Pope Benedict’s remarks concerning Jewish individuals in his recent book Jesus of Nazareth (vol. 2) (GET IT HERE! GET IT HERE!
For example, the book contains a passage which some have interpreted as saying that the Church should not seek to convert Jewish individuals. It is not at all clear to me that this is what the Pope is saying. The passage is complex and bears more than one interpretation. So let’s dive in and see what we can make of it.
The beginning of the discussion (which is not usually quoted by people commenting on the text) is this. Starting on p. 44 of the book, Pope Benedict writes:
At this point we encounter once again the connection between the Gospel tradition and the basic elements of Pauline theology. If Jesus says in the eschatological discourse that the Gospel must first be proclaimed to the Gentiles and only then can the end come, we find exactly the same thing in Paul’s Letter to the Romans: “A hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved” (11:25–26).
The full number of the Gentiles and all Israel: In this formula we see the universalism of the divine salvific will. For our purposes, though, the important point is that Paul, too, recognizes an age of the Gentiles, which is the present and which must be fulfilled if God’s plan is to attain its goal.
So Pope Benedict is contemplating the two-stages of phases of history that precede the end of the world. First, there are what Our Lord refers to as “the times of the gentiles,” in which the Gospel is preached to all nations and the gentiles are given the chance to convert, and then the second stage in which the partial hardness that has come upon Israel is removed and so “all Israel will be saved”—a reference to a corporate conversion of the Jewish people at the end of history.
Note how this viewpoint differs from two rival viewpoints: First, it differs from the “Jews don’t need Jesus, they have their own covenant” perspective. This idea, which has been trendy is some Catholic circles of late, is manifestly contrary to the teaching of the New Testament and to the historic teaching of the Church’s Magisterium. It also is not what Pope Benedict is advocating here. He is not saying that Jews don’t need Jesus or that they don’t need to become Christians. He is saying that they will corporately convert to Christ, but not until the end of time. Prior to that point, individual Jews may become Christians—as with the apostles and the very first Christians and with other converts from Judaism down through history. But the full, corporate conversion of Israel (which even then might not involve every single individual without exception) is something to be found only at the end of the world.
Secondly, the viewpoint that the Pope is articulating is different than the “Jews don’t matter anymore; they don’t have any special relationship with God or mission; their role has been completely supplanted by the Church and they have no further special significance.” Again, this position is contrary to the New Testament, which ascribes an ongoing special place for the Jewish people in God’s plan (as illustrated by the end of the world being contingent on their corporate conversion), and it is not the viewpoint that Pope Benedict is articulating. He recognizes, as we will see him say even more explicitly in a moment, that the Jewish people has a special and ongoing mission.
He then speaks of the early Church’s attitude toward this two-phase understanding of Christian history (the preaching of the Gospel to the gentiles, followed by the corporate conversion of Israel):
The fact that the early Church was unable to assess the chronological duration of these kairoí (“times”) of the Gentiles and that it was generally assumed they would be fairly short is ultimately a secondary consideration.
The essential point is that these times were both asserted and foretold and that, above all else and prior to any calculation of their duration, they had to be understood and were understood by the disciples in terms of a mission: to accomplish now what had been proclaimed and demanded — by bringing the Gospel to all peoples.
The restlessness with which Paul journeyed to the nations, so as to bring the message to all and, if possible, to fulfill the mission within his own lifetime — this restlessness can only be explained if one is aware of the historical and eschatological significance of his exclamation: “Necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!” (1 Cor 9:16).
In this sense, the urgency of evangelization in the apostolic era was predicated not so much on the necessity for each individual to acquire knowledge of the Gospel in order to attain salvation, but rather on this grand conception of history: If the world was to arrive at its destiny, the Gospel had to be brought to all nations. At many stages in history, this sense of urgency has been markedly attenuated, but it has always revived, generating new dynamism for evangelization.
What the Pope says in the last paragraph is quite interesting. The idea that individuals in the apostolic age were motivated to evangelize “not so much on the necessity for each individual to acquire knowledge of the Gospel in order to attain salvation, but rather on this grand conception of history,” is quite interesting.
It is certainly true that the early evangelists, including Paul, were motivated by the fact that Christ had indicated the Gospel must be preached to all the nations and that this plays a role in God’s plan of the ages. If it’s part of God’s plan and Christ said to do it, that’s reason to get to work evangelizing! And the first evangelists certainly understood that.
It’s questionable, however, how much they also saw “the necessity for each individual to acquire knowledge of the Gospel in order to attain salvation” as playing a role. Certainly later in Church history the theological tides shifted very strongly in favor of the idea that concrete knowledge (and acceptance) of the Gospel is necessary for salvation. In our own day the tides have shifted back a bit, with the Magisterium indicating (especially from the mid 20th century onwards) that an explicit knowledge of the Gospel is not an absolute necessity and that people can, if they otherwise cooperate with God’s grace, come to salvation if they are in innocent ignorance of the Gospel.
Similar themes are found in the writings of the Church Fathers, who hold that some gentiles prior to the time of Christ could be saved if they lived according to the Logos or “Reason” of God, though they lacked knowledge of his word in the Scriptures.
In the apostolic age, it would be fair to assume that something of this idea was present as well. In the early chapters of Romans, Paul alludes to some gentiles potentially being excused by their consciences on the day of judgment because they followed the law of God written on their hearts, even though they didn’t have knowledge of the Mosaic Law.
On the other hand, Paul also uses language that suggests knowledge and acceptance of the Gospel is quite important for salvation, saying that he preaches the Gospel so vigorously, in part, to provoke some of his Jewish brethren to envy of the grace God is working among the gentiles and thus, via their conversion, “save some of them” (i.e., Jews end up accepting the Gospel). On other occasions, he spoke of those who reject the Gospel as considering themselves “not worthy of salvation.”
Given the strong connection made between accepting the Gospel and salvation in the New Testament, it is hard to simply set aside the salvation motive as a significant part of the impetus toward preaching the Gospel in the first century.
I don’t know that the Pope is doing that. In the English translation, his language (“not so much”) suggests at least something of a downplaying of the salvation motive, but it does not rule it out altogether. (Also, this is precisely the kind of exegetical point on which he indicated people are free to contradict him. “How much did the salvation motive play a role in first century evangelization according to the New Testament?” is an exegetical question, not a dogmatic one.)
Now Pope Benedict takes up the question of Israel’s ongoing mission:
In this regard, the question of Israel’s mission has always been present in the background. We realize today with horror how many misunderstandings with grave consequences have weighed down our history. Yet a new reflection can acknowledge that the beginnings of a correct understanding have always been there, waiting to be rediscovered, however deep the shadows.
Here is something we need to note very carefully, because this is the hinge that takes us into the passage about evangelizing Jewish people. The subject at hand is not (certainly not primarily) the evangelization of Jews. It is the recognition of Israel’s unique role in history. Christians have, the Holy Father indicates, often failed to recognize that role and this has resulted in many horrific “misunderstandings with grave consequences [that] have weighted down our history.” Despite that, he indicates “the beginnings of a correct understanding” of Israel’s role “have always been there, waiting to be rediscovered, however deep in the shadows.”
Pope Benedict is thus about to cite an example designed to show how—even at a much different stage in Church history—there was nevertheless a shadowy, partial understanding of Israel’s unique role. That is the Pope’s primary point:
Here I should like to recall the advice given by Bernard of Clairvaux to his pupil Pope Eugene III on this matter. He reminds the Pope that his duty of care extends not only to Christians, but: “You also have obligations toward unbelievers, whether Jew, Greek, or Gentile” (De Consideratione III/1, 2). Then he immediately corrects himself and observes more accurately: “Granted, with regard to the Jews, time excuses you; for them a determined point in time has been fixed, which cannot be anticipated. The full number of the Gentiles must come in first. But what do you say about these Gentiles? ... Why did it seem good to the Fathers ... to suspend the word of faith while unbelief was obdurate? Why do we suppose the word that runs swiftly stopped short?” (De Consideratione III/1, 3).
So Bernard of Clarivaux at one point alluded to the two-phase understanding of Christian history, with the set time of Israel’s conversion being confined to the unknowable future. This the Pope documents his major theme (it’s what started out this section, remember?) has been understood in Christian history, and thus there has been at least some recognition of Israel’s unique and ongoing mission, whatever crimes and misunderstandings concerning the Jewish people have also accompanied it.
St. Bernard also seems to suggest that Pope Eugene has an excuse not to evangelize Jews as vigorously as gentiles because their corporate conversion is still future, and Pope Benedict appears to give support to this view, saying that this observation of St. Bernard’s is more accurate than his initial summary. The Holy Father then cites Hildegard Brem (a German nun of our own day):
Hildegard Brem comments on this passage as follows: “In the light of Romans 11:25, the Church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews, since she must wait for the time fixed for this by God, ‘until the full number of the Gentiles come in’ (Rom 11:25). On the contrary, the Jews themselves are a living homily to which the Church must draw attention, since they call to mind the Lord’s suffering (cf. Ep 363) . . .” (quoted in Sämtliche Werke, ed. Winkler, I, p. 834).
This passage, at least as it is translated in English, contains the strongest statement in the entire passage concerning evangelizing Jews. What does it mean? Romans 11:25 is one of the base texts that undergirds the two-phrase conception of Christian history that the pope has been discussing. It is where St. Paul says:
Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in.
In light of this, what does it mean to say that “the Church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews”? It could mean any number of things.
I think it would be reasonable to say that the Church should not worry or be concerned or upset if the Jewish people do not corporately convert in our own age. It would also be reasonable to say on the basis of Romans 11:25 to say that the Church should not expect the corporate conversion of the Jewish people in an age prior to the end. If any of these are the kind of “concern” the Church shouldn’t have then the statement is quite reasonable.
On the other hand, if what is meant is that the Church should not share the Gospel with Jewish people prior to the end then the statement is highly problematic. One reason is that we won’t know when the end has arrived until it really does arrive. At any point prior to the Second Coming we could be facing a situation that looks like the end but really isn’t. If this is the criterion the Church would never share the Gospel with the Jewish people.
Further, this understanding would be flatly in contradiction with that of the apostles and other New Testament authors who were themselves evangelized Jews!
And it’s not as if acceptance of the Gospel has nothing to do with salvation. Even if we recognize the possibility of salvation for the innocently unaware, the Church has repeatedly stressed that this is no reason to slack off in our efforts to evangelize! What’s good for the Jew is good for the gentile in this regard, for we all deal with the same merciful God, and if his mercy to the innocently unaware is reason to slack off evangelizing Jews then it’s reason to slack off evangelizing gentiles, too. (Which we know not to be the case.)
It also rubs against the grain of St. Paul’s characterization of the Jewish people in Romans 11 as olive shoots from a cultivated olive tree, whereas gentile believers represent wild olive shoots that have been grafted on to the cultivated tree. The tree nevertheless remains a cultivated one, and St. Paul comments that on account of this Jewish people who embrace the faith will be all the more readily grated onto “their own tree.”
In this light, suggestions that the Church ought not to evangelize Jewish people have (rightly) provoked comments from Jewish Christians like, “How dare you suggest that the fullness of my own faith not be shared with me! How dare you suggest that I as a Jew shouldn’t be taught about my own Messiah and all of his teachings! Your proposal would effectively disinherit me from the fullness of my own heritage!”
Most fundamentally, though, any suggestion that the Church should not evangelize Jewish people because of the hardness that has come upon Israel would contradict Romans 11:25 itself. It doesn’t say that Israel has become completely hard. It says that a hardness has come upon it “in part.” But only in part. Thus St. Paul makes the point that God has not rejected the Jewish people and that he himself is a Jew. The fact that Israel has been hardened in part toward the Gospel does not change the fact that part of it has not been hardened and is receptive to the Gospel.
The Church thus has an obligation to preach the Gospel to all mankind, including the part of Israel that has not been hardened.
Any total non-proclamation-of-the-Gospel-to-Jewish-people view is thus a non-starter.
What about a middle position?
Could one say, “Well, we know that Israel is partly hardened and partly not, so we should put some efforts into evangelizing Jewish people but not apply as much of our efforts there as elsewhere, with nations that do not display this hardening in the present age?”
Economics is the study of the use of limited resources that have alternative uses, and since there are a limited amount of evangelistic resources at our disposal and since they could be used to evangelize other peoples, so evangelization is subject to the laws of economics as much as any other field. This means we must make choices about who to evangelize and when. We even see decisions of that nature being made in the New Testament itself, as when Paul has a dream of a man from Macedonia and turns to evangelize there rather than in Asia Minor. One could argue that the two-stages of Christian history as they have been revealed to us constitute a similar revelation with implications for where we should spend the bulk of our evangelistic resources.
But there are only a few million Jews in the world, and there are over a billion Catholics. We’re not going to save that much of our evangelistic energy by adopting a limited evangelization policy for the Jewish people.
There is also something repugnant about the idea of hindering Christ’s own people, as a matter of policy, from learning about him. Certainly this was contrary to St. Paul’s practice, which was to preach to the Jewish community first and then to the gentiles.
So there is considerable ambiguity on this point. I don’t know what Hildegard Brem meant. If she meant we must not evangelize Jewish people or that we should be unconcerned about that subject then I think she is wrong. If she means that we should adopt a policy of minimal evangelization toward them, I am quite uncomfortable with the proposal. If she means that we should make reasonable efforts at evangelization but not be concerned that these will not bear full fruit until the end then I am entirely in agreement.
I know that, in view of the history of anti-Semitism, many Europeans (even moreso than Americans) are quite uncomfortable with the idea of evangelizing Jewish individuals. This discomfort is all the more acutely felt among many in Germany, for whom the Holocaust can be a powerful source of guilt and shame, even if they were not personally involved and even if they personally resisted it. This may play a role in coloring some statements regarding the question of evangelizing Jewish people, and sometimes these statements can be poorly phrased. That could be playing a role here with Hildegard Brem’s. I don’t know. I don’t know her or her work (or what is said in the original German!) well enough to assess that.
But what about Pope Benedict’s use of her work here?
He seems to cite her to build on the previous remarks of St. Bernard concerning the Jews’ unique role in history. Presumably he views what Brem says as elaborating more fully the general theme established with the quotations from St. Bernard. That includes Brem’s ambiguous statement regarding the Church not needing to be “concerned” with “the conversion of the Jews” (not the same thing as the evangelization of the Jews). It also includes Brem’s statement that “the Jews themselves are a living homily to which the Church must draw attention, since they call to mind the Lord’s suffering.”
This statement would not be described as “politically correct” from an interfaith standpoint. Brem is speaking from a uniquely Christian standpoint that would not be shared by non-Christian Jews. She appears to mean that the Church should call attention to the Jewish people because of their special role in God’s plan of the ages. This makes them “a living homily” (what Isaiah called “a light to the nations”), and the sufferings they have endured through history call to mind the sufferings that Christ also endured. She thus seems to suggest a form of historical, mystical identification between the suffering nation of Israel and the suffering Messiah who is its eschatological head. Thus through the innocent sufferings of Israel—both the nation and its Messiah—God brings about his plan for the world.
Or maybe she means something else. The quote is brief, and we do not have much context.
