What happens if everyone converts to Judaism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter helgasdogs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If a Jew is saved, it is because he is invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church and its teachings, and because he implicitly desires Baptism and is free from mortal sin, hence he is imperfectly joined to the Church. NO JEW CAN BE SAVED BY THE OLD COVENANT. To say otherwise would be a rejection of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Dogma of Limbus Patrum (Limbo of the Fathers). No modern day apologist that I know of would dare say otherwise, not even Roy Schoeman (writer of Salvation Is From The Jews and a Jewish convert who abhored the “dual-covenant” theology). It is fine to say the old covenant was never revoked, etc. However you also have to say which one you are talking about. The Old Covenant was and never will be salvific. The Old Covenant was superceded, fulfilled, etc. by the New. Adhering to the Mosaic Law cannot save you, and never could save you, hence why the Jews of old had to wait for the Messiah. Read further:

Council of Florence: It [the Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation.

Pope Pius XII taught the same in Mystici Corporis:

Pope Pius XII: "And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area – He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.” (Mystici Corporis, #29).

Also read Dominus Iesus if you want to read further:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
 
(cont’d)

Here’s a speech Pope Benedict XVI gave at a general audience on 15 March, 2006:

zenit.org/article-15542?l=english

Here’s a quote from it:

“By their mere existence, the Twelve – called from different backgrounds – have become a summons to all Israel to conversion and to allow themselves to be reunited in a new covenant, full and perfect accomplishment of the old. By entrusting to them the task of celebrating his memorial in the Supper, before his passion, Jesus shows that he wanted to transfer to the entire community, in the person of its heads, the commandment of being a sign and instrument of the eschatological assembly begun by him.” - Pope Benedict XVI

Pope Benedict XIV, Papal Encyclical *Ex Quo Primum *(# 61):

“The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel."

Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

Book Four: The Doctrine of God the Sanctifier

Part 2: The Church

Chapter 3: The Internal Constitution of the Church
  1. Christ and the Church
  2. Founder of the Church - Christ founded the Church (De fide.)
Part b.) On the Cross, Christ consummated the building of the Church. The Old Covenant ceased and the New Covenant sealed with the blood of Christ began. The Fathers and theologians see in the flowing forth of the bloood and water from the opened side of Jesus a symbol the emergence of the Church.
 
Here’s a dialogue, the great Catholic apologist Mr. John Salza had:

The Jews and the Old Covenant

Nina: Thank you for your valuable website. I visited for the first time today and will return often. One observation – on the “What is the history of your Church” webpage the first thing I noticed is that Judaism is not mentioned. I realize your aim is not to represent every religion ever established. Still, I have been thinking about it ever since I looked at the list, especially given that Jesus is the promised Messiah. I don’t know how that could be presented on the webpage effectively, though, without causing confusion.

Well, thank you again for such a wonderful website. I am grateful to have discovered scripturecatholic.com.

Best Regards,

Nina

J. Salza: Nina, thanks for the email. Judaism really began about 2,000 B.C. when God gave circumcision to Abraham. Circumcision served as a sign of the covenant God entered into with Abraham. Judaism was abolished with the New Covenant in 33 A.D. with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I am posting some pages in the next few weeks that deal with issues concerning Judaism (specifically, Zionism, the Old Covenant being revoked, etc.)

Nina: Yes, thank you for your response. I would just propose that Judaism was not so much abolished as it was fulfilled in Jesus, our High Priest. We received the grace of being grafted into the Vine. For instance, there was a Vatican document issued several years ago – authored, I think, by Cardinal Ratzinger (now of course, our Pope) – that said Christians and Jews both share the wait. Jews believe they are awaiting the first Coming, Christians await the Second. But we are both waiting for the same Messiah.

Thank you again for all your very hard work and for your kindness responding to my email.

J. Salza: Nina, thank you for the email. Please let me clarify a couple points. First, Judaism has been abolished, not fulfilled. The New Covenant has completely superseded the Old Covenant. The only thing that Christ has brought to fulfillment is the fullness of His grace through the sacramental life of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has replaced the whole system of Jewry, with all of its legal, moral and ceremonial edicts. But, while the New Covenant has abolished the Old, it has incorporated the moral principles of the Old Covenant into itself. Thus, although we are no longer legally bound under the Ten Commandments as an entity, we are morally bound by their principles, even to a greater degree.

