 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 19th, 2007 12:17 am |
|
I sawe a program about JPII and his relationship to Jews which included a statement that the covenant they had with God was not and could not be broken.
"In his exceptional writings and pronouncements, Pope John Paul II has shared his understanding of Judaism as a living heritage, of the permanent validity of God's covenant with the Jewish people and of the abhorrent sin that is anti-Semitism."
But how is that possible in light of this passage in Jeremiah 11?
1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : 2 "Listen to the terms of this covenant and tell them to the people of Judah and to those who live in Jerusalem. 3 Tell them that this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Cursed is the man who does not obey the terms of this covenant- 4 the terms I commanded your forefathers when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the iron-smelting furnace.' I said, 'Obey me and do everything I command you, and you will be my people, and I will be your God. 5 Then I will fulfill the oath I swore to your forefathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey'-the land you possess today."
I answered, "Amen, LORD."
6 The LORD said to me, "Proclaim all these words in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem: 'Listen to the terms of this covenant and follow them. 7 From the time I brought your forefathers up from Egypt until today, I warned them again and again, saying, "Obey me." 8 But they did not listen or pay attention; instead, they followed the stubbornness of their evil hearts. So I brought on them all the curses of the covenant I had commanded them to follow but that they did not keep.' "
9 Then the LORD said to me, "There is a conspiracy among the people of Judah and those who live in Jerusalem. 10 They have returned to the sins of their forefathers, who refused to listen to my words. They have followed other gods to serve them. Both the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken the covenant I made with their forefathers.
And if the Jews have broken the old covenant which this passage seems to say, then is there any problem with this statement in the catechsism. How can the coveneant belong to them if they have been broken, unless it is the histroy of th ecovenants? Also, were the covenants broken or fulfilled because I actually thought that certain covenant promises made to Abraham and his offspring were fulfilled in Christ? So has the covenant been broekn or fulfilled, and how can we say that the covenant still exists if it does not?
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329
To me it is perhaps true that God has a special plan lefot for the Jews, but it also seems like their religion is fulfilled in ours and therfore in and of itself obsolete (though rich in culture and tradtion and teaching) unless it leads to faith in Christ. It is my understanding that they have been grafted out, and we are grafted in and any plan remaining for them would be to be re-grafted in to the tre that was originally from and for them in the first place. But to me there covenant can not help them necessarily unless it leads them to the 'new covenant' being fulfilled in the Catholic Church.
I do see it as important though in ecumenical dialogue to recognize how much we are a religion who's background is Jewish and respect Jews and are against anti-semitism, and acknowledge the richness of their heritage and struggle, but I do not know if we can say there covenant is still helpful to them as a group (though perhaps for those who are ignorant of Chrsit it could be good to look to what they can understand of God and His relationship to them).
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 21st, 2007 06:18 pm |
|
| Still interested in seeing someone address this issue. I feel like there is a potential contradiction between tht passage and certain Catholic positions and am wondering how to figure it out.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 21st, 2007 06:56 pm |
|
brian wrote: So I brought on them all the curses of the covenant I had commanded them to follow but that they did not keep.' "
...
Both the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken the covenant I made with their forefathers.
Brian, a covenant goes two ways. Reread the passage and tell me where it says God will break the covenant? God says the people of Israel have broken the covenant and incurred punishment, not that the covenant is no longer in effect.
Starting with Noah, man has broken every covenant with God, but God has reached out to us over and over again. Where in scripture did God abandon a covenant? Moses was not able to enter the Promised Land, but the Israeli's did.
Our Church teaches us that the covenants God made with Noah, Abraham, and Moses are still in place. That's why salvation is offered to Christians through the covenant of Jesus; to Jews through the covenant with Moses; to Muslims through the covenant with Abraham; and to the rest of humanity through the covenant with Noah. Of course, all salvation comes from Jesus through the Church because that's how God wants it, but God, who is ever faithful, cannot abandon a covenant.
Consider a marriage covenant. If a spouse cheats on the other spouse, the covenant is not broken by that action. The marriage remains in effect, especially the sacramental aspect. One or both spouses may choose to seek the dissolution of the covenant bond, but the Church will not issue a Declaration of Nullity purely on the basis of adultery if the marriage is otherwise a sacramental covenant marriage.