However that may be, the statement that the Church should not be “concerned” with Israel’s “conversion,” coupled with her distinctly Christian take on Israel’s role in history, do not add up to anything like a clear statement that the Church should refrain from sharing the Gospel with Jewish people or even that it should limit it as a matter of deliberate policy.
A more sensible approach would be to say that we should preach the Gospel always, in and out of season, to all, including Our Lord’s own people, and leave the results up to God, knowing that the corporate conversion of Israel is something that will only happen at the end of time.
We also shouldn’t prejudge the idea that we are not at the end of time. We might be. We also might not be. The Catechism stresses that the Second Coming is unpredictable as to its time. If God wanted, it could happen with amazing suddenness (that would affect the interpretation of some prophecies, but the nature of prophecy is such that its correct interpretation is often only determinable in hindsight).
In view of the ambiguity of Brem’s statement, I think we need to be cautious in what we attribute to Pope Benedict.
I also think it is significant that he chose to quote her rather than speak in his own voice. One of the things characteristic of his writing is he often borrows what others have said when he wishes to propose an idea without imposing it. He knows that people will take what he says in his own voice as if he is speaking with papal authority even when, as in this book set, he has said everyone is free to contradict him and that it is not a matter of magisterial teaching.
So even if Brem is saying something more than what I think can reasonably be concluded from Romans 11:25, I think Pope Benedict is likely proposing it for consideration rather than imposing it as a matter of obligatory belief.
I also would cite to final pieces of evidence regarding Pope Benedict’s handling of this subject.
First, he drops the discussion of the conversion of Israel and what concern the Church should have for it. He concludes by returning to the general theme of the two-stage understanding of Christian history—the same theme he began with—and the fact that the gospel must first be preached to the nations. He concludes:
The prophecy of the time of the Gentiles and the corresponding mission is a core element of Jesus’ eschatological message. The special mission to evangelize the Gentiles, which Paul received from the risen Lord, is firmly anchored in the message given by Jesus to his disciples before his Passion. The time of the Gentiles — “the time of the Church” — which, as we have seen, is proclaimed in all the Gospels, constitutes an essential element of Jesus’ eschatological message.
Finally, this is the same pope who in 2008 re-wrote the Good Friday prayer for the Jewish people that is part of the extraordinary form of the Mass. That prayer, as he personally re-wrote it, reads:
Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men. (Let us pray. Kneel. Rise.) Almighty and eternal God, who want that all men be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, propitiously grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.
He wrote this knowing that it would not please many in the Jewish community, who would have preferred no prayer at all or at least a more muted one.
Whatever else may be the case, it does not seem to me that Pope Benedict is opposed to reasonable efforts to share the Gospel with Our Lord’s own people.
What do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
I appreciate your analysis of the matter, it’s quite interesting.
One thought occurred to me: I was thinking about what (practically speaking) happens when a Jew converts, trading old wine in for new. I think, for the most part, they lose touch with the original lines of thought, taking on the well-formed and flowered Catholic ones.
I wonder if, in God’s mystical plan, we don’t _need_ the Jews-qua-Jews to be part of the witness of Christ.
When I consider all I’ve learned about the Semitic mindset and meanings of the less explicable items in the Old Testament which turn out (only after explanation) to actually be powerful witnesses to Christ and an explanation and clarification of His actions and His relations, I wonder how those items came to us? Whether still, after all these years, our “Elder Brothers in Faith” have things yet to teach us? Not for those things necessary to salvation, certainly, but in terms of the grand beautiful and fullness of the design. Or, perhaps better than “teach us”, I may say “remind us”.
I fear, however, that the occluding of certain Judaica that would otherwise tend to have lent credence to the Faith might have taken too strong a root. Changes in the Masoretic text that make it less than authentic, the rejection from Jewish consideration of the apocrypha from Jamnia, other losses of interpretive history all might be part of the ‘hardening of hearts’.
And, obviously, since the story is so compelling, even looking too hard at the details might overflow into, um, accidental conversion, leading to a sort of loss.
So, perhaps it is in this way that the “hardness of heart” will flower for the glory of God: that the witnesses, steeped in history, of the Old Covenant remain around to guide us anew in a deeper understanding of the New. This, I think, may happen, if only the Jews can recapture more and more of the original Semitic understandings of the encounter of their people with the living God. This is a proposition which I think “conservative” Jews can get on board with, and “liberal” Jews will hate the concept of - much like our own split, sad to say. AMDG.
@st.bart It is really hard to take someone serious when they start their comments with such a stupid remark as “Looks like the Pope is confused yet again.” At least you were gracious enough to explain that you are a stupid “red-neck”. Omnes cum Petro, ad Iesum per Mariam…I recommend you read more material the Holy Father has written on this issue…it is supernatural and difficult to understand its meaning. But your intellect OBVIOUSLY and most likely far exceeds that of our Holy Father. He clearly admits and explains his “raised during the times of Nazi Germany” roots in several of his writings…I recommend ISBN 88-209-7919-0.
I believe Pope Benedict misinterpreted Romans 11:25-26 because he is unaware of a surprising context unveiled by Biblical scholarship. See http://j.mp/f91uJ2 which explains this context.
In sum, “Israel” = 12 tribes. The remnant in Paul’s day consisted of Judahites (i.e., Jews, e.g., Jesus), Benjaminites (e.g., St. Paul), and Levites (e.g., St. John the Baptist).
The other tribes were assimilated among the Gentile nations following the Assyrian conquest of Israel (circa 722 BC). Yet, the prophets foretell time and time again that God will reunite all the tribes under the Davidic Messiah with the Gentiles.
How will he reunite the 12 tribes (once divided in 930 BC) if 9/12ths are no longer retrievable? By bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles. When the Gentiles come under the reign of the Davidic King in the New Covenant, guess who’s among them? Descendants of Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Zebulun, etc.
So, when “the full number of the Gentiles come in, all Israel will be saved.”
Paul is speaking about his ministry and the result it is bringing about… not some cryptic prophecy of a future mass conversion of the Jews.
Carson Weber
http://carsonweber.org
@st.bart for one so blessed by the Holy Spirit (beyond that even of the Holy Father…)you are no doubt familiar with Matthew 12:36 & Matthew 15:14…the later referring of course to you…Truly you are one of those who can honestly answer the question “What is wrong with the world today?” with the reply “I am” The only thing worse than an ignorant protestant is a bad Catholic…such as you.
“The full number of the Gentiles and all Israel: in this formula we see the universalism of the divine salvific will.”
Universalism is the heresy that everyone can or will go to Heaven and no one can or will suffer eternally. That doesn’t fit well with Catholicism.
Finally! EWTN takes on the pope. We’re going to get this church back in line one way or another!
Thank you for this Jimmy. Finally a reasonable voice is writing on this issue. What merciful God would not want salvation extended to all people, especially His “chosen” people? It is an injustice to Jews to refuse to share the Gospel with them.
Jesus said:
John 5:18
Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God.
Luke 18:17
Amen, I say to you: Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a child, shall not enter into it.
John 6:41
The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven.
John 7:1
After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for he would not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him.
Matthew 27:25
And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.
Why does every Catholic discussion ignore the 800 lb Gorilla in the room on this topic? Judaism, from 70 AD until the end of days, is the heretical descendant of the Pharisees for whom Jesus had very harsh words ( Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness (see Matthew 23-27). The Pharisaic tradition is/was the anti-New Israel from the start if you will. Ask St. Paul he was once in their employ. Obviously, bringing up this early Church history is politically incorrect.
Do the Pope’s comments about wholesale evangelization indicate that he is not aware of the theological tradition involving the prophectic necessity of a Jewish Anti-Christ? Probably not. He recently beatfied John Henry Newman who said: “Hence, considering that Antichrist would pretend to be the Messiah, it was of old the received notion that he was to be of Jewish race and to observe the Jewish rites (Newman, Cardinal John Henry. Lecture 2. The Religion of Antichrist. Copyright © 2004 by The National Institute for Newman Studies).” This same traditional teaching was espoused by various theologians and/or Doctors of Church such as Saint Jerome, Saint Ambrose, Saint Irenaeus, Sulpitius Severus, Francisco Suarez et al. So let’s not forget Revelation 2:9 “I know thy tribulation and thy poverty, but thou art rich: and thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.”
The “synagogue of Satan” is that impostor remnant of Judah that remains in the world, wandering in exile like Cain, i.e. those talmudic, rabbinical reform/conservative/orthodox “Jews” who do not accept Jesus as Messiah and seek to rebuild an earhly Temple in Jerusalem as they tried once before unsuccessfully with the help of Julian the Apostate.
You know, I’m a Jewish guy who counts himself a citizen of the world, a philosopher and a romantic; and my son is an assimilated, Buddest Leaning, left wing young man of American nativity; and I lean in my ethics toward the Christian morality of Dante, Oxford, and Dickens; but all that being said, when you treat the Bible as more than the collection of tales and hearsay it is; when you suggest that the allegories of an ancient time will predict our very real future, you’ve gone loony.
The beauty and divinity of Jesus is not in the man; but in the Word which brought the idea of a greater equality and mercy to a brutal, far different world; and for those who hand superstitiously on the thoughts of the Supreme Pontiff as he sits on what, Trillions of Art? while the world bleeds, I would suggest that any man in Red Designer Loafers ain’t Holy, nohow. In fact, the shoes might even be a Clue from a Greater, les Parochial Diety.
The Detective In The Mirror
Sorry, hang for hand in the second last sentance above.
MS
I am in total agreement with E.Michael Jones (Culture Wars Jan 2011) and his firm opposition to the practice of this Pope publishing his personal opinions. Mr Jones even calls for The Pope to do public penance for his actions.
It certainly is the case that he is the first Pope in history to publish his personal opinions under his own name and it is beyond a question of doubt that he leads many Christians, especially Christian Catholics, into confusion as to whether or not his opinions are definitive. He IS Pope after all and it does no good to simply say “Oh, it’s just his personal opinion” when his books have two authors; the personal private Ratzinger and The Pope. Which one is speaking, and when? Who can tell? Is it up to the estimable Mr. Akin to tell us?
He put on our shoulders a huge Cross with his condom comments and if that episode did not wake him up to the fact that his public theological speculating was a problem then I do not know what will That was a huge error for which he never apologised. He let others clean-up the mess he made.
There is simply no way for men not to be confused. I think he is being extremely selfish in the way he uses the Papacy to promote his personal opinions. He is Pope and he is supposed to be speaking with the universal “we” and not the personal “I.” If he wants to go back being a Professor, have at it. Resign and go back to the Academy and speculate away but I really don’t want my Pope telling me that John was not the author of The Gospel of John but some anonymous presbyter named John from some never identified Johnanine School was.
Dear Pope. If you really think it is important that we Catholics jettison 2000+ years of ecclesiastical tradition that St John wrote the Gospel of John then put that in an Encyclical and be done with it because I see no useful purpose in undermining the Faith of your own flock; which is precisely what you are doing accrd to “A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture,” Dom Orchard, 1953, page 971 “Authorship”
If he is not speaking as Pope, then why do his books have his title on the book covers?
As far as evangelising the Jews, he and his successor were the first Popes to visit a Synagogue since St Peter but they did not do what St Peter did - PREACH CHRIST.
Pope Benedict has visited Synagogues repeatedly and he never preaches Christ to the Jews. Neither did Pope John Paul II. So, what is the purpose of his visits?
Mr. Jones suggests the motive is political and he makes a convincing case.
We have come a long way since St John Chrysostom said it was better for Christians to go to a !@#$% house than to a Synagogue. We now have the current and former Pope going to Synagogues and, apparently, establishing that as the new orthopraxis.
I am finding it a bit difficult to shoe-horn into the hermeneutic of continuity such strange and novel practices.
I guess I will just have to grow accustomed to having the Vicar of Christ showing-up for services in the Synagogues and apologising for the sins of long-dead Christian Catholics but not preaching the truth that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and Jews must accept Him as such or they will go to Hell.
Remind me again, do we Catholics believe that Jews must accept Jesus if they are to be saved?
It’s called maturity, Crank. The church is evolving, always has been. What seemed so obvious 500 years ago is thought of differently today.
You are definitely “reaching.” Just what Benedict XVI wrote is quite plain - anyone who can read can understand his direction. You are trying to spin it so that is sounds less bad.
“In this sense, the urgency of evangelization in the apostolic era was predicated not so much on the necessity for each individual to acquire knowledge of the Gospel in order to attain salvation, but rather on this grand conception of history”
I’m pretty sure every writer of the New Testament would disagree with you and Benedict. Maybe you should start reading the Bible and the Church Fathers before, say 1960s. The Bible/writers weren’t worried about theorizing about fulfillment of destiny (dangerous theories that deny the mission of the Church), but were specifically about 1) teaching Christ - to ALL nations that will hear the Truth, 2) sanctifying according to the precepts of Christ, and 3) governing according to their Christ-given authority. Pick up your catechism while you are at it.
I have not yet read Vol 2 JON (but I have already purchased it) having just completed re-reading Vol 1. Benedict is a brilliant Doctor of the Church. Part of the beauty of our faith is the depth and complexity of it for those who wish to delve into it on a deeper level and also its simplicity for others as summarized in our Creed. Benedict’s primary point, I believe, is God’s revelation of the truth by the Bible in its entirety and not a message found in this or that particular verse in isolation. The Pope rarely speaks “ex cathedra”. Who better to weigh in on biblical exegesis than the Bishop of Rome? This idea that he should not expound on theological discussion is anti-intellectual and silly. Honest historical study in context can lead to an even better understand of the Word.
I also hope that our Jewish brother (Michael Sol Pollens) will someday appreciate that the beauty and divinity of Jesus is indeed in the person of Jesus. Selling all of the art in the Vatican will fall far short of the trillions you estimate and we will still be left with the poor and suffering (man does not live by bread alone). The preservation of two thousand years of history is important. One aircraft carrier could buy and sell the Vatican many times over.
Dear Jimmy,
Thank you so much for your article. In the great confusion of our day regarding the evangelization of the Jewish people and our Holy Father’s own statements, it is the clearest, most well-written, thoughtful and balanced statement I have read. Unfortunately (not from your end), because your article was not intended as a full treatise on the subject, the field is left open to the hap-hazard, unthoughtful and grievous comments, such as evidenced in this comments column, of those who eagerly seek to find a word or phrase with which to negate the entire article and even the person of the Holy Father. The treatment in several of these cases demonstrates not only the inability of the commenter to grasp the meaning of a word or thought in its fuller context apart from his or her own limited reference, but also demonstrates a deplorable regard on the part of one who calls himself or herself a Christian, toward a human being (Pope Benedict) for whom Christ died.
For my part, Jimmy, I applaud and thank you for your treatment of the message of our Holy Father and wish to note here a proposed solution-in-process both to the very thoughtful comments of J.R. Pascucci above, and to this statement by Pope Benedict XVI noted in your article:
“Now Pope Benedict takes up the question of Israel’s ongoing mission:
‘In this regard, the question of Israel’s mission has always been
present in the background. We realize today with horror how many
misunderstandings with grave consequences have weighed down our
history. Yet a new reflection can acknowledge that the beginnings of
a correct understanding have always been there, waiting to be
rediscovered, however deep the shadows.’”
Enter, the Association of Hebrew Catholics (AHC). I believe the AHC is on to something most significant, indeed “the beginnings of a correct understanding (that has) always been there, waiting to be rediscovered, however deep the shadows.”