This is why, for example, Jesus says that while adultery was condemned in the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant even looking lustfully at a woman is adultery. We are held to even higher standards now, because in the New Covenant, God peers into our hearts and judges are secret motives. This is because we have become His adopted sons and daughters through baptism. Where there is a greater familial relationship, there are greater rewards, but greater responsibilities. In Christ, we have gone beyond a mere legal relationship with God, and now have a filial relationship with Him. Those who join the Church become fully grafted onto the vine, which is Jesus Christ (the “vine” is NOT Israel, or the Jewish people).
 
(John Salza, cont’d)

It is also very problematic to say that the Jews await the first coming, while Christians await the second coming. That is not official Magisterial teaching. The second coming will be the second coming, for all people, period. Such a view exempts the Jews from bending the knee to the risen Christ and joining the Catholic Church right now, which they have a moral obligation to do. The Jews must renounce their Judaism and join the Church, as St. Paul repeatedly commanded them to do in the Scriptures. If not, when Christ comes a second and final time, the Jews will be among those who “will look upon Him whom they have pierced and wail on account of Him” (Apoc.1:7). It is no way to evangelize Jews by telling them that they are somehow off the hook, that they can by-pass the sacraments of the Catholic Church and receive their inheritance at the “first” coming. Christ has already come a first time to establish the New Covenant with His Catholic Church. At the second coming, Christ will no longer come to establish covenants and forgive sins. He will come in judgment.

Nina: I think you misunderstand what I intended to express. I’m sure I must not have explained myself very clearly. When I quoted the document that says the Jews await the first coming it is to mean that they did not understand or recognize the true first coming. So whether or not they realize it, both we and they are awaiting the very same Person – not different Gods.

And yes, the old system of laws and sacrifices was abolished. But there is still a spiritual High Priest who continually offers His perfect and eternal sacrifice before the Lord for our sakes. I may be expressing myself in a clumsy fashion, I am not intending to be argumentative. I was trying to express the continuity between Judaism and Christianity. The earthly/imperfect is replaced/superseded by the Spiritual and perfect. I think my problem may be with the connotation of the word “abolished”. For it is true that the old, imperfect system was abolished … but the first covenant was not abolished. That is, a covenant is not merely a contract – it is a relationship, just like a marriage or an adoption is a relationship. We belong to the new covenant, but that does not abolish God’s relationship with the Jews established in the first covenant. If I thought the first covenant was abolished that would be like me saying God got a divorce. So again, I am not so adept at expressing myself clearly. Perhaps we are – as they say – in violent agreement with each other. It just seemed important to separate the practices of Judaism (abolished) from the covenant relationship (eternal).

J. Salza: Nina, I hope the following clarifies things for you.
  1. The Old Covenant refers to the covenant God entered into with Moses, the Mosaic law (2 Cor 3:14). This covenant has indeed been abolished (see 2 Cor 3:14; Heb. 7:18; 8:7; 10:9). In fact, in Hebrews 10:9, Paul uses the word “abolish” (in Greek, anaireo, which means “to annul”). In Hebrews 8:7, Paul uses the phrase “set aside” (in Greek, aphetesis, which also means “to annul”). That means the Old Covenant has been abolished, annulled, superseded. This happened when God tore the Temple curtain in two at Christ’s crucifixion. Now, all people must come to the Father through the Son in the waters of baptism.
  2. The covenant that God entered into with Abraham, however, has not been abolished. It has been incorporated into the New Covenant. This is the covenant of promise to both the Jews and the Gentiles. Remember, God entered into this covenant with Abraham when Abraham was still a Gentile. This covenant was incorporated into the New Covenant because it was a covenant of grace, based on faith. The Old covenant was a covenant based on law.
Thus, there is a distinction between the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants. The former has been abolished, and the latter has been incorporated into the New and Everlasting Covenant of Jesus Christ.

Nina: Thank you again. I appreciate your time and effort to explain so thoroughly and helpfully your understanding of this topic.

scripturecatholic.com/misc_qa.html#oldcov
 
SemperFidelis said:
Here’s a dialogue, the great Catholic apologist Mr. John Salza had:
Click to expand...
Great Catholic apologist he may be, but scriptural apologetic–no.

He takes his case against Judaism being abolished too far when he says things on his website like–“God does not owe the Jews any land or protection.”

In other words-
Israel, Smeshrael."

I don’t know how anyone can claim to be an apologetic for the bible which contains scriptures with prophecies concerning ISRAEL about the 1-Land, 2-Messiah, and 3-the End, and then say Israel now is nothing but a small remnant in the church and that is that.
 
helgasdogs said:
According to most Christian sects, the Jews “cut a deal” with God that lets them do their own thing, indifferent to the religiosity of the rest of the world. If you’re a Jew, Jesus doesn’t matter, you’ve already got an “in” with God.

