godless activities is not only our duty, but also charitable to those who are living in deceit. It is a call of mercy. That is exactly what the Law of the OT did, it prepared men’s minds for Christ by keeping alive a consciousness of sin – and a yearning for salvation.

I’m not about to read reams of your personal attacks. I have seen enough here, and on the Bellarmine Report website to understand that you are acting irrationally. Nothing I say will comfort you, just as you see no problem with the ambiguities in your article.

I am afraid this conversation has concluded and I will leave you again with Augustine’s words:
“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?”

 

[DavidPalm]

“Yanni” you wrote:

Condemning the real heresy: In a dual covenant discussion, the ambiguities in your article are unhelpful and may lead readers to heretical conclusions.

Listen, you’re obviously trying very hard to be a good and loyal Sungenis follower. I understand that—to a point. But there’s a limit and you’ve long since crossed it. You joined the CAF in order to take a shot at us because we’ve been strongly critical of the views of a person you look up to and follow. Then you back-pedaled when I called you on your complete mischaracterization of what we wrote. But now you’re trying to divert attention away from Bob’s plain errors and bigotry by straining to manufacture something, anything to accuse us of—even when it means ignoring, distorting, or denying what the Magisterium has taught. You’re straining at gnats while swallowing the camel whole.

Although I’ve supported what I’ve presented with sound magisterial evidence, you “find” alleged heresies not in our actual words but, one might say, in the penumbras and emanations of our article, i.e., in your imagination. We’ve repeatedly condemned the dual covenant error as a heresy. So any “heretical conclusions” you imagine our article could lead to must be something other than that. Most telling, neither you nor Sungenis have been able to tell us what these other “heretical conclusions” might be and haven’t offered one shred of magisterial evidence to support your contentions. The silence has been deafening.

On the other hand, several obvious errors that Bob makes have been exposed here and you ignore them:

Bob believes and teaches (even in his CASB series) that the context of Rom 11 is the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. This is impossible since Romans was written and St. Paul even died before the destruction of Jerusalem. So Bob is completely wrong. Your response? Crickets.

Bob believes and teaches that the replacement of the Old Covenant with the New Covenant was a punishment against the Jews. But the truth is that the replacement of the Old Covenant with the New Covenant was an act of God’s great mercy because the Old Covenant couldn’t save, it couldn’t change hearts. Again, Bob is flatly wrong. Your response? Crickets again.

Bob believes and teaches that, according to Romans 11:28, the Jewish people “at large” are beloved for the sake of the fathers of Israel—except when he’s contradicting himself by saying that only a smaller subset of Jews are beloved according the very same passage (his latter opinion itself being in contradiction to multiple magisterial statements). Your response to that? More crickets.

From these broad, contextual errors flow his more specific errors:

1. His campaign to deny that the Jewish people will be restored to their own tree alongside Gentiles (against overwhelming patristic and magisterial evidence to the contrary here)
2. His insistence on employing a pejorative term the Church has never used, “supersessionism” , as an absolute litmus test of orthodoxy (see here and here here)
3. His insistence on a term (“revoked”), never used by the Church, that incorrectly implies that the replacement of the Mosaic Covenant with the New Covenant in Christ was a punishment of the Jewish people, to describe the status of the Mosaic covenant (explained here and here)
4. His insistence that the Olive Tree can not be Israel (refuted here)
5. His angry denial of the inherent Jewishness of the Church (which can easily lead to heretical conclusions, see here), etc.

So why not show that you are no respecter of persons, “Yanni”? Stop worrying about imagined ambiguities in our article and start making an effort to correct your friend Bob’s actual, documented errors—at least some of which do naturally lead to heresy. That’s what a real friend would do.

Your article supports the exact racial pride that was the basis for the breaking of the covenant.

That’s odd. I remember Scripture and the Church teaching that Israel according to the flesh often violated the covenant because of their stubbornness and hard heartedness. But I don’t remember either Scripture or the Church stating, “racial pride…was the basis for the breaking of the covenant.” Speaking of doctrinal novelties….