God bless and keep you,
Sister Rosalind Moss, Daughters of Mary, Mother of Our Hope
The Council of Florence spoke infallibly about Catholic belief in this matter:Itfirmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
Since there is no salvation outside the Church, it would seem a great failure in charity to neglect to preach, both in word and by example, to every Jew(even if you don’t consider them “authentic” Jews)the truth of the gospel.
Dear Raymond. Yes, evolution. That is when a child is born with an organ neither parent had. To those of us, like my own atavistic self, explain how those evolutionary actions are consistent with the hermeneutic of continuity rather than the hopeful monster of macro-evolution.
Dear St. Bart We Catholics wrote every single word of the New Testament that you misunderstand and it was written in The Catholic Church which existed prior to the establishment of The Canon of The New Testament and one crucial criteria for inclusion in the Canon was whether or not the Gospel or Epistle had been read at The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass, so, I can say with absolute certitude that I agree with the spelling of some of the words you used.
In my opinion it is another move towards a one world religion. Pope John Paul II helped it along by kissing the Koran and being the guest of honor at a snake worshipping service in Mexico.
I agree, Rolf, and it can’t come soon enough. We’re moving closer to what God wants for his creation.
Dear Sister Ross. The Association of Hebrew Catholics holds positions that are at least formally heretical.
Google “Association of Hebrew Catholics + Culture Wars” and scroll down in the article by Sungenis and read why a well-known and highly orthodox Catholic Expert resigned from their association.
I am not a member of The SSPX and I have never supported them. I am a member of The Confraternitas Sancti Petri and I maintain The Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine and Authority.
Dear Mike. There is no doubt as to the intellect and knowledge of Pope Benedict and my intellect and knowledge is thimble-like compared to his oceanic capacity; and I am not talking about his holiness, either. He is a Holy Man whereas I would have to have a spiritual weather balloon attached to me just to rise to the level of the town drunk ;yet, he has not been named a Dr of the Church.
But, of course it is not silly to object to the Pope speculating publicly as though he were a private theologian. He is not. He is Pope and it is not tenable to claim that he causes no confusion when he does this. His books carry his Title so it is only natural that those who read his ideas will think"this is what the Pope thinks so this is what The Catholic Church believes” and it is simply silly to continue to claim otherwise.
When he was chosen as Pope he lost his liberty to publicly speculate and publicly theologise because the Pope speaks for the entire Catholic Church throughout history. As Pope he is not speaking for his own self and sharing his personal opinions. That is why The Pope uses “we.” I think he is being very selfish insisting on publishing these texts as both a theologian and a Pope and, without question, he is sowing confusion.
I suspect that is the reason no Pope in the entire history of Catholicism has ever done such a thing but we Christian Catholics have become so inured to novelty that when we are presented with the radical and novel actions of a Pope we tend to have a knee-jerk reaction; “He is brilliant, he is holy..”
Yep. And he is doing something no Pope has ever done.
Was not the Old Testament “Israel” now the New Testament Church brought to fulfillment? Are Jews who pass-on prior to personal conversion saved by this “Corporate Conversion”? It may be that the higher truth that should be sought is, like subsidiarity, for all who are called to do the will of God united with Him and not try to ascertain the big picture. Certainly the strife created here is not of the Spirit of God.
oh hey, it’s self proclaimed st., as in probably Station Bart, here pushing misguided and false outright illogical moronic commentary in place of actual criticism.
Criticism which even Pope Benedict the XVI invited freely over ideas he’s tossing around in a book or otherwise that are not official teachings, not dogmatic and can be wrong which he humbly invites others to correct him about. Comments that the media has a habit of overly distorting or taking the wrong way, and I wouldn’t trust those fools to cover the current weather reliably.
According to st.(stupid) bart, even the Church Fathers from back in the day MUST have been the anti-Christ, because they disagreed on a number of issues concerning Baptism, the nature of Christ, etc. etc. and argued and got hot tempered and as we know today were otherwise entirely wrong on a number of matters before such things were plainly addressed by the Catholic Church magisterium and councils.
According to bart street, the entirety of Christendom was a satanic institution because they all subscribed to the incorrect science of geocentrism without knowing any better.
Conclusion: st.bart, doesn’t quite have his logic in order nor is his memory of Church history very compelling, much less can he put the two of them together to reach any sort of insight. It’s better to pay no attention nor respond to him anymore and just kick his dust out of your sandals and move on, though maybe the dilemma of whether it’s worth it to address a fool or not that Proverbs brings up is more fitting…
It might by helpful to read this passage in light of the “Many Religions One Covenant” conference from 1998 put into book form by Ignatius Press in 1999.
Thank you, Mr. Akin, for your perspicuous essay.
Compared to our Holy Father, someone whom many accomplished theologians have called one of the greatest theological minds to assume the Chair of Peter and one of the greatest theological minds of the 20th and 21st Centuries, I am a dunce. Judging from the conversations of late, apparently I’m in good company.
Given precedent, I’m not surprised that the Holy Father’s new book is generating a wide range of responses. The Holy Father’s writings, far ahead of the curve as his work tends to be, require people to take at minimum a second and third look. However, as with the case in most educational enterprises, few people really do the work of parsing the details, i.e., few use their God-given brains to sift the facts. The lazy, those who read the first sentence of a paragraph yet pontificate as if they have read and analyzed the entire book, merely prove themselves pretend scholars and mere fools.
It is not surprising that so many people, not necessarily referring to those herein this forum, have been reduced to a seven-second attention span and thus conform the Pope’s book to their stunted intellectual capacity. More boldly, some even dare to insist that we should conform to their magisterium, a magisterium beyond any Pope would claim. It is laughable that, given the book has only been available for a relatively short period of time, that so many folk with obviously too much time on their hands (which they misuse in the pursuit of some misguided cause when they should be immersed in silent reading) merely prove that they are incapable of appreciating that Pope Benedict’s highly nuanced writing requires patience and a great deal of work directed toward interpretation and analysis of arguments.
That so little of the book can be so easily taken out of context is further proof that so few are willing to sit down and accept the Pope’s invitation to humble oneself and together, with him, engage in a quest for truth. Knee jerk reactions rarely do anything but confirm an evil inclination to put ego before two open ears. Violent reactions to the Pope’s lecture at Regensburg proved the Pope’s point concerning reason, or a lack thereof. The Holy Father - master teacher that he is - is enticing us with a few more robust ideas. Joseph Ratzinger’s episcopal motto is worth recalling when the temptation to rush to judge is greatest. To be “a co-worker in the truth” requires hard work. The Pope is trying to help us recover reason in a time when reason, like faith, is being abandoned for madness.
Again, thank you Mr. Akin, for helping us to contextualize the Holy Father’s work.
st.bart is a notorious evangelical troll and egomaniac. St.bart,a legend in his own tiny mind, stated earlier that his intellect “surpasses” that of Pope Benedict!LOL!!! st.bart is like the Pharisees that Jesus railed against:
full of doctrine and a holier-than-thou attitude, but “inside is full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.”(Matthew 23:27). It is best to ignore st.bart to avoid nausea. :-)
Thank God for Benedict 16!
Yes, as most Hegelian post-V2 writings, this contains enough ambiguity to interpret it 100 different ways. Sad. But there are some troubling parts Mr. Akin did not address:
1. “In this regard, the question of Israel’s mission has always been present in the background.” ISRAEL HAD NO MISSION, except to drag the followers of this false Talmudic/Pharisee religion to hell. There is no salvation without Faith in Jesus and belonging to His Church. de fide.
2. “Then he immediately corrects himself and observes more accurately:” St. Bernard DOES NOT correct himself. He refines his advise. In short, he is recommending triage. But the Pope has implied, strongly, that St. Bernard is saying the Church does not need to convert Jews.
3. The Pope’s Good Friday prayer weakens the previous prayer, which was for the CONVERSION of the Jews. This has been dropped. Why was this dropped? It is scandalous, by the true definition of the term.
4. The Pope’s POORLY WRITTEN book is causing scandal, with many claiming, rightly or wrongly, that the Jews don’t need to convert to be saved. So the Pope, due to his poor writing, is OBLIGATED to correct these false perceptions (we should pray to God they ARE false perceptions), lest some Jews think they can be saved outside of the Church, and thus perish, with the damnation of their souls coming down on the head of Pope Benedict during Judgement Day.
Change: Israel HAD no mission, to Israel HAS no mission.
Perhaps he means to say that they may vangelize us,should we attempt to do so?
Goodness gracious me! I never realised that some Catholics cannot be distinguished from the most self-congratulating fundamentalist Evangelical types walking the earth in the USA. The Bible slappers, those types that get the willies if they hear of the possibility that other humans, outside of the Catholic Church - or the Evengelical fold - could be “saved”.
I have read and studied most of Joseph Ratzinger’s books and homilies. His “Introduction to Christianity” brought me back to the Christian faith, as it did hundreds of others, by the way. This is a man who firmly believes in the saving grace and works of Jesus Christ. If anyone outside the Church is saved, and believe me there will be many, there are already many,it will be solely on the grounds of the saving work of God through Jesus, his Son, meaning really, Himself. Whether “saved” people know it or not, it is through Christ that the world/cosmos, including humanity, will be/are in a certain sense already, redeemed. That is the main message of this Pope and of others before him. He is not for a moment making the redeeming work of God through Christ adundant when he writes and thinks and struggles with Scriptures and history.
Most people replying in these comboxes seem, by the way, never to ask what exactly the word “Gospel” meant to Jesus, to St Paul. Did it mean then what later on became in many Christians’ opinion “my insurance package to Heaven”?? I am afraid that is not at all so clear from scriptures. Or did the “good news”/gospel in the time of Jesus and St Paul primarily meant to convey to Gentile and (tepid)Jews that indeed, the One God of Israel is God, not the pagan pantheon of the time. The good news was that the ONE God of Israel vindicated himself through the life and RESURRECTION of Jesus of Nazareth, and this overwhelming historic fact became the redemption of the cosmos and humanity.
Truly, it is only later in Christian devlopment that the “I am saved for heaven” rethoric became so overpowering, especially in Western Chrsitianity. With Luther it became the mantra of Protestantism. The original good news were (cough) much larger and bigger, I am glad to at last realise, not only from reading Ratzinger but from exegetes that can be considered absolutely orthodox while using their full brain power and faith to study the scriptures and church history in all its dimensions.
By the way, Ratzinger never said, and still does not proclaim: “don’t bring the gospel to the Jews!” Now, go figure that one out by reading all his works.
And another little matter: we do not live in the first century anymore. A Jew who today says “I have never heard the gospel”, will not be speaking honestly. Thousands of books, plus The Book, plus TV, movies and internet are available to every single Jew who can read. And most Jews have some Christian friends who can, without aggression and militantism, be a witness to the Jesus Christ.
I don’t think Edith Stein, or my Jewish friend X who recently converted to Christianity, were “evangelised” in a first century manner. In fact, had my friend be evangelised in an Evangelical or arrogant Catholic fundametalist manner, she would never, ever have converted to Christ.
Correction of my last paragraph: It should read: I don’t think Edith Stein, or my Jewish friend X who converted to Christianity, were “evangelised” in a 20th or 21st century manner”.
Any explanation as to why Jews continue to do more charitable works than Christians?
Dear Warren. Your entire post is representative of what many of us complain about. The private theologian writes in a confusing manner and he seems to be thinking out loud but his thoughts are being released in books that also bear the title of Pope.
So, who is it that is speaking in such a confusing manner?
It is all well and good to describe his readers as a bunch of knuckle-dragging numbskulls but that is to take all the onus off of whomever is writing - whether it be the private theologian or the Pope.
The simple fact is that the estimable Mr. Akin (If I did not admire him I would not have his Blog on my “favorites list”) has had to wade-in, big time, after the Private theologian-Pope spoke about condoms and now about the Jews and conversion.
It is a simple matter of fact that what the Pope has written and said is confusing. If it were not confusing then Mr. Akin would not have to regularly intervene to explain what the private theologian or Pope intended to say. And isn’t it interesting that it was the private theologian or Pope who introduced the captious condom comments and then who totally walked-away from the firestorm it created and left everyone else to explain what he meant. Sheesh.
I have the first volume of the private theologian-Pope book about Jesus but I will not buy another one. I find his speculation about the authorship of the Gospel of John to be a nettlesome non-sequitur that introduces uncertainty into the minds of believers. What is the point?
To me it is self-serving. The private theologian is interested in the subject and he wanted to publicly speak about it but he did not want to speak about it in the universal “we” of the Papacy which is what his role is now.
Our Pope is engaged in behavior that no Pope have ever engaged in. He is writing books in which his readership does not know if he is reading the words of The Pope or if he is reading the speculative words of a private theologian.
Personally, I think “The Life of Christ” by Fulton Sheen is far superior and his book did not generate confusion in the flock.
Ivy, Benjamin. A Jew by Choice: Elizabeth Taylor, 1932-2011. Jewish Daily Forward. http://forward.com/articles/136447/
Excellent, balanced article Jimmy. Thank you for it. One wishes that more of the commenters had such balance and common sense.
Here’s a great deal of information on the Internet about the “conversion of the Jews” from the fathers, medievals, scholars, magisterium, et al.
There’s a great deal of evidence for it.
http://www.sungenisandthejews.com/Addenda_and_Bio.html
Vermont Crank, you write: “Dear Sister Ross. The Association of Hebrew Catholics holds positions that are at least formally heretical.” Then you recommended an article by Robert Sungenis on the subject.
First, I assume that you mean “materially heretical”, not “formally heretical”. Read here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm#REF_I
Second, the sources you rely upon aren’t trustworthy. The AHC has been under the guidance of Cardinal Raymond Burke, the prefect of the Roman Signatura – the Catholic Church’s highest canonical court. He recently just did interview with the AHC, in which he again affirmed his support for their work. Previous to that, the AHC was under the guidance of Bishop Mengeling and they received his approval as well.
See:
http://hebrewcatholic.org/AboutheAHC/EcclesiasticalSupport/supportofarchbis.html
http://hebrewcatholic.org/ahcinterviewofar.html
Conversely, the source you cited against the AHC (Sungenis) has no authority in the Church and is demonstrably unreliable in regard to Jewish issues. He was denounced by his bishop and directed to stop writing about all Jewish issues. He was also directed by his bishop to remove the name “Catholic” from his apostolate. His response was to falsely accuse of bishop of being a heretic.
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2009/09/bishop-rhoades-and-dual-covenant-theory.html
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/03/by-sungenis-alone_29.html
He has a long and unfortunate history of ugly and problematic statements against Jews, including Holocaust denial/revisionism. He has also behaved dishonestly and in otherwise unacceptable ways against Jews, including converts to the Catholic faith. Recently, when a newspaper reporter criticized Sungenis for promoting geocentrism (the belief that the sun and the whole universe revolve around a stationary earth) and for anti-Semitism, Sungenis responded by falsely accusing the reporter of being a Jew. Read the following article and the last comment written underneath it by the author:
http://www.pekintimes.com/opinions/columnists/x1916546987/Setting-the-record-crooked-on-Galileo
See below for more:
http://www.pugiofidei.com/fraud.htm
http://www.sungenisandthejews.com/Converts_and_Conclusion.html
http://wquercus.com/sungenis/
http://www.sungenisandthejews.com/Section2.html
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2009/03/robert-sungenis-vs-pope-benedict-xvi-on.html
The AHC has a long history of docile obedience to the Church. If there is a real problem and they are directed to correct it by the Church, there is every reason to believe that they will do so.