God's relationship with us is the same. We break our covenant with God every time we sin, and yet God never abandons us. Unlike us, God is ever-faithful.
You might want to read this teaching from John Paul II dated April 24, 1996, at his General Audience. It's called God is Ever Faithful to His Covenant.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 01:36 am |
|
I can buy invincible ignorance and people being saved through the new covenant or through the mercy of God, but I do not think there are ongoing covenants with the Jews and Muslims at the same time as the one we have in the church. I would think if there are Jews and Mulims who will be saved it will be through soer mysterious way they have been mysteriously grafted in to our covenant. It clearly says that they need to be grafted back in the tree in the book of Romans I believe. Why would it say this if they already were mysteriously grafted in through some covenant, and if it is through faith in Christ we are saved it makes no sense to say it is through a covenant. I just get scared when we say things that would lead people to believe tht it is not crucial to evangelize and share the saving news of Jesus Chrsit with Jews and Muslims or when we assume through some covenants that they are automatically saved when they may to this day live and die unfaithful to those covenants and only invoke the curses of them.
Last edited on Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 01:45 am by brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1715 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 11:11 pm |
|
I would think if there are Jews and Muslims who will be saved it will be through some mysterious way they have been mysteriously grafted in to our covenant. It clearly says that they need to be grafted back in the tree in the book of Romans, I believe. Why would it say this if they already were mysteriously grafted in through some covenant, and if it is through faith in Christ we are saved it makes no sense to say it is through a covenant.
This is a good point, and it is why I myself have not followed Rick all the way in his explanation. What we are dealing with here is not a point of doctrine beyond the bare idea that the Jews are still part of the People of God insofar as they accept the covenant as it now stands, whereby they are — recognized or not — saved through the blood of Christ, the lamb of God. This is the meaning of the passage in Romans you refer to (chapter 11). It is not speaking of yet another covenant. (Hebrews 8–9, quoting Jeremiah 31:31, does in fact speak of a “new covenant,” but this is from a different point of view which I think ultimately is compatible with a “single covenant” approach such as what I am about to propose, just as the ancient idea that the earth rests on pillars sunk into the deep, just because it does not correspond to the physical reality, does not therefore contradict the spiritual reality it represents.) The grafting, meanwhile, joins us to the tree of life (Genesis 2:9; 3:22–24; compare Revelation 2:7 and 22:2), the vine that is Jesus himself (John 15).
Several years ago I proposed an interpretation similar to Rick’s, except that it envisioned a single, growing covenant that became progressively more powerful and inclusive. In this concept, the covenants God made with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc., were all the same covenant, with the sole difference that it was progressively revealed (thus giving it the appearance of multiple covenants) until the day of Jesus Christ, through whom that revelation and the covenant that embodied it reached fruition. The Israelites, collectively and individually, were grafted into the tree of life or lopped off as they accepted the covenant and lived according to its requirements or rejected it and the responsibilities that went with it. The gentiles, for their part, were always just as eligible for grafting as were the Israelites, but they were not given the revelation until later, after the Messiah had come.
St. Paul gives the clue to all this in Romans 11:21–23: “For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off. And even the others, if they do not persist in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.”
The answer, then, is that the Jews are still sons of the covenant (the Jewish rite of passage, “bar mitzvah,” means in Aramaic “son of the covenant”), but the covenant now specifically includes the gentiles as well, because, as St. Paul again says in Ephesians 2:14–19, Christ “has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility… that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body [the Church, as he makes clear elsewhere in the epistle] through the cross.… So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.”
I should think, as well, that this idea may be the key to unlock the mysterious way in which all people who ultimately are saved are secretly given access to the grace of God through the sacrifice of Christ and the evangelistic work of his Church. But I haven’t thought this out well enough to give an explanation of it. So it remains just an idea awaiting the spark of grace.
Remember, then, that what I have proposed here is only a theory, just as what Rick has proposed is a theory (in fact one which has been worked out by professional theologians, which I am not). We are not at odds, but merely attempting to provide you a little help as you struggle with the silence of the Church on this matter.