Although Judaism is chiefly a racial religion - Israel, for instance, exists to preserve Jewish racial purity, letting in even atheist Jews but placing great immigration barriers to anyone not of Jewish descent - it is possible to convert. The Jews don’t encourage this and don’t proselytize, but it does happen.

Presumably, then, a convert Jew gets “in on the deal” with God, and thus can dump Jesus.

So, what if for some reason (something in the water, who knows) everybody decides to convert to Judaism? Seriously, one could simply look at both religions and decide which one is less of a hassle, and one might well decide Judaism is. If everyone so essays the matter, what does that imply for Christianity?
Click to expand...
Maybe this person was banned so he can read his bible. If he knew it and believed it, this question would of never of been asked.

There will always be a Church because God has always has a saved remnant of Israel in it. So realistically speaking, if right now, every living non-Christian gentile and Jew on the face of the Earth, along with the mass exodus of gentiles that would leave the Church, if they all converted to Judaism, there will still be a Church because of the remnant of Israel God has preserved within it. Don’t forget, the Church at one time was 100% Israeli.

Amazing, isn’t it? Israel is blessed among all nations.
 
Lev23 said:
Great Catholic apologist he may be, but scriptural apologetic–no.

He takes his case against Judaism being abolished too far when he says things on his website like–“God does not owe the Jews any land or protection.”

In other words-
Israel, Smeshrael."

I don’t know how anyone can claim to be an apologetic for the bible which contains scriptures with prophecies concerning ISRAEL about the 1-Land, 2-Messiah, and 3-the End, and then say Israel now is nothing but a small remnant in the church and that is that.
Click to expand...
Anti-Zionism has no relation to the fact that the Old Covenant was superceded by the New Covenant, which is what the thread is about. If you want to “take shots” at Mr. Salza, then why don’t you send him an e-mail. I know he’ll respond, he’s responds to mine all the time, and in quite good time in fact. This is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. His anti-Zionist stance, might pertain to the Jews, but it doesn’t at all pertain to the Old Covenant.

P.S. Along with Bob Sungenis and Scott Hahn, I would say he’s probably the best scriptural apologist out there. His site is filled with scripture verses (more so than any apologetic website I can think of), and he is quite learned in Greek and Latin.
 
I spoke with my rabbi and was assured that Judasim has not been abolished.
 
Valke2 said:
I spoke with my rabbi and was assured that Judasim has not been abolished.
Click to expand...
Yes, and that is the opinion of YOUR rabbi. Just like in many other things, Catholics and Jews disagree here. I applaud the fact that you will stand up for what your religion professes, but I will stand up for mine, and Catholicism says, that the New Covenant has superceded the Old.
 
SemperFidelis said:
Yes, and that is the opinion of YOUR rabbi.
Click to expand...
Your post got me to thinking. So I spent the last few hours calling rabbis in the tri-state area. All of them confirmed that Judaism has not been abolished. Although one reform rabbi asked “Why, what did you hear?!?”
 
Valke2 said:
Your post got me to thinking. So I spent the last few hours calling rabbis in the tri-state area. All of them confirmed that Judaism has not been abolished. Although one reform rabbi asked “Why, what did you hear?!?”
Click to expand...
That’s not the way I meant it to come out. I’m sure every Rabbi believes this as well. That however, doesn’t mean jack squat to Catholics, because we have our own authority who thinks otherwise. I did like your joke about the reform rabbi though.
 
SemperFidelis said:
Anti-Zionism has no relation to the fact that the Old Covenant was superceded by the New Covenant, which is what the thread is about. If you want to “take shots” at Mr. Salza, then why don’t you send him an e-mail. I know he’ll respond, he’s responds to mine all the time, and in quite good time in fact. This is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. His anti-Zionist stance, might pertain to the Jews, but it doesn’t at all pertain to the Old Covenant.

P.S. Along with Bob Sungenis and Scott Hahn, I would say he’s probably the best scriptural apologist out there. His site is filled with scripture verses (more so than any apologetic website I can think of), and he is quite learned in Greek and Latin.
Click to expand...
When you bring up anti-Israel apologists like Salza and Sungenis, anti-Zionism has EVERYTHING to do with what this thread is about. Concerning Israel, they equate no more Temple worship and Law with no more promises of being restored spirtually and nationally.

Didn’t a Catholic Bishop forcefully make Sungenis clean up the hatred for Israel on his website?! It baffles me how people actually want to learn and buy things from “apologetics” that bash the family of our Lord to no end.
🤷

Sorry if you think I’m “taking shots” at a person who uses Israeli scripture to show that “God does not owe the Jews any land or protection.”
 