As we can see from many of these comments above there is still much confusion regarding Isreal and the church. I applaud our Holy Father for having the courage to take this on. Those of you who think that God is done with the Jews, just look at history and you will see unmistakably that God continues to preserve my people both inside and outside the one true church left to us by our Messiah. This is an age old heresy called supersessionism or replacement theology. This is not what the church teaches. Anyone who subscribes to this like Sungenis and the like are dead wrong and have been condemned by the church. We need to pray for him and anyone who persists in this heresy.
Likewise, it is equally wrong to think that God somehow has two covenants. There is only one. Salvation comes through Jesus the Messiah only. In the book of Romans, St. Paul writes that he is not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the poer of God unto salvation for those who believe, to the Jew first and also the Greek! Our Holy Father is trying to get us to be patient about the salvation of the Jews and at the same time be open and willing to share the Gospel with both Jew and Gentile. There have always been Jews in the Church in every age. Too many of the Jewish Christians end up in evangelical circles, this is a shame but understandable only as so far as we can see from these posts the confusion and sometimes hatred that isnfueled by bad theology that still exists!
I love Catholicism because it is post messianic Judaism. The Church is Jewish and we owe a debt of gratitude to our ancestors who shared the Good News with the world. It is now time share back with them, it is a matter of justice. It should be clear that God has used Rabbinic Judaism to preserve the Jewish people for a time when the full number of Gentiles has been fulfilled so then all Israel will be saved. Our Holy Father and JP II understood this too.
It is clear to me that the Church has lotsnof work to do catechize and clear up so much misunderstanding as we can see from so many of these disturbing comments.
Shalom in Yeshua and Miriam!
Gershon Ben Sha’ul
Are you trolling Pope St. Bart? Let me get this straight. The Catholic Church now went bad after Trent? Can you Protestants ever get your arguments straight? It didn’t accept “reform?” You mean like rejiggering the canon of Scripture, adding words to it, taking loose women for concubines and promoting bigamy, as St. Luther did? That’s right, we don’t need a Magisterium, the Scriptures are the sole authority and just interpret themselves. Look around, all the Protestants agree on their interpretation, right? Oh wait, they don’t. They can’t even agree on whether baptism is necessary for salvation. God went to all the trouble to reveal Himself and His will for us in the Scriptures, to become man and die for our sins, so that we could grope in the darkness and endlessly debate about what is required of us to be saved, right? I always thought it was the other way around as St. Thomas argues in the Summa Contra Gentiles, but forgive us, we’re “dumber than a sack of hammers.” We don’t need charity, and we don’t need no stinkin’ Magisterium. We can be our own popes. Christianity is really a “do-it-yourself,” cafeteria-style religion. Need a divorce? Ok. Wanna use contraception? Great! Like a female bishop? Knock yourself out. Yeah, that’s it, that’s the ticket. The Mystical Body of Christ may be going through its Passion, but I am sticking with the Ark of Salvation. I’m not going to leave it for some bizarre, sui-generis Christianity in conformity with my will instead of God’s, thank you. Better get on board, Bart, before it’s too late.
“This is an age old heresy called supersessionism”
Heresy? Can you provide any documentation on this? No, Gershon, YOU are the heretic. The Jews MADE VOID THE COVENANT, as it says in Jeremiah, by throwing their babies in the furnaces of Moloch. The covenant with Moses is dead. It was replaced by the NEW Covenant.
Any Jew who attempts to follow the Old Covenant will go to hell. That is de fide. Study your faith more. Without FAITH in Jesus Christ, you can not be saved. Outside His Church, there is no salvation.
The March 24 article “How to Read an Article in Acquinas’s Summa Theologiae” may help us readers understand or grasp the method in use in the books by Prof. Ratzinger. He writes the books under his baptismal name to encourage discussion and allow disagreement. The publisher, to maximize sales of the book, adds his Papal name to explain to casual visitors to bookstores “who G. Ratzinger is”.
Some trolls have an interest in trying to stop others from reading the books written by this author, BECAUSE thoughtful review of a book of his MIGHT bring the reader closer to Christ. So the troll ignores the Acquinas method of discussion and quotes much material (both from the Ratzinger books and otherwise) out of context. The Church has long understood that the babies massacred in Bethlehem on the order of Herod the Great were canonized (“Holy Innocents”) by Baptism of Blood, w/o requiring them to have formally acknowledged the new-born Jesus as canonical Saviour, and initiator of the New Covenant.
It is not up to us to put limits on God’s mercy. Even the Good Thief (St. Dismas) “stole heaven”.
Peace be with all of you.
TeaPot562
St Bart,
You might be the perfect person to tell me this. Dave Hunt said James White is going to hell. James White says Dave Hunt is going to hell. Who is right?
And, what comes first, regeneration or faith? Just trying to find out which snake handling sect you adhere to.
Pope Benedict XVI is acknowledged to be one of the most brilliant theologians, if not THE most brilliant, of these times by most of the religions of our time. Few are his equal as a theologian and as a Pope. So bloggers, get a grip on all your attempts to outdo him. It’s like flies buzzing around an elephant - useless. What’s more those who really understand the Scriptures will not be moved by your machinations.
Dear ben Sha’ul Much of what you write is heresy. You begin in error by trying to distinguish between Israel and the Church. The Catholic Church is the new Israel, for starters. And supersessionism is not a heresy. Those are the very words Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger used to describe theological reality. Go ahead, google it.
The Catholic Church is not Jewish. That is another heresy. A Jew is one who rejects Christ.
The Catholic Church is not cut-off from God. Jesus established it, He sent the Holy Ghost upon it to teach it all truth and He promised to be with it until the end of time
Trent was reform.
“Thus the Sinai Covenant is indeed superceeded.
Joseph Cardinal rRatzinger
One more thing - Pope Benedict XVI, aka Joseph Ratzinger, is a most humble man and tends to be criticized by those who fail to recognize his “courage in willing to be imperfect” in presenting what he has discerned through prayer and many years of Scripture study, study of the writings of the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints of the Church,
as well as his own adherence to the Magisterium of the Church which he headed for 20+ yrs. He clearly says that this book is his personal thoughts - yet anyone thinking person would realize that the aforementioned years of discernment have not only formed but informed his thinking. Bur like Christ, he will be attacked, questioned, and vilified by those who do not have his grasp of such things.
“According to the Bible all Holy Spirit born-again believers are called saints.”
HAhahahaha No… the Bible states this nowhere. Quote it for me.
“All those are ONLY water baptized and partake of the Eucharist are NOT saints.”
Then why did Christ say that unless one who is born again is of water and the spirit? Hmmmm?
Why does Christ say that unless we eat His body and drink His blood we shall have no part of heaven? Hmmmm?
“Thus trying to do good works, trying to be a good Catholic are futile efforts to please God. All these futile efforts will only send you to HELL!”
Trying to do works of their own accord won’t do any good. You’re right on that. One doesn’t buy their way into heaven. One merits heaven. One merits heaven based on faith and God’s grace. Faith is justified by works. Faith without works is empty dead. Works require one to be obedient to God and all He commands and all that He Himself did while on this Earth. When He was hungry, did you feed Him? When He was naked did you clothe Him? I guess you mr.bart are the sort who’d leave the injured man by the side of the road and let the Samaritans you look down on take care of it for you so that you don’t filthy yourself with good works.
You have a confused definition of saints. Only those who are in Heaven can be correctly attributed the title of saint. Which isn’t to say you can’t find ‘saintly’ or ‘saint-like’ people on Earth, but they are still sinners.
You don’t understand this basic stuff that’s clearly spelt out in the Bible, and yet here you are calling out Catholics on their ignorance of it (Well uninformed Catholics anyway, I’ll give you that).
As for the rest of your conspiracy nonsense, it’s the same old Protestant fantasies. Rather than get into it all, I think it’s quite siple, I can clearly see Protestantism for the divided house on sand that it is and all the errors that have spread throughout the world in its wake and from it’s heretical philosophies. You’re the sort that clearly deny Christ and thus are in affect the anti-Christ, when you deny the Eucharist. You can find yourselves aptly described as the deserters from Christ in John 6:66. You’re the ones who protested against Moses’ authority in the wilderness, and for your rebellion you were swallowed up by the ground and consumed by fire. When you’re busy reading the Bible do you ever notice these patterns of rebellion against God and His anointed ones and His appointed leaders? Even when one of them is a Saul, David would have words to say to you for attempting to dethrone God’s anointed. Protestants are presisely a reflection of the schism of the Northern Tribes against Judah, and these were divided against themselves, scattered, were in constant war and exiled.
Someone here doesn’t know their Bible and it sure as heck ain’t the Catholics. Maybe if you bart didn’t throw out or ignore so many critical books from the Bible you’d actually see that it is you who is standing outside the Ark. The doors will shut soon and it’s been drizzling for awhile. Your non-biblical heretical beliefs will not save you. The biggest joke is how many Protestant inventions and doctrines there are that have absolutely no basis in the Bible, and are simply their own man-made traditions they are convinced that only the Catholics subscribe to. Yet they are convinced that they are strictly people of the Book. Such clear contradictions in what Protestants say and then do speaks volumes, but then again they don’t believe actions and works are necessary so they tihnk they are free to behave contrary to what they preach. No surprise then…
Did Aquinas advise a Pope to write as a private theologian? No.
This is the first time in history that a Pope has done such a thing and most Catholics are not only unalarmed, they celebrate it.
The confusion is multiform. The Pope is a poor communicator or the translations are so bad that men like Mr. Akin are a pains to explain what he REALLY meant and one does not know when he is speaking as Pope or when he is speaking as a private theologian and the idea that Book Stores do not know the name of the Pope is a silly defense.
Even a Pro like Mr. Akin confesses he is not sure what the Pope meant while noting what he did write led to confusion. Who needs a Pope who publicly speculates and even says disagree with me if you want but when it comes time fro him to teach definitively does he really think peolple will suddenly cease to disagree with him after cultivating disagreement.
Is this any way to run a Church, by sowing confusion and cultivating disagreement? No. It is a way to teach a Grad Course in Theology.
But, I have said my piece; more than once.
Good Lord. Who needs this sort of speculation that requires men like Mr Akin to quell the uproar resulting from his books.
Whoa, hold on there Felicity!
I can see a pot calling the kettle black!
According to you Felicity any organization that has some members who do bad things cannot be trusted. Do you trust your government? You do know that there are many politicians who have fun with prostitutes and even child sex slaves abroad right? Maybe even in your workplace? Especially in your public schools! Oh and let’s not forget amongst Protestants and other religions and even athiests too!
Hey, let’s take your logic further. If Christ started Christianity, and Christians do all sorts of bad things, then Christ must have been lying too right? In fact if God made people and people sin and are bad and God isn’t going out of his way to stop them despite being God and being all powerful, then God cannot be trusted either. Oh who shall we turn to???!!!!
Can we trust you Felicity? How do I know you’re not one of those bad people? Maybe you’re lying and can’t be trusted when you say that the Church can’t be trusted for bad things that happen within it… Unless you are perfect and impeccable. Are you Felicity?
I can see where you’re coming from Vermont Crank… But who’s to say this wasn’t also the case long before Benedict. Of course today we have the Internet and lots of avenues of communications that were unheard of and unprecedented in the past. Popes and theologians would talk about all sorts of things. They’d write, speculate etc. as was within their means. A book is useful to get your ideas out there. Of course in today’s age it’s more widely spread than ever before.
I think all this just goes to show that the public and especially many Catholics are so uneducated about the Catholic faith and Papal infalliability, and that this confusion would exist whether the Pope wrote books or not or spoke or kept his mouth shut.
I think that ultimately it may be a beneficial thing to get people talking about it and more interested. Of course there are people who’ll take anything you say the wrong way, mainly unintentionally, but that’s just how it is. The Apostles also had a tough time getting people to understand clearly what they were saying and had to exchange letters back and forth to correct certain things etc. Heck we have this thing called the Bible which is the inspired Word of God and even that is confusing to so many people without proper instruction. But it’s better to have the Bible rather than not and keep it restricted to only the intellectuals. Of course this risks those Protestors and self proclaimed authorities of what this or that really said or meant. But that’s just the way it goes… It’s precisely why God set up an institution called the Catholic Church to deal with it and not just a collection of books.
Vermont Crank,
Could you slow down a little? Are you a bishop or something? I doubt it because even a bishop wouldn’t make the number and kind of pronouncements you’ve been making here. You should also probably reconsider where you get your information and theology vis a vis Jews. You say to Google the Pope and supersessionism. You would do better to Google “Sungenis” and “Jews” and see what you find. Then, when you’re done with that, you can show us where the Church or the Pope have ever used the precise word “supersessionism.” I can save you some time. You won’t find it.
You might want to read these articles. Jimmy Akin is approaching this in the right way.
https://sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/critique-of-all-in-the-family#_Toc255151555
http://www.cuf.org/laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrest.asp
Read this one as well as the comments under it.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/on-the-relationship-between-the-jewish-people-and-god/
It true! Many who identify themselves as Catholics, even Catholic clergy, even a Pope are first class sinners. What kind or religion has for its chief shepherd one who denies even knowing Christ? All of its original leaders abandoned Christ even after receiving Him in the Eucharistic gift. How could anyone believe that this group was of God? Didn’t Jesus Himself say that, “by their fruits you shall know them”? Certainly then, look at the negative, sinful actions of those who call themselves Christians, especialy Catholics, and realize that they cannot be of God.
But if you want to live in the comfort of that attitude, DO NOT LOOK AT: the poor who are tended to, the hungry being fed, the homeless being housed, the world’s largest medical assistance provider (for centuries!), and the one organization that has from its inception brought the good news of the possibility of salvation to countless millions.
Find, instead a Church that includes no sinners, and join it. Oops, it too, is now imperfect, for it has at least one sinner - YOU!
Let’s look at what the Church teaches (one of many):
“Now the holy Catholic Church proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her ***shall never be saved***. But conversely heretics, who are confident that it is possible for them to be saved even without her pale, maintain that the Divine aid is rendered to them in every place.”
Pope St. Gregory the Great, Doctor of the Church, Magna Moralia, VII, Book XIV
bart, which one comes first, regeneration or faith?
His Deliriousness, Pope St. Bart, the Great, is a brilliant logician. He utilizes ad hominem after ad hominem to justify his position and then resorts to arguments from authority, namely his, in interpreting Scripture. I guess in his church, they don’t have to study logic in the pre-theologate. Where’d you get your authority, Bart, in a delirious hallucination where you imagined Jesus to have given you the keys?
Pope Felicity:
A fellow Protestant, Phillip Jenkins, doesn’t agree with your assessment of the sexual abuse crisis:
“My research of cases over the past twenty years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination — or indeed, than non-clergy. However determined the news media may be to see this whole affair as a crisis of celibacy, the charge is just unsupported. Literally every denomination and faith tradition has its share of abuse cases, and some of the worst involve non-Catholics.”