I will add only one word of caution, one which Rick has already mentioned elsewhere. It is that you don’t have to try to solve every mystery you encounter. Mysteries weren’t meant to be solved anyway, because they are beyond human comprehension. To insist on trying to understand everything is an impossible quest; if you actually believe it is possible to understand everything, this is the heresy of rationalism. If you feel compelled to try anyway to resolve everything in your head, this is psychologically self-defeating and will just give you a headache.
To accept a mystery as a mystery is to grow in faith, and that is what God wants of us. Humility and acceptance of our creaturehood is a lifelong task, but these virtues are necessary if we would find peace in our earthly existence and eternal joy in heaven.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 24th, 2007 12:19 am |
|
Let me propose another way of looking at things.
If I have a bucket of water and drop in a glass of water, do I now have two containers of water or one? If I drop in a smaller glass, is that three containers or two or one? The answer is that each is a part of the larger container, so ultimately there is only one bucket full of water.
When we speak of "covenant relationships" there is only one relationship between God and man. God is our creator who loves us unceasingly; we are the created called to worship unceasingly.
The "multiple covenants" theory I suggested is not really multiple covenants, but the same covenant offered in increasingly more mature ways as human faith matured. A child needs rules that are not appropriate for an older child, while an older child needs rules that are pointless to a young child. A child, for example, needs to be restricted from playing with paint in the living room. Hopefully a teen would have outgrown the need for such a rule. A teen needs to be given a curfew, which is unnecessary for a small child.
God made multiple covenants, but they were really all part of the single relationship with man, and all were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who gave us the Church as the mature development of our part in the covenant relationship. The other covenants were not abandoned or retracted, and they remain in place as part of the single, covenant relationship between Creator and created, between God and man, completed in Jesus Christ and maintained through his Church.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1715 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 24th, 2007 12:50 am |
|
The "multiple covenants" theory I suggested is not really multiple covenants, but the same covenant offered in increasingly more mature ways as human faith matured.
This is a good reconciliation, one that I can live with. It says almost exactly what I was thinking while approaching the issue from the opposite direction.
David
|
|
|
hpj0828
Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 136 |
| First Name: | Henry | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Messianic Jewish believer |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18th, 2007 04:38 pm |
|
As a Jewish believer in Jesus the Messiah, I have several MBBs (Muslim Background Believers--ie. former Muslims who have become Christians) as friends. I am reaching out to Muslims with the good news about Jesus the Messiah. My MBB friends all testify to a new revelation of the Love of God, since they became believers in Jesus! They are zealous evangelists who believe that all Muslims need to be saved through the blood of Jesus the Messiah.
My MBB friend from Iran became a believer in Jesus by simply seeing the sacrificial and beautiful service of 3 Roman Catholic nuns who served meals to the poor who attended the church service. Their quiet and compasionate testimony melted his heart, while he sat in the back of a church. He is now a Christian pastor. You don't have to know the Quran backwards and forwards to lead a Muslim to a beautiful faith in Jesus the Messiah. You have to be willing to learn and to reach out with sensitivity and love.
I became a follower of Jesus because of the testimony of two Taiwanese Christian roommates at Princeton University back in 1982. I was led to the Lord because I was jealous (Rom 11:11) of the peace, joy and real love that they possessed in their lives. Although intellectually I had been trained to believe they were wrong, yet with my heart, I envied their peace, joy and love. I wished I could be like them. You don't have to know Torah backwards and forwards to lead a Jewish person to faith in Jesus. Be willing to learn from us and reach out to love us.
I can tell you that it is a WONDERFUL thing to have my sins forgiven through Messiah's blood. I am not the same person I was before I knew Jesus. Jewish people, like everyone else, need to be saved through trusting in the faithful sacrifice that Jesus made of himself for our sins. I am so grateful for receiving a salvation that I could not receive by obeying Torah commandments. Not because there is anything wrong with the Torah's covenant, but because I, for my part, am unable to fulfill it! Indeed, no one can. That is why we Jews need the atoning sacrifice of the Jewish Messiah to cover our sins, so that we can be saved!
