F
Fidelis
Guest
Actually, it is VERY relevent to the OP’s original question. But that was a long time and several bellicose posts ago.
Too bad this thread got sidetracked by a cat-fight. it could have been a good discussion.
- Status
Too bad this thread got sidetracked by a cat-fight. it could have been a good discussion.
E
Evan
Guest
Good question. I would say the promise is not the extent of a covenant. A covenent is a relation between people, like a wedding. A wedding covenant made with more knowledge of the other would be a more perfect covenant than one entered into blindly, trusting the other without knowing the other.
In the NT covenant there is a greater revelation of who God is and how He relates to His people. We are called to be so intimate with God that we are called god, ie we put on Christ, we are the Body of Christ. These are the images used to express how intimate is our relationship.
This building a relationship with the Messiah, with the Holy Spirit, with God as Trinity, through the sacramental structure given us by the incarnate God, connects man more closely with God than the relationship built around the Exodus and Sinai theophanies.
H
Hastrman
Guest
Well, no. Jesus is considered the fulfillment of the entirety of the Mosaic covenant, so he’s not so much making a better promise, as rendering the original more or less moot. In effect–not that it’s not valid, so much as it’s no longer necessary if you embrace the alternative. That’s why, for instance, Peter and the other Apostles, though Jewish in race, were exempt from Kashrut law.
That’s our belief, obviously–I don’t expect you to agree with any of this, naturally, or I’d imagine you wouldn’t be Jewish anymore, right?
Which, incidentally, raises a question: why bother with a Messiah at all, if you don’t need to be saved? Messiah means Anointed One, right? What’s he anointed to do? To judge by everyone’s expectations as recorded in the Gospels, is he just supposed to squish all the enemies of the Jewish people?
You said Jews don’t try to make converts because they acknowledge gentiles have a role to play. Um…I thought they didn’t make converts because Judaism’s not exactly a religion, it’s a tribe, but a tribe with a religious duty. So ‘converting’ to Judaism is really being adopted into that tribe, and taking on its religious duty.
Just a Goy’s ideas; I don’t know if I’m misinterpreting things about Judaism, or if I’m going off obsolete rabbinic theories, or what.
V
Valke2
Guest
But the covenant was that we would have the land of Israel and that we would receive Torah and be God’s people. It is not a question of fullfilling, form a jewish perspective. The covenant was eternal as is clearly stated in our scripture.Well, no. Jesus is considered the fulfillment of the entirety of the Mosaic covenant, so he’s not so much making a better promise, as rendering the original more or less moot. In effect–not that it’s not valid, so much as it’s no longer necessary if you embrace the alternative. That’s why, for instance, Peter and the other Apostles, though Jewish in race, were exempt from Kashrut law.
That’s our belief, obviously–I don’t expect you to agree with any of this, naturally, or I’d imagine you wouldn’t be Jewish anymore, right?
Which, incidentally, raises a question: why bother with a Messiah at all, if you don’t need to be saved? Messiah means Anointed One, right? What’s he anointed to do? To judge by everyone’s expectations as recorded in the Gospels, is he just supposed to squish all the enemies of the Jewish people?
You said Jews don’t try to make converts because they acknowledge gentiles have a role to play. Um…I thought they didn’t make converts because Judaism’s not exactly a religion, it’s a tribe, but a tribe with a religious duty. So ‘converting’ to Judaism is really being adopted into that tribe, and taking on its religious duty.
Just a Goy’s ideas; I don’t know if I’m misinterpreting things about Judaism, or if I’m going off obsolete rabbinic theories, or what.
Regarding converts, it is not that we don’t have them, we do. We just do not actively seek them. There is practical historcial reasons for this as well as scriptual reasons. The reality is that judaism is too complicated to become a religion that would appeal to the world.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Not necessary Valke2.
From a Catholic perspective it is believed that there are ways that Christ’s salvific action works upon others, essentially baptising them in ways that we may not be able to physically perceive because it occurs on a spiritual level.
In other words, to some extent, it seems clear (from a Catholic perspective) that Christ is at work with all people to some degree even if they do not necessarilly understand that Christ is at work in their lives.
Acts 17:26-27:
Now I think it’s possible to take this salvific action on the part of Christ and force it past clear theological boundaries which are revealed within the Catholic faith. In other words, there is a tendency to lean into a kind of relativistic thinking which essentially concludes that all paths lead to God.
But, as far as I understand, this is not what the Catholic Church teaches.
Discerning a clear demarcation between the belief that Christ is at work in those who do not know him and the belief that all paths lead to God is one of the largest challenges remaining for Catholic doctors to expound upon.
I think in some ways we haven’t even really scratched the surface yet. And it remains very possible that we will not be able to fully expound upon this until God himself reveals it on the Day of Judgement.
continued…
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
…continued.
Valke2:
So, in effect, many things that are performed within Judaism, while they do constitute a salvific act on the part of Christ, are still nonetheless believed within Christian circles to be precursers to the things which are more fully manifested within Christianity.