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0534.html
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the White/Hunt controversy, it showcases the huge rift within Protestantism, also known as Babel, over FUNDAMENTAL doctrine. Now if Bart says that faith comes first, then James White will accuse him of preaching a false gospel, and therefore he is a reprobate heading for hell.
If he says regeneration comes first, then Dave Hunt will say he lacks discernment and never had saving faith, so he is going to hell.
When these snake handlers can get their story straight, then they can come and debate the big dogs. Until then, they are just comic relief.
st. bart, you don’t know the difference between a discipline and a dogma. Go back to school.
Of course, st. bart, when Christ COMMISSIONED the gosp3el to be preached to all the gentiles (goyim, nations, gentes)HYe was speaking only to Paul. Oh, Paul wasn’t there, was he? Guess you blew that one, bart.
No, bart, if it were a dogma, a teaching that must be believed, it would apply to the whole Church. The discipline of celibacy applies only to the Latin rite, not to the whole Church. A discipline is a rule of behavior; a doctrine is a fundamental of belief. Back to school, bart.
Hey, bart, while you’re back in school, learn what calumny and slander are. If you have any evidence that Cardinal Newman ever had a sexual relationship with another male, please present it for us and let ue see what you have to offer. But if it’s no more than you’re assumption based upon your own inability to live chastely outside of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God as both Christ and St Paul suggested, then you might want to examine your own conscience vis a vis your statements about Newman. If you have no evidence, I expec t a public apology for a public calumny.
Vermont Crank writes, “The Catholic Church is not Jewish. That is another heresy. A Jew is one who rejects Christ.”
This sounds like E. Michael Jones. Right? As you mentioned Culture Wars, that seems like the likely source of your peculiar doctrinal views. Jones is the man who took Sungenis under his wing and who gives nice interviews with white supremacists and anti-Semites like Peter Schaenk and “Brother” Kapner to promote his book about Jews as a societal problem. :-/
http://reasonradionetwork.com/_archive/PS_20080922.mp3
http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=476
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t524085/
This utterly paranoid fund-raising letter he wrote that uses Jews to scare up donations is interesting too:
http://pascendi2.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=4408437
Look, a Jew is not “one who rejects Christ.” Jones made that up for his book. The word “Jew” comes from “Judah”, one of the tribes of Israel. A Jew is not just a practitioner of Judaism. It also refers to those descended from that tribe. Remember, Jesus Christ is a Jew and will remain a Jew in perpetuity at the right Hand of the Father. His mother, our mother is a Jew and will remain a Jew in perpetuity. The Church is built on 12 Jews known as the Apostles who will sit in Judgment with the Jewish Messiah at the end of the world. There are hundreds of thousands of Jews who believe in Jesus Christ today. So you and Jones are wrong to say that a Jew today is “one who rejects Christ.” And it is as insulting and wrong-headed to say that today’s Jews identify themselves in terms of their rejection of Christ as it is to say that today’s Protestants identify themselves in terms of their rejection of the Papacy. The Church doesn’t speak this way about Jews…or Protestants.
And you might want to meditate on Romans 11. In St. Paul’s imagery, the Olive Tree is Israel. We, the Gentiles, were grafted onto Israel. St. Paul says that the Jews - who he identifies as “Israel” - even those who were “cut off” for unbelief, are the “natural branches.” And they can be grafted back on to “their own olive tree” more easily than we can be grated onto their tree (v. 24). We, the gentiles, are by nature of the “wild olive” and are grafted on to THEIR tree (v. 24). Not vice versa. We gentiles shouldn’t boast against the branches. (v. 18)
If you are a practicing Catholic, you eat the flesh and blood of the Jewish God-man at every Mass and venerate his Jewish mother as Queen of Heaven. So, how much more Jewish can the Church be?
I guess with hit a nerve with His Impeccableness, Pope St. Bart, the All-Knowing. If you can’t win an argument, then bowl them over with BS. We ignorant, uneducated Catholics have never claimed to be impeccable, Bart. Same goes for the popes and clergy. But I guess you are, that’s why you run around calling people “dumbasses” and the like, because you are filled with the Holy Spirit. Exercising the office of the priesthood is not a matter of impeccableness as other posters have mentioned. As for the Eucharist, Jesus is pretty clear that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood if we are to have eternal life. I know, I know, Bart, you don’t agree with that interpretation. That’s not in accord with your sui-generis religion. Since you have not provided any justification for your authority to interpret Scripture, I could care less about what you have to say on the matter. It’s evident for anyone who has eyes that Protestantism is a fractured, chaotic mess, which is not the work of the Holy Spirit. Like I said, the founder of the revolt was a concubine-loving, bigamist; hardly impeccable.
Sorry, Bart, I see I mis-read an earlier post. You didn’t call Catholics “dumbasses.” I don’t have much time to read and respond to a lot of material given my circumstance and mis-read your comment. I usually avoid getting into these kinds of things anyway.
Back to school, bart. Constantine received Arian baptism on his deathbed. He was never a Catholic. The church was called “catholic” at least as early ar Ignatius who died ca 107, thrown to the lions.Where is the proof of your scurrilous accusation against Newman, bart? How about the apology for the calumny? What kind of Christian sins against both justice and truth? Perhaps you might learn something about decency while you’re at it, to say nothing about the virtue of charity. May God have mercy on you.
Pope Bart, if you are claiming to be impeccable, then you truly are nuts and filled with Luciferian pride. I don’t grant your interpretation of history either. Neither will I attempt to defend Catholicism on such a broad range of topics in a comments box. I don’t have time, and your tack is obviously to attack and throw as much BS as possible.
That said, I don’t think it is very controversial to claim historically that the Catholic Church can trace its lineage back to St. Peter, whether by looking at the Bible as a purely a historical document or by secular history. The Church pre-dates the Bible and established it’s canon. Obviously, you disagree based on earlier comments.
As for Sola Scriptura, the heresies over the divinity and nature of Christ, as well as the Trinity, came about precisely because people were arguing over Scriptural interpretation. Again, Protestant individualism is a chaotic mess, in which no one agrees. If you change your whim, you go to another church that is in harmony with you will or just don’t go. I know lots of Protestants like that. Friends I know don’t agree over baptism, for example: some say you have to be baptized to be saved, others say you don’t. You don’t have to defend Luther because you don’t have to defend anything, but he is the original founder of your movement and hardly impeccable. This argument is devolving into the same arguments I’ve had before. I have a family, so I will agree to disagree with you. Best wishes.
Bart never answered the question. Lame.
Dear Johnno. Of course previous Popes speculated, privately not publicly.
Dear Grant. You are wrong about supercessionism. It was written about by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and I quoted him at 4:24
Dear Grant. Yes, E. Michael Jones, who fully accepts Vatican Two, explicates the meaning of the word ‘jew” and he does so with reference to the Bible and Patristics and the Early Church Fathers.
A few years ago the Episcopalians, suddenly , recogniesd that the Gospel of John was anti-Jew..DUH :)
Of course it is anti-Jew, as was Jesus who repudiated the Jewish Scribes when they claim to be faithful because they are the children of Abraham but Jesus tells them they are the children of Satan because they refuse to accept Him as the Messiah.
The sad reality is the last one-half century of Catholic-Jewish relations has consisted of Catholics apologising daily while the Jews have increased the frequency and intensity of their attacks on the Catholic Church.
Folks are tired of it and they have gone back to reading the Early Church Fathers and the great Commentaries - such as Cornelius A Lapide- to reconnect with the traditional beliefs of the Church as expressed in orthopraxis and the Liturgy.
I know that most Catholics think it a great thing that the Liturgy of Good Friday and the Liturgies of Holy Week were so disfigured so as to try and curry favor with our enemy - The Jew.
And course you can only read those words and conclude they are antisemitic because that is the way you were raised. Please re-read the Gospel of John - yeah, he really wrote it, not some anonymous presbyter - and try to focus on the use of the word Jew and how that changes as events progress.
There IS a reason why Jews hate the Gospel of John
Ok, Bart, you’re so brilliant, please list your bibliography, which articles you’ve written in which academic journals, as well as books. Surely, someone as brilliant as you are would enlighten the world with your knowledge, logic and understanding of history. A comments box isn’t really the place for a scholar like you; you could reach a much bigger audience by publishing. Maybe you’ve already done this before with other people. I’m not a regular debater in comments boxes. Thanks.
Now, bart, you have slandered Newman indicating, once again, that you cannot accept the possibility of sexual morality for the celibate, the morality that both Jesus and Paul suggest. Among Newman’s many enemies from among your Protestant brothers, not a single one alleged sexual impropriety against him, but you, being unwilling (by virtue of your own difficulties?)to recognize that those dedicated to Christ are empowered by His grace to live chaste lives, are like today’s strident homosexuals who would see John the evangelist’s relationship with Jesus as a homosexual one. Filth sees filth wherever it looks. Your ‘evidence’ doesn’t even meet the criterion of hearsay evidence, never mind proof. It is, very simply, calumny, and you, like the rest of us, will have to answer for your words.
Your ridiculous assertion about Ignatius using a lower case for ‘katolikos’ only shows your bias. You haven’t seen the original document, so you could not know what case it was written in; possibly all the letters were upper case. We simply do not know, but the way in which he uses the adjective suggests that it was commonly appended to “church’ even in his time.
You prove yourself to be a self-serving, dishonest spokesman for an untenable position, scriptural as well as logical, and the Catholic apologists of Jimmy Aikens’ sort whom you so disdain, argue from love for truth rather than from the bitterness of lost faith.
You can recognize the anti-Catholic bigots because they usually use factitious names like hangnail. Well let’s at least hope that name is factitious!
Only a bigot would impute to all members of a set what applies only to some. You have just told us what you are.
bart, you are correct in saying that it would be idolatry to worship as God what is merely a piece of bread; fortunately I have the assurance of Christ that it is His flesh, which all men are required to eat if they wish to have His life in them.
Nowhere in the scripture does it say that a priest or Levite must be macho. You lie. You have no evidence except for your own imaginings that Newman ever had any homosexual tendency, to say nothing of performing any homosexual act. Even his worst detractors, and there were many, never stooped so low as you with your irrational calumny. Go examine your conscience and see what your hatred has done to you.
Bravo self-proclaimed non-st.bart, use a dissident group to somehow claim the Church is wrong on the Scriptures eh? Oh wow! What a compelling argument! Maybe next you’ll be saying protestants think Catholics are wrong therefore Catholics are wrong. Then proceed to throw out more insults.
And none of the points you bring up go against what I’ve mentioned about saints. Saints are those who’ve merited heaven, which includes those in the graves prior to Christ’s crucifixion who waited in purgatory and Abraham’s bosom. So they usually refer to people who are already dead. You do realize that the accounts in the Bible are written following the events they record correct? By such a time of the writing, many of those they record in there can already be declared saints by the writer. You slipped up on this important point and make no case that ‘holy ones’ is necessarily described to the same level as the proper definition of a ‘saint’ being those who have merited heaven once and for all. And those that do do so in fear and deligence in faith justified by works as the Apostles spoke of. Not just some happy born-again proclamation which has NO BASIS in Scripture and is an invented man-made Protestant tradition!!! As if men can justify themselves by their own words… What arrogance in the face of God!
From then onwards your posts get crazier and crazier, angrier and angrier and more contradictory. You yourself expose what the errors of Protestantism can lead to. A living example of confusion, indecency, and above all arrogant PRIDE!!! The first original SIN!!! You openly deny what Christ Himself says and spit and mock Him. Did you not read your Bible? When Saul was persecuting the Church, Christ asked him “Why do you persecute ME?” Now you continue to carry on doing so. Claiming that Christ set up a divided house of different churches that have all been lost. If a Protestant model was truly what Christ wanted then the gnostic heretics and all sects the Apostles fought agianst and took pains to correct are all also proper Christian organizations. The very idea that Protestant churches existed as a universal church is entirely absurd. If men could inerpret Scripture however they wanted then there would be no need for The Apostles to fight against all kinds of contradictory beliefs that cropped up which is what Protestantism today is! The Jews clearly had a magisterium. Didn’t you listen to Christ who taught them to clearly obey the Jewish authority derived from the chair or Moses? Likewise for the Catholics who get their authority form the chair of Peter? Likewise when the Israelites took their authority from Abraham, from Isaac, from Jacob, from Joshua, from the Judges, from Samuel, from King David and Solomon after him who interceded for them??? You are only fooling yourself with revisionist history and a clearly illogical Protestant viewpoint. The Protestant model is completely at odds with the Biblical model. It is only representative of those rebels whom God destroyed. There was only one priesthood that rightly belonged to the Levites. And there is only one true priesthood that rightly belongs to the Christ’s one apostolic Catholic Church. Those who set themselves up against it worship not god, but idols, an idolatory known as self-worship! Where each Protestant is his own interpreter of God’s law thus setting himself up his own judge over all. How vain!!!
You like Judas Iscariot leave Christ’s side by being unable to understand what He was calling everyone to do. The Passover lamb was eaten. The bread of the offering was eaten, Christ was born in Bethlehem, the House of Bread, and placed in a manger, a feeding through from which animals ate from. He is a priest forever like Melchizedek, the King of Salem, who offered bread and wine. He is the bread from heaven, the ‘Manna’ which God FED the Israelites in the desert to sustain them. Manna meaning ‘What is it?’ It is a mystery, not meant to be completely comprehended but accepted by faith and consumed in OBEDIENCE to God’s instructions since he brought His people out of Egypt. Before Christ commanded them to Eat His body He had performed a miracle in front of their very eyes of multiplying loaves of bread and giving them all to everyone to eat! When Jeremiah received the scroll in a vision, the WORD of God! He received it on his knees and he ATE IT!!!! Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. God is telling us something in His Word!!! Something that you fail to see and in your human pride reject mr.bart!!! It is you who are fallen away and in error. You see yet you do not comprehend because your pride and your arrogance blinds you. Instead of coming to the tree of life and EATING its fruit that grants immortality, you seek the false wisdom and false promises from the serpent himself who whispers to you that you know better than God’s Word. That you can interpret things for yourself. Seeing the forbidden fruit you yourself ‘see’ / ‘decide’ that it is ‘good’ and thus you depart and fall away.
Until YOU change, there is no getting through to you, so I won’t waste my time and instead pray for your soul as you continue to sow division, confusion and the seeds of the devil in all around you in your persistence in the plainly laughable idea where allowing every man to protest and interpret God and Scripture for himself somehow leads to ‘communion.’ Protestantism is a house divided. It is ‘legion’, a demon of many heads and many voices acting in confusion and destroying itself.
Stop worshipping idols bart, stop worshipping yourself and the sound of your own voice and the darkened ‘knowledge’ you falsely believe you obtained from the serpent who wishes you to eat from the forbidden tree rather than the tree of life! Eat the fruit of the Tree of Life bart, the one that grants immortality, the wood of the tree on which Jesus hung, whose body is the fruit of life that you refuse to partake of!
I have never seen so much intellectual power used in such a mean-spirited fashion. All that energy, which could have been used in respectful debate by all these people claiming to be experts in their religions used to viciously attack each other.
I’m glad I’m not as smart as you people. I have my own religion and because I wouldn’t want anyone to try and convert me, or speak ill of my spiritual beliefs, I wouldn’t do it to someone else.