I assume that your next mission is to warn the Vatican to excise Rom 11:17-24 from the Bible? This passage describes unbaptized Jews as being “branches according to nature” from the Olive Tree even in their separated state and describes baptized Gentiles as being grafted in “contrary to nature.” It even tells unbaptized Jews that the tree is “their own” and that they will be more easily grafted back onto it than Gentiles! According to your standards that’s a bald-faced appeal to racial pride. This passage must have been added by Jews at a later date.

Personally, I see no reason why Jews shouldn’t feel proud of their heritage. Yes, they have their full share of sinners like everyone else. But is there another group that can claim one of its own as the God-man, the Savior of the world? Is there another that can claim “our tainted nature’s solitary boast”, our dear Mother Mary, as one of its own?

 

[DavidPalm]

As J.R.R. Tolkien once retorted when he was asked by a German publisher to give proof of his Aryan (read: non-Jewish) ancestry:

I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people…I have been accustomed, nonetheless, to regard my German name with pride…I cannot, however, forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride.” lettersofnote.com/2012/03/i-have-no-ancestors-of-that-gifted.html

Considering Bob’s persistent fixation on whether Michael, Jacob, Jared Olar, or I have Jewish ancestry, perhaps he and Tolkien’s German publishers have something in common in this particular area?

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.

I guess you can’t take “yes” for an answer, “Yanni.” Again, we don’t disagree.

You cite St. Pius X on the root of the Olive Tree and declare that’s the “end of story”. We cite 510 fathers of Vatican I, two passages from an Ecumenical Council, and two Popes on the interpretation of Rom 11:28-9 and that settles nothing for you.

But if you look at the full context of your quote from St. Pius X, there’s no indication that by identifying the root with the Church the Pope intended thereby to prohibit and exclude the other common, patristic interpretations. This is precisely why Pope Benedict XVI can speak of the Olive Tree as “Israel” and the Catechism can state that the roots of the Olive Tree are “the prophets”. Depending upon one’s vantage point, the root can be seen as Christ, the Church, Israel, or the Patriarchs of Israel. (Just as, for example, the Rock of Matt 16:18 can be seen as St. Peter himself, his confession, and his faith.) These are all complementary interpretations, not contradictory ones. Even in the passage of the Catechism you cited (#755), this complementarity is plainly evident.

As I’ve argued before, to which you have not responded, the “Church” has usurped the Chosen…

Your choice of the word “usurped” here is even more theologically problematic than Bob’s insistence on the word “revoked” to describe the status of the Old Covenant, Yanni. The definition of “usurp” is: “take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force“

The Church did no such thing and you deeply insult and impugn her by making the claim. The Church is the completely legitimate and organic continuation of Israel in the fullest sense of the term. God Himself, in the Person of the Jewish Messiah, the King of Israel, peacefully and willingly turned leadership over to twelve Jews (who will later sit with him in judgment), with a Jew named Kepha leading them, and with a Jewess named Miriam as spiritual mother and Mediatrix of all graces. Where is the “usurping” here? Again, it seems that you’ve swallowed Bob’s erroneous theology of punishment and discontinuity.

And we’ve stated very clearly and emphatically, **“it bears repeating that we have never said that Jews are “the Chosen People”, as if Israel according to the flesh is still God’s official representative on earth. That distinction now belongs solely to the Church, the New Israel (which is composed of both baptized Jews and baptized Gentiles).” ** forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9039653&postcount=76

But the Church has also made plain that unbaptized Jews, as a group, remain dear to God for the sake of the fathers of Israel. Fathers, Doctors, and the Magisterium teach that they will one day receive greater graces, so as to turn in great number to Christ. And as the present Holy Father has stated, even their “standing at the door” fulfills a special mission until the time at which they will be restored as a people into their own tree, alongside their Gentile brethren. But this mission is no longer to be His official representative on earth. Jews need Christ and the Church just like everyone else. When they are baptized, they are coming home in a unique way—returning to their own tree, as natural branches, unlike the Gentiles who are grafted in “contrary to nature” as St. Paul says.