For example, the concept of Sheol within Judaism seems to have been spiritually expanded upon beyond the dirt of the grave in the direction of Purgatory and the afterlife within Catholicism. Likewise the concept of circumsicion within Judaism seems to have been spiritually expanded upon beyond the circumsicion of the flesh in the direction of a circumsicion of the Spirit via baptism within Catholicism. The same could be said concerning the distinction between the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian’s Lord’s Day-- once again a continuity is believed to be in existence between the two days even though the former may not have fully expounded upon the later in full detail
It is true that every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. Yet, at the same time, regarding what we eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or even a Sabbath day, it is believed these are a shadow of the things that were to come. The reality within Christian thought, however, is believed to be found in Christ.
Valke2:
Valke2:
What I find tragic is that many of these groups seem to be nearly obsessed with this restoration of Israel to the point that they raise funds to send Jewish people back to Israel to hasten the Lord’s coming.
While their intentions may be pure, I think they are also somewhat misguided in their thinking. For example, they seem to not be concerned with the idea of a final persecution where the Israelites will be terribly attacked during the so-called time of a Third Temple. In other words, if the Jews die during this time, it will only hasten the coming of the Lord all the more.
While these groups may not be consciously thinking along these lines, and I’m sure that their intentions are not malicious as far as I can detemrine, I think, when one examines their theology more closely, one can glimpse a kind of dark scapegoat mentality where the our Jewish brethren are, for all practical purposes, essentially sent to their doom as a kind of sacrifice before God with the intention of forcing Jesus to come back again.
Needless to say, I don’t really like these groups very much. They kind of remind me of Judas trying to tempt the Lord to lash out against the Roman authorities and force the coming of the Kingdom of God.
But God will apparently do this in his own good time and at his leasure despite their intentions and ours.
Yes, but even then, at least from a Catholic perspetive, the existing covenant between Judaism and God, a covenant which may never be broken, is believed to be a work of Christ in his pre-incarnation upon the Israelites.
So, in effect, many things that are performed within Judaism, while they do constitute a salvific act on the part of Christ, are still nonetheless believed within Christian circles to be precursers to the things which are more fully manifested within Christianity.
For example, the concept of Sheol within Judaism seems to have been spiritually expanded upon beyond the dirt of the grave in the direction of Purgatory and the afterlife within Catholicism. Likewise the concept of circumsicion within Judaism seems to have been spiritually expanded upon beyond the circumsicion of the flesh in the direction of a circumsicion of the Spirit via baptism within Catholicism. The same could be said concerning the distinction between the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian’s Lord’s Day-- once again a continuity is believed to be in existence between the two days even though the former may not have fully expounded upon the later in full detail
It is true that every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. Yet, at the same time, regarding what we eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or even a Sabbath day, it is believed these are a shadow of the things that were to come. The reality within Christian thought, however, is believed to be found in Christ.
Is this a reference to the Noahide covenant?
To the best of my understanding Catholics do not actively evangelize Jews any more than they may evangelize to any person they meet and share the gospel with. I am, however, aware of other Christian groups that specifically target people within Judaism in order to, erroneously in my opinion, hasten the coming of the kingdon of God.
What I find tragic is that many of these groups seem to be nearly obsessed with this restoration of Israel to the point that they raise funds to send Jewish people back to Israel to hasten the Lord’s coming.
While their intentions may be pure, I think they are also somewhat misguided in their thinking. For example, they seem to not be concerned with the idea of a final persecution where the Israelites will be terribly attacked during the so-called time of a Third Temple. In other words, if the Jews die during this time, it will only hasten the coming of the Lord all the more.
While these groups may not be consciously thinking along these lines, and I’m sure that their intentions are not malicious as far as I can detemrine, I think, when one examines their theology more closely, one can glimpse a kind of dark scapegoat mentality where the our Jewish brethren are, for all practical purposes, essentially sent to their doom as a kind of sacrifice before God with the intention of forcing Jesus to come back again.
Needless to say, I don’t really like these groups very much. They kind of remind me of Judas trying to tempt the Lord to lash out against the Roman authorities and force the coming of the Kingdom of God.
But God will apparently do this in his own good time and at his leasure despite their intentions and ours.
T
TimOliv
Guest
Catechism of the Catholic Church
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
So, it isn’t so much that Jews are 100% good to go, its that being Jewish does not NECESSARILY exclude one from salvation.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
oops. bad typo…
I meant, “Not necessarilly…”
Christ is necessary according to Catholic doctrine. He does the saving. It’s the personal knowledge of Christ as a person who saves which may not necessarilly be demanded when Judgement comes.
my bad.
B
bigdawg
Guest
Your position is a novelty.
The Jews do not have a salvific covenant, period.
If the Jews had a salvific covenant then why weren’t all the patriarchs and prophets in heaven before Jesus came?
Also, what would be the point of Jesus coming if the Jews had a salvific covenant? Why not just convert everyone to Judaism.
The closest statement our Church makes that a non-Catholic can get to heaven is that a person, who through no fault of their own may be saved. That person certainly won’t be saved because of whatever keeps them out of the Church, but in spite of it. Also note that the person “may” be saved, not a given.