When my older brother was in the fourth grade, he came home from school very upset because the nun said only Catholics will go to Heaven and others will go to Hell. He was nearly in tears, asking “What’s going to happen to Mr. Goldman (our neighbor)?” Our mother, (a proud Catholic) said, “Don’t you worry—God will take good care of Mr. Goldman in his own way. What you must remember about going to Heaven is not how shocked you are at seeing someone that you never expected to see there, but how shocked you will be by seeing their surprise on seeing you there.” Call us stupid if you wish. We on the streets believe not only with our minds but our hearts. We may not agree with our neighbors on all questions of religion, but we practice ours and they practice theirs, we are respectful about what we say about their religions in front of our children, and the hate I have read here from all you intellectuals make me really proud to be a “jackhammer”. Enjoy being smarter than I am. You’re welcome to it.
bart, you are a fraud. Your citation of Newman is from a website called the !@#$% of Babylon which quotes very selectively and only partially to place his writings in the worst possible light. If you want the whole of Newman’s writng on these (and, like the site you copied from, you have the wrong title), go to newmanreader.org. The elipses are usually a dead giveaway for a misconstruing of any passage, and it is true in this case as well. You might recall that Zachary was offering incense when Gabriel appeared to him, that the temple lamps were lighted with oil, that Mary and Joseph made a votive offering of two doves,that sacerdotal vestments were prescribed in the Torah,etc. Pagan origin? I think not.
The bread and wine that Jesus transformed into His Body and Blood at the Last Supper was subject to the same human situation then as it is now, or do you think that He was lying when He said: “Take this and eat. THIS IS MY BODY.” and likewise with the cup of wine. Or have you gone the way of the J. Witnesses saying that He meant this means His body rather than this is His body? And what would that even mean. How would a piece of bread mean anything other than what it is? His Eucharistic presence may cease, but that does not mean that He ceases to be present, abiding in us with the Father and Spirit even as He promised in Jn. 6
Sorry, bart, but you just don’t want to see that you abandoned the Truth for a convenient lie that simply makes you feel good about yourself. The Pharisees felt pretty good about themselves, too, declaring, like certain purported Christians, that they were already saved. But don’t even get me started on that presumptuous error.
How lame is Bart? Can’t answer a simple question. What comes first Bart, Faith or regeneration?
Bravo, Johnno, Dan and James2, but you’re wasting your time on Pope St. Bart. He is an angry, little troll in desperate need of attention, as his lunatic ravings on stomach acid demonstrate. We’re still waiting on the bibliography, Bart. Which journal did you write about the Eucharist and stomach acid in? You’re genius shouldn’t be wasted debating hammers in comment boxes. I doubt much will be forthcoming, though. We’ll get more stink bombs and explicatives. He’s much more intelligent than us Catholic “dumbasses.”
Then James White concludes you are not saved because you believe a false gospel. And it is funny you hold him saved, while Catholics are not, even though Catholic soteriology is closer to your own belief.
Completely inconsistent and emotional as all Protestant heretics are.
Don’t Catholics have faith, indeed Faith more correct than James White on the most critical doctrine?
And you left out, being born again requires WATER BAPTISM, as the Bible says.
Naturally you refuse to look at the practice of the early Church because it gives the lie to your argument. Ignatius of Antioch, whom you quoted earlier when you thought it suited you, might be a good place to start since he got his instruction through John. You might even look to see what Justin Martyr (d. 165)had to say about the Eucharist and the form of Christian worship. He describes the Mass, not a gaggle of hymn singing holy rollers or a preacher who is the center of the service. At Mass it is Christr who is central, for there is only one priest and He is Jesus. Every priest is a priest only because he shares in the one priesthood (which is why there can be no woman priest) and acts in the very person of Christ. The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was not some accretion by Trent; It was the belief of all Christians until Zwingli (both Luther and Calvin accepted it, but that was because they realized it was central to the very nature of the Christian religion. The Orthodox, the Copts, The Jacobites and the Arminians, all ancient Christian ecclesialities, all accept it because it was fundamental to the gospel message.
I will have no more to say to you because I believe you to be intellectually dishonest. I urge you to read the earliest Christian writers to find what they believed. Go to the sources themselves, not something like that link that purported to relate what Newman said. Be humble enough to learn from them. Your eternal salvation may depend upon it. I will continue to pray for you.
Finally, some sanity from the RCC. It took two Popes scarred by the blood soaked killing fields of the Central Europe to reach a correct conclusion. Leave the Jews alone! We don’t want to be converted, we’re not interested in your theology and all we want is to keep the everlasting convenant that will not be forgotten. Too much of our blood had been spilled in the name of Christianity for us to have any space for dialogue. So, please listen to the Pope for he’s taking giant steps in the right direction.
Thomas,
Don’t hold your breath waiting for st.bart’s bibliography or curriculum vitae(LOL!!!). I doubt he has much of one, but more importantly he wants to remain anonymous so he can call people “dumbasses”. st.bart, a bastion of moral character!
Here are some wise words from Pope Leo the Great(400-461)on Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. They remind us of why we are Catholics:
“He took the nature of a servant without stain of sin, enlarging our humanity without diminishing his divinity. He emptied himself; though invisible he made himself visible, though Creator and Lord of all things he chose to be one of us mortal men. Yet this was the condescension of compassion, not the loss of omnipotence. So he who in the nature of God had created man, became in the nature of a servant, man himself.
Thus the Son of God enters this lowly world. He comes down from the throne of heaven, yet does not separate himself from the Father’s glory. He is born in a new condition, by a new birth.
He was born in a new condition, for, invisible in his own nature, he became visible in ours. Beyond our grasp, he chose to come within our grasp. Existing before time began, he began to exist at a moment in time. Lord of the universe, he hid his infinite glory and took the nature of a servant. Incapable of suffering as God, he did not refuse to be a man, capable of suffering. Immortal, he chose to be subject to the laws of death.
He who is true God is also true man. There is no falsehood in this unity as long as the lowliness of man and the pre-eminence of God coexist in mutual relationship.
As God does not change by his condescension, so man is not swallowed up by being exalted. Each nature exercises its own activity, in communion with the other. The Word does what is proper to the Word, the flesh fulfills what is proper to the flesh.
One nature is resplendent with miracles, the other falls victim to injuries. As the Word does not lose equality with the Father’s glory, so the flesh does not leave behind the nature of our race.
One and the same person – this must be said over and over again – is truly the Son of God and truly the son of man. He is God in virtue of the
fact that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He is man in virtue of the fact that the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”
-Ex Epístolis sancti Leónis Magni Papæ (Epist. 28, ad Flavianum, 3-4: PL 54, 763-767).
I said I was through with you because you are intellectually dishonest. You write again to re-inforce that conviction. Justin, in fact proclaims the divinity of Christ. You re-work an old Jehovah’s Witness argument, rebutted (along with one against Irenaeus) at this Protestant site:
http://www.bumby.org/faq/is_jesus_deity_antenicene.html
The Celtic Church was never “proto-Protestant”, (but it did differ in some disciplines [ike the form of tonsure]although never in doctrine)from the Roman Church. As for those other “proto-Protestants” you would hardly espouse their curious heresies. Stop regurgitating the swill that your handlers have been feeding you and do your own research from the original sources, not from what someone has said about them. New Advent and ecatholicbooks.com might be some goo places to begin. I will now unclick the notify me button. I wish you well, and you have thye promise of my prayers. Remember, your eternal salvation is at stake.
So why, exactly, have the proCatholic censors deleted my posts?
I am always amazed at how much of a conundrum the issue of Israel and the Jews seemed to be for much of the “Christian” world. The Jewish Messiah foretold by Jewish prophets and revealed in Jewish scriptures is today debated as to whether he should be shared with Jewish people. What is wrong with this picture? I have to say just about everything. This is however the sort of nonsensical debate that is birthed out of nearly two thousand years of replacement theology and boasting against the natural root as Paul put it.
@ St. Bart: It is either a staggering omission or ignorance of the facts that while you contend that all Jews were cut off, the apostles themselves were all Jews. The thousands that came to faith in Messiah in the book of Acts were overwhelmingly Jews who then carried the good news back to the Jewish communities they represented in the diaspora. The fact is that for the first 100 years after Yeshua’s resurrection, faith in Him was primarily a Jewish movement and was viewed as a branch of Judaism; a full and complete Judaism. You take time to point out the end for the Levitical priesthood in conjunction with ending the Mosaic Covenant and yet ignore the fact that the very New Covenant that we as believers have been graciously afforded was established by God with the Houses of Israel and Judah (Jer 31 & Heb 8)not with Rome or any other entity. Strange how that point is so often missing in action when someone wants to talk about the “old Jewish” covenant being done away with. Newsflash: It was replaced by a new and better Jewish covenant. Salvation is of the Jews.
It’s an incredible turnabout that in the time of the apostles the question was how do the gentiles fit into the gospel. What do we do with these uncultivated branches? Must they be circumcised and becomes Jews as well? Well, we know that the answer was no but it is clear that the apostles understood their faith in Messiah as organically Jewish; the culmination of the faith of the fathers and the redemption of Israel. Gentiles were a happy after thought. Now after nearly 2000 years of persecution, hatred and arrogant super-cession, all too many are now wondering the exact opposite. What about the Jews? Where do they fit in the gospel? Here is something you might want to consider in your deliberations. It’s THEIR gospel. Yeshua is King of the Jews.
There has always been a remnant of believing (Messianic) Jews in the earth since the beginnings of the “church” and their numbers are growing rapidly all over the world today. Yeshua is the Lion of the tribe of Judah! When He returns, it will be Jerusalem that He returns to and it is there that He will re-establish the throne of David.
It appears that I must use the link at the bottom of the e-mail from NCR to end my receiving e-mails on this matter rather than simply to click the box below, and so I am again compelled to respond to the tragic case of st. bart, and so for those who might be influenced by his erroneous writings, I post the following:
“Premillennialism” was never condemned as heretical by the Council of Ephesus or any other. For a full treatment of the subject, go here:
http://bible.org/article/phantom-heresy-did-council-ephesus-431-condemn-chiliasm
The problem with Justin martyr’s words in translation is the word juxta, translated usually as ‘next to’ or ‘along side of’ as in “sits at the right hand of God.” It is not intended to separate, but to join.
Once before I suggested to this poor soul that he go to the original sources rather than dish out the swill handed to him by his comforters. He will not, but for you who read this, please read Justin’s dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, to see how firmly he believes in Christ’s divinity.
An excerpt:When I had spoken these words, I continued: “Permit me, further, to show you from the book of Exodus how this same One, who is both Angel, and God, and Lord, and man, and who appeared in human form to Abraham and Isaac, 214 appeared in a flame of fire from the bush, and conversed with Moses.” And after they said they would listen cheerfully, patiently, and eagerly, I went on: “These words are in the book which bears the title of Exodus: “And after many days the king of Egypt died, and the children of Israel groaned by reason of the works; ’ 215 and so on until, “Go and gather the elders of Israel, and thou shalt say unto them, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared to me, saying, I am surely beholding you, and the things which have befallen you in Egypt.’” 216 In addition to these words, I went on: “Have you perceived, sirs, that this very God whom Moses speaks of as an Angel that talked to him in the flame of fire, declares to Moses that He is the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob? “
Vermont Crank,
Sure, some people think the Gospels are anti-Semitic. It’s silly and they’re wrong. But, as others have pointed out, the problems with Sungenis and Jones go far beyond that.
However, ironically, if we accept the way that Jones and Sungenis frame history and Scripture vis a vis Jews, then these critics would be correct, the Gospels would become anti-Semitic. Why? Because Jones and Sungenis propose that the negative wordings used by Christ, the Apostles and a few of the Fathers of the Church about some of the Jews of their day must somehow be universalized to Jews of all times and places – simply because they are Jews (unless they repent and become Catholic). That kind of blanket charge, regardless of the intellectualized reason for employing it, is bigoted.
So, why don’t Jones and Sungenis strain so hard to hold all modern Protestants morally culpable for rejecting Christ and his Church (e.g. Luke 10:16)? Why just Jews? Mustn’t we follow the Church’s lead from the Council of Florence, Trent and the condemnations of great churchmen of the day? After all, today’s Protestants are only 5 centuries removed from Luther and the “reformers”, whereas today’s Jews are four times that far removed from those who didn’t accept Jesus as the Messiah. How much more should we be condemning those danged heretic Protestants! They’re the real problem in society! They’ve even been baptized and so received the Holy Spirit. So, how much less excuse do they have for their perfidy? To whom much is given…much will be required!
The reality is that the Church understands that today’s Lutherans are 500 years removed from the “Reformation”, they were born into their faith, by and large. Therefore, they’re generally not morally culpable in the way that someone like Martin Luther, who knowingly and intentionally contradicted the Church and separated himself from her, was. Most Lutherans today don’t consciously and actively choose to reject the Catholic Church and therefore remain Lutheran. In the same way, today’s Jews are 2,000 years removed from the split that occurred at the time of Christ. Generally, neither do they follow Judaism as a way to deny and “reject” Christ, the Logos, they were born into it. And considering the kind of “evangelization” of Jews practiced by some Christians over the centuries (and now by people like Sungenis, Jones and you), one can easily guess why many Jews might reject what they wrongly believe Christ and His Church to be (like what Bishop Sheen once said).
Listen, you can’t go around stereotyping any group as though they’re all basically the same, all guilty, all innocent, or whatever. It’s just not that simple. You say that Jones uses “the Bible and Patristics and the Early Church Fathers” to make his case. Well, so what? Satan used the Bible to make his case and Protestants use the Early Church Fathers to make theirs.
Further complicating matters is the fact that the word “Jew” has a religious connotation and an ethnic one. Do you know that Jews aren’t all the same? Do you know that Orthodox Jews, the Chasidim et al stand more closely with us Catholics on a range of important moral issues than many Protestants and other groups (even many of our brother “Catholics”) ?
Listen, I don’t know if you know many Jews personally (I tend to doubt it), but I do. I know Jews with a wide array or beliefs. And I know that it would come as quite a shock to any of them to find out that very core and essence of their existence is actually a rejection of Jesus, a rejection of “Logos”. You know that Judaism predates Jesus, yes?
And what about Muslims? In their case, they came *after* Christianity was established and they directly contradicted it. Mustn’t they all therefore be from the Devil? At least in their case, in the Middle East, the Far East, in Africa, some of their coreligionists are murdering Christians as blasphemers and heretics. Today. They’re driving Christians out of their lands. But, yet, the Church doesn’t view and talk about all Muslims of all times in such blanket, condemnatory ways. That would be bigoted and wrong.
Jones’ Jewish theories here appear to be little more than an attempt to create an intellectualized justification for anti-Semitism, imo. And looking at this article by a former of associate of his, written a decade or more **before** Jones’ book about Jews came out, it seems that this is also a case of a personal prejudice seeking a rationale rather than a dispassionate examination of the facts leading to a belief (see: http://www.johnreilly.info/olem.htm).