The Torah points to something beyond itself. It acknowledges a coming prophet like Moses who prophesied the first covenant:
18 I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My words which he shall speak in My name, I will require it of him.
Dt. 18:18-19 JPS Translation
To be like Moses, such a prophet must also usher in a new covenant. So the Torah itself testifies that its covenant is not yet complete! Something even better was yet to come.
Please take the time to tell Jews and Muslims about our wonderful Messiah. It is not so difficult. Make us jealous with your love! (cf. Romans 11:11) Do not be afraid to talk with us, nor limited by your theology from reaching us with God's love. Where would I be now, if my Taiwanese friends did not tell me!
Shalom!
Henry
____________________
HPJ
|
|
|
Carlus Magnus
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 15 |
| First Name: | Leo | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13th, 2007 01:58 am |
|
| "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors." - Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 11 "Cantate Domino", Feb. 4. 1442
____________________
Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem: Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit.
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 28th, 2007 04:49 am |
|
It seems that nobody has responded to the last quote and I am wondering if it is still accurate of our beliefs, as it seems slightly different than what I sometimes hear. I still am pondering the meanings of all these things. I am so thankful forthe Dominus Iesus document.
I still get a little confused when I run into articles about how the USCCB officially pronounced in 2002 that their is no need to evangelize Jews because they have a valid covenant with God already http://www.vermontparishes.org/catholicquestions/index.php?show=rightgrpexpn&question=7
I do understand the pressure to mend some of the pai nfrom mistakes we have made in the past toward them, but I still wonder how far to take it.
I would never feel a need to not evangelize a Jew or anybody because I truly believe that it is faith in Chrsit that is the most important thing that has the power to bring them salvation. I do undertsand that the church wants to distance herself from uncharitable attempts to appeal to the whole religion, but I wonder why not continue to affirm that we believe that accepting Jesus as messiah is precisely the challenge we want Jewish people to continue to consider. I believe that Pope Benedict has even participated in dialogues with well known Jews on the message.
I guess what I want o clarify is that the Jews who are going to be saved are still saved because of invincible ignorance that Jesus is the messiah. That if they were capable of knowing or denied the conviction of their heart that Jesus was indeed Messiah that they would be in a difficult position to be saved due to denying Christ. The bible seems to say that their is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved. To me this would also imply that there is no other coveneant. Salvation is by faith is Christ alone (or however possible it was for you to know Christ).
If their is not really different but asingle covenant, I would think that the conditions for entering it are the same for all. Not different for some people than another, but that the only excpetions come for those who simply are not fully aware of the truths. But not a separate system by which they may be saved.
I still think we need to realize the call to make disciples of all nations regaardless of who. Those who deny Christ, having had the opportunity to know Him I do not imagine will be better off for having been of any other particular religion.
I guess my issue is still that I have a difficult time resolving what is easy to accept in Dominus Iesus, and what is difficult to accpet in certain documents and statements made by American Bishops that seem to imply that there is no need for Jewish people to look for true salvation from our religion, even if we would not discourage individuals from joining the church.
I am not aganist Jewish people at all, and I do not want to decide who can go to heaven or not, but I do want to try to look for consistency in our theology especially with the Biblical texts and history of preaching Christ as the sole means of salvation.
So if we believe the Jews may be saved (which we do) is it because they are invisibly joined to our Church and their sins are atoned for by the blood of Jesus in the New Covenant (which I believe is the case) even if they fail to recognize it, or is it through following an older system (covenant) that is just fine to follow for them with no pressure to look for its fulfillment in Christ?
I could see that following the covenant they have to the best of their ability would be something that God could take into account to see how much they accepted what they were capable of accepting of the true gospel, but not that it as a system in and of itself is able to bring Salvation.
It is not as if Jesus or any of the apostles ever said something like 'if you want to be saved either accept the truth that Jesus is the Messiah and way to salvation and trust in Him,repent, and accept Baptism...or you can just continue to wait for who you think the messiah is and you will be saved anyway because you already have a valid covenant with God so there is no need to worry about the claims of Jesus if you don't want to.
I really have a hard time balancing this statement: The document states that “while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God” (p.8).