I have not viewed every video on Mr. Sungenis’ website, but quickly looking at them, I again don’t see any that claim to represent official Church teaching. They are political and cultural commentaries. Yes, at first some appear controversial, but looking at one at your instigation has actually enlightened me. I do not see the hateful, racist propaganda that you are trying to paint him with…I’m not about to read reams of your personal attacks.

1. The link I provided was to Bob’s own statements about Jews. The attacks made are by Bob against Jews and Bishop Rhoades. Take a close look at them. Here’s the link again.
2. Bob has repeatedly promised to stop pushing political and cultural commentaries on Jews. And he has repeatedly broken those promises. So either he never intended to keep them, or he’s unable to. That’s a serious problem either way. Sungenis’ Broken Promises to Stop Attacking Jews.
3. I didn’t say that he presented his new material as magisterial teaching. But his attacks on Jews give a clear testimony to how Bob believes Jews should be viewed. You’re concerned with the balance in our article, but you don’t see any problem with the balance on his website in relation to Jewish issues. If you don’t see a problem there, I can’t help you.

 

[DavidPalm]

This is exactly why Augustine calls your position “utterly foolish”…. I will leave you again with Augustine’s words: “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?”

And I agree with you that if “election” in this verse meant election unto salvation then it would indeed be “utterly foolish”. But the context and details of St. Paul’s argument much better fit the view—supported by the vast majority of Catholic exegetes and the repeated application of this verse by the Magisterium—that the choosing of the Jews as a people is in view. The fracturing of this verse into two totally different groups of Jews is alien to the context and exegetically problematic. As the renowned exegete Fr. Fernand Prat, S. J. noted,

The text in its entirety and in its details could not be clearer, and we see how it would be so obscured as to be unintelligible if theological notions foreign to the subject were mixed up with it; for example, by taking “election” in the concrete sense, as referring to those “elected to celestial glory” (St Augustine)." (The Theology of St. Paul, vol. 2, p.216n3)

I certainly will not accuse St. Augustine of “exegetical duplicity” as Bob has done. Rather, I believe the saint was more than wise and humble enough to recognize alternative interpretations that are exegetically superior, especially when those interpretations have the repeated backing of the Magisterium.

And of course, St. Augustine fully believed in a future special conversion of the Jews (see here). It’s a shame that we couldn’t explore this doctrine more fully, for here is yet another very clear indication—firmly grounded in the Fathers, Doctors, and Magisterium and therefore no novelty—that Israel according to the flesh is the recipient of unique and special promises by God in the New Covenant era.

Now, to bring this full circle once again:

The reason this matters, why it’s important to delve into these things in such detail, is because I’ve seen firsthand the corrosive effect this kind of dark and paranoid conspiratorial mindset—whether about Jews or geocentrism or whatever—can have on the faith of ordinary Catholics. As we have seen very clearly here in this thread, Bob’s private theological views on Jews and Judaism do not comport with the teaching of the Church. But he built up a reputation early on with some legitimately good work and now Catholics who don’t know where he’s gone can get led into the quagmire with him.

And I care also about the numerous people that Bob continues to publicly attack—I believe it’s a matter of justice that they are defended, just as publicly.

Hey, neither Michael nor I care if you or Bob 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 Bob does so against a successor to the Apostles, Bishop Rhoades. Bob has a serious problem grasping the limits of his authority. Put simply, he doesn’t have any; he’s a simple layman with no more authority than anybody else.

As he has no evidence or any particular authority, it’s long past time for Bob to publicly retract and apologize for his false charges against Bishop Rhoades especially and others such as Roy Schoeman and us. It’s that simple. He has a particular moral duty to do so in regard to Bishop Rhoades because Bob has privately admitted that he believes his accusations against His Excellency were incorrect. And then he needs to honor the multiple promises he’s made to stop attacking Jews.

This is just common, Catholic decency and sense. I think people would be happy to see Bob climb out of the fever swamps of conspiracy theories and anti-Jewish campaigns and return to the kind of good work he’s capable of. It would certainly do him good as well.

I will leave you with words of Pope Pius XI:

Mark well that in the Catholic Mass, Abraham is our Patriarch and forefather. Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the lofty thought which that fact expresses. It is a movement with which we Christians can have nothing to do. No, no, I say to you it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we are all Semites.