If you want to follow him and his friend Sungenis rather than the Church, that’s your choice. But let’s be clear about some facts. They speak only for themselves (Sungenis in particular). As a commenter above noted, Sungenis was denounced for his anti-Semitic writings by an actual Catholic authority in the Church (his own bishop) and he was told to take the name “Catholic” off his apostolate. His reaction was to slander his bishop. So, the fact that you’re attacking the reputation of the Association of Hebrew Catholics - an obedient apostolate that has received the approval of and been under the direction and guidance of the head of the Catholic Church’s highest canonical court (Cardinal Burke) - while simultaneously recommending people like Sungenis and Jones, is more than a bit ridiculous.
There’s a good reason why so few Catholics have chosen to join in Jones’ and Sungenis’ crusade to warn the world about “the Jews” and their other equally paranoid and wrong-headed crusade to convince the world that there’s a global conspiracy to hide the “truth” that the universe revolves around a stationary earth, for that matter. Yes, E.Michael Jones and Robert Sungenis are the same ones who put on a “conference” to convince all of us dumb Catholics out here that the **real** doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church is that the earth doesn’t move and the rest of the universe rotates around it. And the scientists of the world supposedly know this is true, but they’re “hiding it” from us. Okay.
http://galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/Flyer_for_Conference_3.pdf
Listen, you probably mean well and think you’re helping in some way. But I think we’ll stick with Pope Benedict XVI and the actual bishops of the Church.
Jimmy-
I love you. Great topic. Great take. Could be a little shorter though! :)
Pope John Paul II called Catholics ‘fulfilled Jews’.
As Church, I believe the Jews who come into the Catholic Church will help alot in its renewal. I became an associate member of the Hebrew Catholic Association, and because of them, my faith has been renewed.
If “Eat my Body” and “Drink my Blood” is symbolic than Jesus taught the way to eternal life is to assault and persecute Him.
So, good luck with that “argument”
In Aramaic to “eat the flesh” or “drink the blood” is symbolism for assault and persecutioneand can be found in Psalms 26:2
2 Kings 23:17
Isaias 9:18-20
Isaias 49:26
Micah 3:3
2 Samuel 23:15-17
Apoc. 17:6
go to
www.scripturecatholic.com
then click on “Eucharist” for Biblical Links and commentaries of the Early Churches
Vermont Crank,
It looks like that site has some nice information regarding St. Peter being in Rome as well. By the way, a lot of people think he’s buried there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter’s_tomb. I suspect no human power, however, is sufficient to penetrate the reality distortion field of the Magisterium of Pope St. Bart, the Indefatigable, Anonymous Scholar. He will be issuing further fabrications, er, condemnations shortly of disingenuous Catholic apologists who make up things (you know like calumnies against personages like Cdl. Newman and St. Justin).
IMO, God presents himself to many poeple in the world in different forms and through a cultural perspective so they can understand him.
I have read that Jesus came to the world to gather the lost sheep, for which he has.
If feel the Pope is trying to say that the Jews already have faith and their own relationship with the lord.
As for my experience of having friends that are jewish, they my not beleive that Jesus is the messiah, yet many jewish poeple to admire his teaching, just like when a Catholic may respect the teachings and wisdom of the Dalia Lama, yet are not buddhists.
I really with Jesus should come again REAL SOON, for it feels like many have no fiath in this world. I feel many have much guilt and shame for their lifestyles (such as single mothers, gays and poeple living together and don’t marry PLUS have children—sometimes with multiple partners)—thus, this has been a deminishing factor that adds to these types of poeple not bringing up their children with no religous background AND, would rather spend more time on their cell phones and computer rather than giving their children attention. Saying this, these are certainly “lost sheep” that need to be addressed.
If there is a family of jews living rightly, or a hindu family—respect their culture and beliefs—they have faith….It’s the ones that don’t have any faith at all that need to be prayed for and need help being brought into the church….
Dear Thomas. Agreed. That is an excellent site which makes all the links twixt Scripture and Doctrine.
As for Peter being in Rome, I was in the Basilica of St Peter’s and there is absolutely no doubt he was buried there - beneath the Altar. And I really wasn’t responding to a particular person but a particular point that lurkers could profit from reading.
My belief is that attention is the oxygen that keeps them alive. Trolls will stop posting if nobody responds to them directly.
That aside, I begin every day of my life thanking the Lord that He caused me to be born into a big Catholic family in Vermont. I have been blessed beyond all telling. Thanks be to God
I gave up reading the comments here after the first dozen or so. Is there no moderation by EWTN or the blog writer? The essay was well done and came to one of several reasonable conclusions concerning the Pope’s writings on the evangelization question. Why persons who call themselves “faithful Catholic Christians” would so blatantly violate the teachings of the church by posting calumny and ad hominem attacks
(see the CCC at paragraphs 2477 to 2479 and 2507) is beyond me. In charity many who post are senior citizens who have the time to read the internet, and all those prescription meds impact mood and discretion.
Please God, leave the Jews where they be. We have taken so much from their tradition and history that one tends to think we are the “illegitimate” ones.
Nowhere in scripture does to refer to the River Tiber as a “sitting place” to remember Zion.
Pope John XX111 was very explicit in where they stand in history and where we stand in acknowledging it.
His Prayer of Repentence before he died in 1961 say’s it all.
“After all the sufferings of the Jews…..
“So much of it at the hands of the Catholic Church it is unfortunate it has taken the Vatican so long to finally recognise Israel as a nation”, it has recently been quoted.
The recent pope has already given Judas a makeover and considering we’re looking for concessions in the Holy Land and the beautification of Pius in the pipeline, one can’t help but see the political advantages in this latest statement.
It just has to find it’s way down to others reared by the “other mentally” including some Princes of the Church.
stbart, you haven’t read much on the subject, only what the church has brained washed us into believing.
For all the talk about the Gospel message and Salvation we still have a way to go.
John XX111 is good enough for me.
I am from a mixed marriage, was exposed to Reform Judaism, including being named in Synagogue (with Christian holidays celebrated in a non-religious way), became Protestant and then converted to Roman Catholicism. I cannot imagine all the suffering not being Catholic throughout my life brought about, since I never had the strengthening of the Sacraments. It has perplexed me how hostile Jewish people are to all branches of Christianity, including the Roman Catholic Church.
It is imperative that priests and all of us be welcoming to Jews who desire conversion (even if they don’t know what conversion means yet - as has been the case for myself in my life long conversion). Unfortunately, you can’t know until you offer, or at least give your testimony through your behavior, life, etc. I think this is where we have the opportunity to be persecuted for His Name’s sake. As I struggle with the question where to go from here regarding the Jewish members of my human family, I am reminded we are all decended from one set of parents, and that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, etc. - we are all one. We cannot be in Christ unless we have been evangelized.
Welcome, Converted! I thought the following words on conversion from Pope Benedict would be helpful to you. This is from a Lectio Divina on Acts 20:17-38 he gave on March 10, 2011. Verses 20-21 are covered here:
“Then the Apostle Paul says :‘I did not shrink from teaching you in public and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance to God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ’ (vv. 20-21).
The essential is summed up here: conversion to God, faith in Jesus. Let us however linger over the word “conversion” which is the central word or one of the central words of the New Testament. It is interesting here — in order to know the dimensions of this word — to be attentive to the various biblical terms: in Hebrew “šub” means “changing one’s course”, beginning a new direction of life; in Greek “metanoia” means “changing one’s way of thinking”; in Latin “poenitentia”, “my own action to let myself be transformed”; in Italian “conversione”, which coincides better with the Hebrew term “new direction of life”.
Perhaps we can see in a special way the reason for the word of the New Testament, the Greek word “metanoia”, “change in the way of thinking”. At first the thought seems typically Greek, but going more deeply into it we see that it really expresses the essential of what other languages also say: a change of mind, in other words a real change in our perception of reality. Since we are born in original sin, for us “reality” means the tangible things, money, my position, the everyday things we see in the news on television: this is reality. And spiritual things appear a little “behind” reality. “Metanoia”, a change from the way of thinking, means inverting this impression.
Neither material things, nor money, nor buildings, nor any of the things I can possess constitute the essential, or reality. The reality of realities is God. This invisible reality, seemingly far from us, is the reality. Learning this and thus changing the direction of our thinking, to truly assess how the real, which must orient all things is God, it is the words, the word of God. This is the criterion, God, the criterion of all that I do. This really is conversion if my concept of reality is changed, if my thought is changed. And this must subsequently penetrate each individual aspect of my life: in my judgement of every single thing to take as my criterion what God says about it.”
There is much more, but this is the gist of it. Hope it helps!
www.vatican.va Type “10 March 2011” in search to find it.
EdL - This is a wow! Thank you! I like to say I “came in through the confessional” but (among many other things) it is intellectualism of Roman Catholicism that “wow’s” me. Here is a link to the full article - I was not aware of these lectio divina addresses of our Holy Father. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2011/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20110310_parroci-roma_en.html
I would like to say that we are Eucharistic, and the Eucharist is the heart of our life. I once heard in a homily that, if you ever are stumped by a theology question, answer “It’s a mystery, and God loves us.”
Much of the falling away from the Catholic Church has begun, not with other teachings, but with a loss of Eucharistic faith. Our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI I believe stated once that we should center our Sunday on the Eucharist. I remember before I became Catholic I was asked what is the Eucharist - I tried for something intellectual - I was then asked what does the Council of Trent Say - I answered “It is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” I was then asked - do you believe this? I answered honestly, “I struggle.” In spiritual direction the first thing I was taught was, “God loves you, God created you lovable, God has never created anyone like you and He never will again, God created each of us to uniquely glorify God in Heaven.” The old Baltimore Catechism answers the question “Why did God make you?” with “to know, love and serve God.” I fall so short. As Catholics, we turn to the Sacraments, especially to the Eucharist and Sacrament of Reconciliation. I can recall, as a protestant, sitting in a Catholic Church and watching the “pagans” during Holy Hour praying the Rosary. From that day until my final Sacraments of Initiation was 8 years. How I regret that delay.
I once heard a Baptist Preacher say that if God wants to evangelize someone, no matter where they are, he’ll parachute someone in if necessary. Well, no parachutes needed here - St. Therese arrives in the Holy Land ...
http://www.discalcedcarmelite.com/vernoticia.php?Id=3051
Can St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (our beloved St. Edith Stein) and my Patron Saint, be far away :-)
Edl, neither material things, nor money nor buildings,.......the realty of reality is God, that means Spiritual riches.
Why then, in Gods name, with all of the above, does our Spiritual home claim diplomatic immunity and engages the worlds best legal counsel to avoid accountability and responsability in matter’s not needed to mention here.
We can’t separate it as the same Spirit prompts us to be honourable in all things as a witness.
So the question is, what were the apostles thinking preaching and trying to convert the Jews and in the Synagogue no less? Did they not listen to BXVI who is greater and better educated than them?
Bart sez: ” Jews rejected Christ 2000 years ago…Their deliberate rejection of Christ puts them in worse position before God than some ignorant pagan.”
Wow. I didn’t know there were any 2,000 year old Jews still living today. That’s amazing! Let’s go and give them a piece of our minds!
Oh, I see. Bart wants to hold all of today’s Jews responsible for what some Jews did 2,000 years ago. All Jews’ “rejection of Christ” is “deliberate.” Wow. Bart can read minds and hearts, too. He must be a prophet!
But, gosh, what Jews are going to believe in the religion Bart’s selling? What reasonable, thinking person would believe that? It kind of makes you wonder what team Bart is actually playing for. Although, certainly Bart is at least giving God some good material to excuse Jews for not accepting Christ and His Church.
Now, what does the Church Christ established (rather than the First Church of Bart) say about it?
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham’s stock.
Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God’s saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham’s sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch’s call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people’s exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)
The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: “theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church’s main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ’s Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.
As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and “serve him shoulder to shoulder” (Soph. 3:9).(12)
Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.
True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.
Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.
Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church’s preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God’s all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.
END
Well, that makes a lot of sense. Amen.
Here’s more from the Catechism of Christ’s Church:
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.“338
Gosh, I guess it’s above our pay-grade to know who is culpable and who is not culpable for failing to expressly accept Jesus Christ and enter His Church. It looks like God alone makes that judgment.
Bart has made many valid historical points which doesn’t hurt us to think about, but it doesn’t take away what we have as Catholics.
He needs to take into acount that we need to be in a “State of Grace” to present ourselves before he Alter as the Church requires, We must stand up and protect the “Motherboard” of our faith whether what is done is of Gospel Value or not, most being cradle Catholcs (which I am not), it is a necessity.
Don’t be too harsh on us, well not me because I too see multiple contradictions on all manner of fronts which I don’t walk away from but I do feel sorry for the ravages againsts those who do/must.
Lighten up a little st.bart, that’s a good chappie.
Bottom line: we Jews have no interest in evangelization from the RCC. The RCC does not define our covenant eith God. The RCC is not better than truer than or triumphal over Judaism. For 600 yrs of the inquisition, the RCC torturrd & murdered us to try to force us to convert. The RCC failed. We have been around for 5000yrs because it is God’s will that Jews remain in the world. God likes us as we are. Our covenant with God is alive, vital, robust, and will endure forever. The RCC needs to respect Judaism. We are not targets for any evangelization from any Christian group. The RCC needs to leave us alone.
Lisa, I’m so glad someone as has spoken on behalf of your Jewish Heritage.
Pope John XX111 never forgot your roots and his prayer of “Repentance” is evidence of that much to the chargrin of the Holy See and it’s many Congregations.
There are other issues not too many Catholics are aware of either, and that is Pius X11 made it quite clear, at the end of the war, that Jewish children shelterd by the Church, were not to be handed over to Jewish charities to be returned to their true familes.
In today’s world, we should ever accept this, regardles of motives good or bad at the time on race, colour or creed.
Brigitte Zypries, Minster of Justice of Germany, has fought to have files released on all aspects of this war which lead to the anhilation of many, but with no correlation with what we (Catholics) have in the Vatian archives, a full account has never been released.
I have often wondered why it has all gone very quiet on this front.
I know there wont be just Catholics in heaven..I have never heard a truely good Catholic person say Jews or anyone else doesn’t have a chance in heaven, that’s “human thinking” not God’s. He judges by the person themselves and the grace and knowledge they have.
The trouble many have is trying to worry about what God will do or not do, almost like they would be angry if they met a neighbor who is Muslem or Jewish in heaven…which of course wouldn’t happen because those thoughts would be purged beforehand.
Jesus give us all a chance at death to come to him, Fr. Groechel talks of this often, and with his grace, HE decides who, not us.
I know devout Jews that are much better than some pious Catholics who come off hateful. Pope John Paul ll was another wonderful example of Jesus, a truely holy man when dealing with non-Catholics.
As I have been a gentile member of a group called “The Association of Hebrew Catholics”, AHC, for several years now
http://hebrewcatholic.org/
I have some interest in this subject and I look forward to Jews, as well as all others knowing the joy of knowing Jesus as our atonement and our
Savior.
That said I think Benedict did a masterful job in this book as far as making the case to Jews who are ready to listen.
In brief Benedict makes the case that, with Jesus, atonement can only be fulfilled in Jesus. See for example page 39 where he makes the case that Jesus is the expiation that had been previously been offered in the “Holy place” over the Ark. And on page 46 he makes reference to the Jewish temple as being a “deserted house”. He is clearly making an apologetic on why Jesus is the fulfillment of the Jewish law and prophets.