B
bigdawg
Guest
B
bigdawg
Guest
D
Damascus
Guest
I guess some of us could read this and hash it out:
bc.edu/bc_org/research/cjl/news/Kasper_visit_report.htm
Just a Cardinal talking…
bc.edu/bc_org/research/cjl/news/Kasper_visit_report.htm
Just a Cardinal talking…
B
bigdawg
Guest
“Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them,…”
This is what is claimed in “Reflections on Covenant and Mission” and it is just plain wrong. It doesn’t matter what the good Cardinal thinks or how many priests, bishops, or cardinals believe this now.
To paraphrase from Karl Keating:
a.) This (the cardinal’s statement) 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.
b.) 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.
c.) 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
Your belief/argument may have some weight if you can lay out a case where the Church taught that the Jews have their own path to heaven before the 20th century.
Did Jesus say to baptize everyone…except for the Jews?
Did Jesus say the way to the Father was through him…except for the Jews who have another way?
Did the apostles preach and spread the gospel to everyone…except for the Jews?
Has our Church, at least before these confusing times, sent missonaries out to all people separated from the Church…except for the Jews?
So, let’s see…Jesus, the apostles, and close to 2,000 years of tradition against the good cardinal. I’ll side with the former instead of the latter.
Also, it still remains to be answered why the prophets and patriarchs weren’t in heaven before Jesus?
Additionally, why did Jesus come at all if the Jews already possesed a covenant that led to salvation?
Finally, the Church has been clear that no one outside the Church can be saved, excepting for the possibility of invincible ignorance.
I just don’t see how one can come to the conclusion that the Jews have their own path to heaven.
This is what is claimed in “Reflections on Covenant and Mission” and it is just plain wrong. It doesn’t matter what the good Cardinal thinks or how many priests, bishops, or cardinals believe this now.
To paraphrase from Karl Keating:
a.) This (the cardinal’s statement) 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.
b.) 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.
c.) 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
Your belief/argument may have some weight if you can lay out a case where the Church taught that the Jews have their own path to heaven before the 20th century.
Did Jesus say to baptize everyone…except for the Jews?
Did Jesus say the way to the Father was through him…except for the Jews who have another way?
Did the apostles preach and spread the gospel to everyone…except for the Jews?
Has our Church, at least before these confusing times, sent missonaries out to all people separated from the Church…except for the Jews?
So, let’s see…Jesus, the apostles, and close to 2,000 years of tradition against the good cardinal. I’ll side with the former instead of the latter.
Also, it still remains to be answered why the prophets and patriarchs weren’t in heaven before Jesus?
Additionally, why did Jesus come at all if the Jews already possesed a covenant that led to salvation?
Finally, the Church has been clear that no one outside the Church can be saved, excepting for the possibility of invincible ignorance.
I just don’t see how one can come to the conclusion that the Jews have their own path to heaven.
D
Damascus
Guest
Dear bigdawg,
In the name of Jesus I offer you peace,
I wonder if you feel that the Cardinal is in error? Or did I misunderstand you?
When the laity make such assertations, they don’t realize how severe this type of indictment is. Unwittingly you have also cast suspicion on Holy Father by making this assertation. He would be the one I would think that would be able to determine this and since he has not chastized or condemned this Cardinal, how can you?
By what authourity do you speak?
In the name of Jesus I offer you peace,
I wonder if you feel that the Cardinal is in error? Or did I misunderstand you?
When the laity make such assertations, they don’t realize how severe this type of indictment is. Unwittingly you have also cast suspicion on Holy Father by making this assertation. He would be the one I would think that would be able to determine this and since he has not chastized or condemned this Cardinal, how can you?
By what authourity do you speak?
D
Damascus
Guest
When and if Rosilyn Moss wears a red hat, then and only then should one think her words are superior somehow to a Cardinals.
D
Damascus
Guest
PS- if that day comes, the gates of Hell will have prevailed.When and if Rosilyn Moss wears a red hat, then and only then should one think her words are superior somehow to a Cardinals.
B
bigdawg
Guest
I notice that you don’t address any of my points or even attempt to engage them.
Secondly, to be quite clear, yes I do disagree with the cardinal. Why wouldn’t I?
How do you discern the truth when two or more cardinals disagree on a topic? Infallibility doesn’t apply to every individual cardinal does it? So what do you do?
By the way, the previous few popes have not made it a habit to go around chastising every wayward cleric or theologian.
T
tequilamac
Guest
Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the Orthodox Jews preach the breaking of the Covenant, most especially in the founding of the State of Israel. Which is of course why they oppose Jewish Zionism. So are you speaking of Orthodox Judaism or the Zionists whom the Orthodox claim have broken the covenant.
An example can be found here: nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/opposition.cfm
D
Damascus
Guest
V
Valke2
Guest
ok. I’ll correct you. The establishment of the state of Israel is not viewed by the vast majority of Orthodox as a breaking of the Covenant. Even the small minority that say it should not have been done, and they are a very small minority, do not say that it constitutes a breaking of the Covenant.
- Status