With this Bible passage in Romans 11.
13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them..... 17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
Note specically in verse 14 that Paul's deisire to entice them to envy and save them is impliyng that they will accept Jesus as Lord not find salvation through an alredy existing and valid covenant. And verse 20 clearly seems to say that because of unbelief they are grafted off. unbelief in what, Jesus I would assume. and verse 23 which says in my estimation that in order to be grafted in to the plan of salvation once more they will have to stop persisting in unbelief and believe in Jesus, which I believe is clear from chapter 10 verse 9 is the belief that Paul is hoping the Jews ill stop denying and accept.
(9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.)
Where do we see in this text an alrernative view where there is no need to accept Jesus as Lord in order to be saved? Therfore, I must conclude that if anyone who does not accept Jesus as Lord can only be saved through Christ and the Church and only because of invincible ignorance, and whatever religious beliefs that helped them to live a good and moral life only helped them in so much as it was the closest thing they had to the gospel and a shadow of the truth and freedom found in it which prepared them in whatever way it could to accept the mercy of God offered in Christ, but not as a separate and equally acceptable way of salvation.
The reason I think it is important is that I do not want to give a dangerous impresson to Jewish people who still have something to gain in accepting Jesus and possibly something to lose in denying Him by telling them what I do not see proclaimed in scripture, that is, that they are already in a saving relationship with God regarldess of what they think of Jesus. I also think that it potentially scandalizes those who are interested in our church but gives the impression that we are pluralistic even if we in other places clearly deny it. Teachings like this indeed made me more skeptical of joining the Catholic Church before I saw other documents that seemed to put them in more perspective. I am glad we believe salvation is possible 'for those who through no faul of their own do not know Christ or His church' but this is different han saying that they have are saved through a separate system and do not need to be evangelized, and can await another false messiah without being in a state of imperfect faith.
Last edited on Fri Sep 28th, 2007 05:28 am by brian
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 877 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 28th, 2007 11:22 am |
|
Carlus Magnus wrote: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors." - Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 11 "Cantate Domino", Feb. 4. 1442
Very interesting. And from a pope, no less. So, since Catholic doctrine cannot be changed, but only the wording conveying the doctrine refined, how does one reconcile what Pope Eugene IV said with what the USCCB said in 2002? "While the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving convenant with God." Seems to me, one really has to streeeetch the truth, and mince words, or lessen their meaning, in order to force these two views to agree. Is black, white and white, black?
How can Jews still have a saving convenant when the curtain of the temple was torn in two, and the Jews no longer even follow the Law or have sacrifices. I'm inclined to believe that the USCCB might have been in "La La Land" when they made their pronouncement. And I know that other Catholics spoke out against it.
So, where is the wise man and the scribe, the debator of this age (forum) who can help us out here? Thanks Brian for bringing this up again.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
hpj0828
Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 136 |
| First Name: | Henry | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Messianic Jewish believer |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 28th, 2007 03:48 pm |
|
Hi,
I did not respond to this citation because I preferred to ask the question off-line from a knowledgeable person. Here is the response which I received:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have encountered a number of Catholics who have shown me this quote from the Council of Florence, as if it is relevant for Hebrew Catholics in the Church today, or as if it represpresnts Church Doctrine. Neither is the case. One day, I or someone else will have to respond with an article refuting the interpretation these people give to this 15th century writing.
There are Catholics who function like Protestant fundamentalists. They take text out of context and use it to suit their purposes.
For now, I can only present some thoughts that I hope will convince you that their reading of Cantate Domino is not the same as the Magisterium.
First, Domino Cantate was a Bull of Union with the Copts. The Copts were Egyptian Catholics that Pope Eugenio was addressing in the attempt to reunite them with Rome. Thus, the very audience that the Bull addressed was a Gentile audience separated from Rome. Apparently, they had fallen under the influence of the Alexandrian Jews and had been circumcizing their infants. The Pope required that they cease this practice.
Second, however someone may read the language of this Bull and wish to generalize it to others than Copts, the language is one of discipline, not the formulation of doctrine. And discipline changes.