And yet he is not speaking directly to the Jews, but to any who are interested. He must know that if he spoke directly to the Jews they would react, and yet we know that Jewish scholars will be too curious to not read what a man of Benedict’s stature has to say about Jesus.
As for his seeming to put off the discussion of the “right time” for all Israel to convert, I must use my homely example. Several of my children are not ready to listen to me talk about Jesus. If I were to press the issue they would become even more resistant to hearing me preach to them, so I have told them that God has his time and His way for them to hear of His love, and so I say little at the present time but pray much.
As I was, at one time, a contentious person, at least inwardly, when others told me of Jesus, and several of my children certainly are at the present time, and we know that Jews who are not ready to listen are certainly contentious if preached to, it is certainly wise for us to pray much both for ourselves and them, and to often say little, waiting for the time when God Himself will speak to their hearts.
If your check out the AHC website you will read several stories of the infused graces which God can give to Jewish folks as well as to us poor gentiles, when in His mercy He deems it time.
Jimmy, this article is nothing short of scandalous—as the comments themselves show. Did you write with this intent? Your “credentials” count for nothing if you continue to help lead others astray…
I can’t help but recognise the audacity therein.
How can truly spiritual people be so dogmatic when we pray: “look not on OUR sins but on the faith of Your church”.
Lest we should be so unaccountable before the world.
Christian Order editor Paul Crane SJ, once wrote: The world of the Catholic hierarchy is more and more built on facade where appearance is everything.
There is so mch muck surrounding us we are in no position to set “guidelines” on anything.
Our witness to Jews and any other denomination is appalling and this holier than thou mentality is abnoxious with our track record.
st.bart, we are now being forced to acknowledge all you have mentioned in your last papagraph and many of us, not all, are asking the same questions.
That’s the beauty of a Catholic website.
The Jewish people have suffered gross injustices in the name of Catholicism that has set the benchmark for many others.
I regret this immensely and where possible out of a conscience not formed by the church, I speak out on these issues much to the chargrin of many.
Try and understand for generations the faithful have been brought up with the teaching of the church and to never question.
I find myself one of the lucky ones and in time it will all change, not necessarily by conversion to the Catholic faith.
I love my Jewish brothers and sisters where they, are not that it is important to anyone but to me.
We are definitely getting off track here, just like those who claim we can have order without God, so I fear that some posters are not praying first. That said, we would like to have Jews and all persons know and love Jesus because we believe He is the truth. As for the Eucharist, either it is God made present or we are the worst of idolaters. Jesus said it and the church believed it for the first 10 centuries or so before splinter groups got off track.
As for “old foolish woman or man” I hope that God considers me worthy to spend my eternity with simple believes such as these. I fear that God had some unpleasant things to say about the proud, and that pride can rise up so easily when I think I am doing good.
As for as sinners in the Church, even Jesus had His Judas, and if you want to be with perfect people, you must get to heaven, and in order to get there, it will be necessary to bear with sinners, including the sinfulness within ourselves first.
Bob, the Pope has recently given Judas a “make-over”, didn’t you know.
How in heaven’s name is he going to change history books, letters of the saints, which Augustine immediately comes to mind, and the centuries of old prayers, especially at Easter.
Sounds a little farcicale to me.
John XX111 has been gone for decades with all the attempts he made during his Papacy not recognised, and in many cases not known.
He made no references to converting them, quite the contrary.
Christ Has revealed to us, by His Life, His Passion, and His Death on The Cross, that the Fullness of Love, is desiring Salvation for one’s beloved.
“I give you a NEW COMMANDMENT, Love one another as I HAVE LOVED YOU.” -Christ
One another, implies individuals, as well as groups of individuals.
The Catholic Church is His Church, for Christ was Baptized into His Church and promised to remain until the end of The Age. This does not change the fact that some of the clergy are corrupt and have caused chaos in His Church. Nor does it change The Message of Our Lady of Fatima regarding the conversion of Russia, the healing of The Schism from the beginning, in order that His Church become united as one Body, witnessing to the one Word of God as Christ prayed for at The Last Supper.
st.bart is confusing a mother’s love for her son with Christian love(Agape). We all know a mother’s love for her children can be irrational, so there are plenty of evangelical mothers helping enable their wayward children too. That’s what mothers do. All we can do is pray for both mother and child.
st.bart is blinded by his hard heart, as usual.
To St Bart: and in Matthew 27 vs 12 and vs 14 it is recorded that Jesus was silent and said nothing. Jesus thereby shows that there are times when silence is best, and proverbs 11 vs 12 reminds us ” “He who reviles his neighbor has no sense but the intelligent man keeps silent”.
Otherwise I would recommend reading the 6th chapter of St John’s gospel and esp vs 48-66, where Jesus calls Himself food to be eaten, and it is noted that many would not follow Jesus from that time on. In John’s Gospel vs 67, and Jesus did not come back and tell them that he was only speaking symbolically but he allowed those who would not believe to leave.
And just as the passover lamb had to be eaten for the sacrifice to be complete, so the Body and Blood of Jesus had to be consumed for Jesus the new passover to be finalized.
Lisa,
Without faith in Jesus, you will burn in hell. Convert and save yourself. The talmud religion can not save you. Only baptism can save you.
James. “Save yourself”? No one can save oneself. Salvation is all the work of God. So please stop playing God and trying to determine who will and won’t be damned. That’s God’s job alone. Your job is to try not to get in the way by allowing your personal foibles to become a stumbling block to others.
“Posted by Lynne Newington on Wednesday, Apr 6, 2011 11:34 PM (EDT):
I can’t help but recognise the audacity therein.
How can truly spiritual people be so dogmatic when we pray: “look not on OUR sins but on the faith of Your church”.
Lest we should be so unaccountable before the world.”
That’s the reverse of “holier than thou” - if God were to consider our sins, & their greatness & serious & awfulness & vileness & the Hell they deserve, and not instead look upon His gift of faith to His Church, we would be done for.
One sin, however slight it may seem to us, who are not God, & ther cannot see it with His all-pure & all-holy eyes, is an unspeakable abomination. It would be better for the entire human race to perish in extreme agony, than for a single sin to be committed. But all of us sin many times in a lifetime, and even our best acts are contaminated. And there are many millions of us.
So there is never a time when we do not need God’s mercy, whether
lest we sin, or because we have sinned. And the Church prays to be granted that mercy, in that part of the Canon of the Mass.
The level of antisemitism, supersessionism and hatred for the Jewish people in many of these letters is sad and appalling. I recommend you read the Catholic theology of people like Dr. Phillip Cunningham, Sr. Mary Boys and Richard C. Lux.
The Church and its people have sinned for the better part of 20 centuries towards the Jewish people. Demographers estimate that 9 out of 10 Jews historically died from non-matural causes - largely at the hands of Christians. The estimate is that 22 million were killed by such violent beliefs. Otherwise Israel would be anation of 90 million today. Catholics and Catholicism, with the advantage of power and more modern education in those times, err as agegiously as did the Jewish people during the time of the Kings 1 & 2. This cannot be for G-d’s glory nor sanctioned as legitimate religious development. If supersession is based on a presumed loss of covenant due to such Jewish sins, then the Church has lost its claim to supersessionist covenanting for the exact same reasons.
A recent (2010) book on this subject is, “The Jewish People, the Holy Land, and the State of Israel”, Paulist Press, by Richard Lux.
“then the Church has lost its claim to supersessionist covenanting for the exact same reasons.”
I love amateur theologians - specially those who are not Catholics, never studied catholicism and think that can make a point about our theology.
:-)
And there is no hatred toward any jew in these letters. YOU are demonstrating hatret toward us here: “This cannot be for G-d’s glory nor sanctioned as legitimate religious development.”
Besides, I don’t understand why jews are interested in the matter or superssesionism. It’s a catholic issue, not a jewish issue. If they’re not interested in conversions, as someone said, why they’re here? The pope already said that they’re no priority when it comes to conversions. That’s all. Aren’t you satisfied? Or you’re worried about our assumption that the Church is the Truth and your covenant has been supercceed and is not valid per se anymore? That’s what it seems, when someone histercially yells “we don’t want to be converted! we don’t to be converted! leave us alone! leave us alone!” when it is clear that no one will try to convert you anymore.
As the pope Benedict XVI said (quoted by someone), “Thus the Sinai Covenant is indeed superceeded”. Period. I’m sorry, but it is our faith and you’ll not change it, no matter what you say or troll.
Salaam Mr Akin,
I came across your website and was interested to hear what you had to say about Pope Benedict XVI and the Jews and wondered if the same conditions persist for Muslims?
Hi Jimmy,
Since when did Paul become the spokesman for the 12 Apostles?
John 8:43-47
Amplified Bible (AMP)
43 Why do you misunderstand what I say? It is because you are unable to hear what I am saying. [You cannot bear to listen to My message; your ears are shut to My teaching.]
44 You are of your father, the devil, and it is your will to practice the lusts and gratify the desires [which are characteristic] of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a falsehood, he speaks what is natural to him, for he is a liar [himself] and the father of lies and of all that is false.
45 But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me [do not trust Me, do not rely on Me, or adhere to Me].
46 Who of you convicts Me of wrongdoing or finds Me guilty of sin? Then if I speak truth, why do you not believe Me [trust Me, rely on, and adhere to Me]?
47 Whoever is of God listens to God. [Those who belong to God hear the words of God.] This is the reason that you do not listen [to those words, to Me]: because you do not belong to God and are not of God or in harmony with Him.
This is COMPLETELY different to what you are interpretating from Romans 11.
If you studied the Babylonian Talmud and see what these demonics say about Jesus, His mother and His apostles, you would clearly see that they are children of the devil
Alan,
The Jewish people did not lose their covenant because of their sins. The covenant was not made with them because of their righteousness and so they couldn’t lose it because of a lack of righteousness. In fact, they didn’t really lose it *at all*. It’s still there for them. It has been fulfilled - brought to it’s ultimate fruition - in the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. God still loves the Jewish people because of their fathers (see Romans 11:28-29), even when they do not accept the Jewish messiah. But they need Christ the same as everyone else. Jesus Christ is the savior of the world—not just some of it.
The errors of Cunningham and Boys are dealt with in this article. You’ll see them mentioned in the footnotes:
http://www.cuf.org/laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrest.asp
R. C., it’s worth reading the rest of that quote from Benedict XVI:
“In this Torah, which is Jesus himself, the abiding essence of what was inscribed on the stone tablets at Sinai is now written in living flesh, namely, the twofold commandment of love. . . . To imitate him, to follow him in discipleship, is therefore to keep Torah, which has been fulfilled in him once and for all. Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded. **But once what was provisional in it has been swept away, we see what is truly definitive in it.**” ~ Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger; “Many Religions, One Covenant”
Notice what I double-starred.
Here’s another article I found that defends what Pope Benedict XVI was saying:
https://sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/defending-pope-benedict-xvi-from-sungenis-s-latest-attack
I totally agree with the conclusion that Pope Benedict is not opposed to put forward reasonable efforts to share the Gospel with the Jewish community, Our Lord’s own people. As a faithful Catholic Christian, the Pope believes in the unity of all to form ONE BODY, the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.
A very interesting and impressive topic to meditate over. God bless! +
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/pope-dont-evangelize-jews-really#ixzz2DpbZFZrw
Shalom,
I would ask all of your readers to Google:
The American Council for Judaism
Stephen L. (Steve) Naman
Post Office Box 862188
Marietta, GA 30062
(904) 280-3131
ACJSLN@aol.com
Tribalism vs. Universality:
The Triumph of Jonah and Ruth
Solveig Eggerz
Issues
Winter 1997
This article shows that YHWH evolved from a tribal god to the Babylonian Zoroaster Universal God & was brought back to Jerusalem by Ezra, who got rid of the remaining Israelites, REWROTE the Law of Moses, added Myth i.e. Book of Esther, corrupted parts of the books of the Prophets (see Jeremiah ch 7: 8:8) added the Oral Tradition & got the Pharisees to collate & canonize the Jewish Bible, thereby creating Talmudic Judaism, which Jesus CONDEMNED (see Matthew ch 15; ch 19; ch 23; John 8:43-47.
THE SUFFERING OF THE JEWISH INNOCENTS
THE FIRST “JEWISH” HOLOCAUST
In Exodus 32:7-11 we learn that the G-d of Israel wanted to destroy the Israelites! WHY? The Jewish scribes have attempted to hide the dastardly deed, but Amos 5:25-27 gives us a hint. The Prophets of Israel speak about offering sacrifices to Moloch and we read that Solomon did this in 1 Kings 11:1-11, but we must go to the Babylonian Talmud to get the facts to the case:
MISHNAH. HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, OR THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH.
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 437
Following the Mishnah is a discussion among the sages. One of the Talmud Sages, Rabbi Ashi, comments as follows:
GEMARA. R. Ashi propounded: What if one caused his blind or sleeping son to pass through, (3) or if he caused his grandson by his son or daughter to pass through? — One at least of these you may solve. For it has been taught: [Any men … that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall he put to death … And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people;] because he hath given of his seed unto Molech. Why is this stated? — Because it is said, there shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire. From this I know it only of his son or daughter. Whence do I know that it applies to his son’s son or daughter’s son too? From the verse, [And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man] when he giveth of his seed unto Molech [and kill him not: Then I will … cut him off.]
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 439
There it is for ALL to see. The Golden Calf, that Hollywood pretended was a statue of a calf, was in fact Moloch. This idol had indeed a calf’s head, but its body was a FURNACE into which the HUMAN SACRIFICES were put. The Israelites created the FIRST HOLOCAUST and there were no Nazis in sight
The Ecumenical Council of Florence said in Session 11—4 on February 1442: “It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”
Talmudic Judaism, Romanism & Islam are 3 Jihadic Babylonian Cults, which have their roots in Zoroasterism. All 3 are ANTICHRIST! All 3 will come together near the End Times & have their headquarters in the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem.
What “SuperGal” has posted is pure BS.
“Religion as we know it is obsolete”!
Hitchens, Dawkins or Jesus?
John 4:19-26. Jesus speaking to the Samaritan woman.
They crucified him because he said he was finished with RELIGION.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20; 2 Corinthians 6:14-18; John ch 14 to ch 17.
But there was no money in his Gospel!
There was no priest caste or High Priests among his followers (Matthew 20:20-28).
He was a disaster as far as ORGANIZED, RITUALIZED RELIGION was concerned, so they had to get rid of him.
NEVER man spoke like THIS Man!
Any serious student of scripture can clearly see what Jesus is saying to the Samaritan woman in John ch 4. As far as He was concerned religion, as the Jew & Samaritan had known, WAS OBSOLETE. No more temples, no more priestcraft, no more sacrifices! God was a Spirit & those who worshiped Him, did it in spirit & truth.
Talmudic Judaism blew a gasket when they heard what He was preaching & like the the crowd in Acts 19:24, they went ballistic & planned His demise. After 70 AD the BS had hit the Jewish fan & they spread all over the world, like a disease. They headed for Rome in big numbers & started causing problems for the fledgling Christian community.
When Constantine wanted a New State Religion, he decided to amalgamate the different Christian groups into one & so Romanism was created. Those Christians who wanted to live according to the scriptures & their understanding of it, were persecuted & expelled from Rome. Jihadic Romanism had begun & has made a mockery of Jesus Christ & His Gospel.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.