Lev23 said:
When you bring up anti-Israel apologists like Salza and Sungenis, anti-Zionism has EVERYTHING to do with what this thread is about. Concerning Israel, they equate no more Temple worship and Law with no more promises of being restored spirtually and nationally.
Click to expand...
The fact that he is anti-Zionist has nothing to do with the fact that he is RIGHT about the Old Covenant. You can argue all day about him and Mr. Sungenis’ anti-Zionist stuff, but at the end of the day they are still right about their theology regarding the Old Covenant. Their apologetics in this area, completely coincide with the teachings taught by the Council of Florence, and Popes Benedict XIV, and Pius XII, among many others. They might be wrong about some things, but they are also right about many things, and this is one of them.
 
Lev23, since Mr. Salza doesn’t work for you, here’s some Mr. Keating:

Bad Theology Disguised as Charity

By Karl Keating

This Rock
Volume 13, Number 8
October 2002

Making a case for the Catholic faith has been made all the more difficult by “Reflections on Covenant and Mission,” a joint Catholic-Jewish document that says that Catholics should not evangelize Jews. (See our cover story, starting on page 10). Issued in August by the American bishops’ Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs Committee in cooperation with the National Council of Synagogues, the document-which has not been approved by the bishops as a whole and which has no binding force-is an example of how the desire not to offend can result in bad theology.

The unidentified Catholic authors say that “A deepening appreciation of the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people . . . lead to the conclusion that campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.” There should be no mission to Jews because “mission” means trying to convert those who believe in “false gods and idols.” Since Jews worship “the true and one God,” they are not proper objects of conversion.

Walter Cardinal Kasper, president of the Pontifical Commission for the Religious Relations with the Jews, is quoted by the document as saying that “the Church believes that Judaism . . . is salvific for [the Jews] because God is faithful to his promises.” Catholics contributors to “Reflections on Covenant and Mission” argue that “while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all,” Jews do not need that saving act because they “already dwell in a saving covenant with God.”

This makes no sense. While Jews remain the Chosen People, their covenant, although tending toward salvation, is not sufficient for salvation. If it were, then the patriarchs and prophets would have been in heaven before the Resurrection. That they were not (they were in what often is termed the Limbo of the Fathers; see 1 Peter 3:19) demonstrates that mankind had to wait for the Messiah and his new covenant for redemption to be fulfilled. Heaven was opened only after the Resurrection. Everyone who has achieved heaven-that is, everyone who has been saved-has been saved through the new covenant. No one has gotten there through the old covenant alone.

The basic error in “Reflections on Covenant and Mission” is this notion that the permanence of God’s covenant with the Jews implies that they do not need Christ to be saved, that their covenant is sufficient and the Christian covenant superfluous-for them. From this false premise comes the conclusion that, while it is proper to evangelize people of other faiths or of no faith, Jews need not (and should not) be evangelized because they have their own path to heaven, one that does not include Christ.

The document opposes any organized attempt to invite Jews to join the Catholic Church. In doing this it plays the guilt card repeatedly. One ends up with the triumph of sensitivity over charity. The desire not to injure feelings trumps clear thinking and does a disservice to Jews, who, like everyone else in the world, need Christ
 
Quick Questions from:

This Rock
Volume 14, Number 2
February 2003

Q: God promised the Jews that they would attain heaven if they kept their covenant (the Old Covenant) with him. Since God doesn’t break his promises, doesn’t this mean Jews don’t have to follow Jesus, who brought the New Covenant?

A: This is the apparent confusion at the heart of the recent “Reflections on Covenant and Mission” issued by a U.S. bishops’ subcommittee that generated so much attention last year. To begin with, the Old Covenant is no longer in effect—Christ has fulfilled it (Col. 2:14–17). It never had any ability to save apart from Christ (Heb. 10:1–10). It was always anticipated that salvation would come through the Messiah (Gal. 3:8, 16). Since the Old Covenant never justified anyone (Gal. 3:11), attempts by Jews to be put right with God only by keeping the Old Covenant would not bear fruit (Gal. 3:10).

It was always expected as part of the Old Covenant that the Jewish people were obliged to accept the Messiah when he came (Deut. 18:15). Deliberate failure to do so would be spurning the Son of God—a mortal sin. Jesus told his Jewish audience, “I told you that you would die in your sins . . . unless you believe that I am he” (John 8:24).

A Jew may be innocently ignorant of the fact that Jesus is the Messiah and thus not be held accountable. Such a person may be saved provided he is otherwise in good conscience seeking to follow God. But he would be saved on the basis of Christ, not of the Old Covenant. Remember, Jesus also said, “I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top