For instance:
The Church in the 20th century approved the new Community of the Beatitudes. This Community, almost completely composed of Catholics of Gentile origin, although the founder was a Hebrew Catholic, celebrates almost all of the Jewish feasts to one degree or another, including the Sabbath, and in Hebrew. They are an approved community in the Church.
Archbishop Burke, an orthodox and holy bishop, and an eminent Canon lawyer also serving in the court in Rome, celebrated the Passover Seder this year with us in our new facility. In fact, he invited us into his diocese.
Many parishes throughout the Church celebrate a parish-wide seder.
Since Vatican II, the Church has entered into an exploration of the mystery of Israel. There is are many changes in attitude and understanding
concerning the Jewish people and their heritage. Some old attitudes and understandings will take a while as it will take a while for the Church to formulate the fruit of its exploration. The AHC is here to contribute from
the perspective of Jews who have entered in the Church our Lord established.
By the way, about 300 years after Cantate Domino was issued, you can witness a major shift in discipline in this excerpt from Pope Benedict XIV, in 1756. This excerpt comes from section no. 67 of an encyclical entitled "Ex Quo". It seems to me this excerpt is a direct counter to the excerpt from Cantate Domino.
-----------
From section 67 ...
Certain schismatics have tried to calumniate the Latin church by saying that it judaizes by consecrating unleavened bread, observing the Sabbath, and retaining the anointing of kings among the sacred rites. But Leo Allatius counters their rash claim in his splendid work de perpetua consensione Ecclesiae Occidentalis et Orientalis, bk. 3, chap. 4. He refutes them particularly by arguing as follows: "Since Jews observe Sabbaths, a man who observes Sabbaths acts in Jewish fashion: therefore the man who does not eat the flesh of strangled animals acts in Jewish fashion since the Jews are forbidden by the Law to eat such food: but the Greeks do not eat such food: therefore, the Greek judaize" (loc. cit. n. 4). Then to Our purpose he concludes (n. 9) that it cannot be absolutely asserted that that man judaizes who does something in the Church which corresponds to the ceremonies of the old Law. "If a man should perform acts for a different end and purpose (even with the intention of worship and as religious ceremonies), not in the spirit of that Law nor on the basis of it, but either from personal decision, from human custom, or on the instruction of the Church, he would not sin, nor could he be said to judaize. So when a man does something in the Church which resembles the ceremonies of the old Law, he must not always be said to judaize."
-----------
Hopefully, this will clarify. 
Henry
Last edited on Fri Sep 28th, 2007 03:55 pm by hpj0828
____________________
HPJ
|
|
|
hpj0828
Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 136 |
| First Name: | Henry | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Messianic Jewish believer |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 28th, 2007 06:02 pm |
|
What is happening to the church?
As a Jewish person who believes that Jesus is the Messiah, I cannot imagine life without the salvation the Jesus has brought me. My whole life has been revolutionized in every dimension since I believed he is the Messiah promised to our people and dedicated my life to following his example.
I cannot imagine why the Roman Catholic Church does not want to reach Jews with the message of OUR Jewish Messiah.
I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood in a religiously mixed community. In the public schools, I was surrounded by Catholics. At the University, I was again surrounded by Catholics. In all this time, I only met two Catholics who even so much as mentioned the name of Jesus to me. (I am glad to say that this particular couple was a fine example of the Christian life!)
Why?
Fortunately for me, the world then had evangelical Protestants in it! In the early 1980s, two Taiwanese evangelicals led me into the wonderful knowledge of Jesus my Messiah!
Yet, over the last 25 years, I have watched a spiritual and moral deterioration in evangelical Protestantism around me. It appears to have calcified and become hypocritical. Sermons speak of a "personal relationship with God." So, why are almost all of those around me devoid of any sense of love, peace and joy? Where are the good works of love that should exist amongst all the arguments about theological orthodoxy? Evangelical publications speak of an almost universal concern that they are losing the entire generation of their youth. A respected missionary and evangelical Presbyterian scholar at Princeton Seminary advised me to go to the Catholic Church, because he saw American Protestantism as disintegrating in the 21st C!
I thought that things would be better in the Catholic Church, but my RCIA sponsor tells me that in our parish with 14K members enrolled, only 6K are present in weekly masses. Of these about 5% do all the lay work within the church. At my RCIA class, the leaders have warned me that once I leave the class, I should expect the pews to be filled with "Cafeteria Catholics" who are insincere in their lives and practices and callously indifferent to the holy mysteries of the Mass as it unfolds before their eyes.
What is happening to the church?
Recently, I read an article on the Association of Hebrew Catholics website. Fr. Elias Friedman O.C.D. related his views on a press interview with then Cardinal Ratzinger. Referring to the following Scriptures:
Lk 21:24 Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
Rom 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
Friedman concludes:
"Not only the Cardinal, Church leaders in general miss the point at issue when they blame “the others” for the post-conciliar disaster. They adopt an a priori position, that the Council can do no wrong, given that it is guided by the Holy Spirit, therefore, the fault lies with “others”. But the accusation laid at the feet of the Fathers of the Council is not any sin of commission, but a sin of omission. It consisted in not being able to offer the clergy an acceptable reading of the signs of the times. The apostasy of the Gentiles signifies that the primacy of honor which Europe has enjoyed for so long, has been withdrawn from them, by the Holy Spirit, which has withdrawn from them not only the faith, but the capacity to believe, so rendering the application of traditional apologetics inefficacious, as the Cardinal realizes. It is for this that God has provoked the Return of the Jews to their ancient homeland, to take over the mission of the Gentiles, which was to offer collective witness to the divinity of Christ. Their return to the land, precedes their return to Christ.
The Apostasy of the Gentiles and the Return of the Jews to their ancient homeland, seen together, represent the entry of the Church into a new phase in the history of salvation, an immense “jump” in the history of Christianity, pace the Cardinal. The Lord is cutting off the dried branches of the Gentiles to make place for the ingrafting of the Jews. In this way, the Lord will compensate the Jews for the horrors of the Holocaust, work of the apostate Gentiles and a demonstration of the death of the faith in their hearts and souls.
It is this vision which the Council failed to offer the faithful, especially the clergy. It invited them to update, to adapt to the modern world, without explaining the eschatological framework in which the modern world is held. For this fault of omission the Church has had to pay a heavy price."
Source: The Ratzinger Report by Fr. Elias Friedman, OCD http://hebrewcatholic.org/FaithandTheology/On-Apostasy/friedmanratzinge.html
Are we approaching an era when very unusual people will "carry the flag" for the church? Jewish believers in Jesus becoming evangelists? Missionaries from mainland China risking their lives to preach the gospel in closed Muslim nations, as well as in Israel itself? Muslim converts to Christianity becoming a new generation of godly souls, even martyrs? Protestants who convert to Roman Catholicism being a main life force within the Roman Catholic Church?
What does all this mean?
H.
____________________
HPJ
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 28th, 2007 10:58 pm |
|
God cannot violate God's own covenants. To do so would be a sin, and God is incapable of sin. Therefore, every covenant God has ever made is still in effect. When you see a rainbow in the sky, remember that God promised Noah that the world would never again be destroyed by flood. When you see the stars in the sky, remember that God promised the elderly Abraham and his barren wife Sarah that their desendents would outnumber the stars. And when you attend mass on Holy Thursday, remember that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and promised that if the Jews remained faithful, they would receive a land flowing with milk and honey that would be theirs forever. And of course, the ultimate covenant was presented to us by Jesus.
God cannot abrogate a covenant. Man can and does.
All humanity is the beneficiary of the covenant with Noah. All Muslims are descended from Abraham and are the beneficiaries of that covenant. All Jews are beneficiaries of the covenant with Moses. And all Christians are beneficiaries of the covenant of Jesus.
We evangelize them all. Jesus commanded us to preach the gospel to all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. However, our efforts at evangelization emphasize those who have not heard the word of God through the covenants of Jesus, Moses, or Abraham. Bl. Teresa of Calcutta evangelized through her ministry in the streets of Calcutta, where most are not subject to any of the three great covenants (Abraham, Moses, and Jesus). So our primary effort is to bring the gospel message to them, primarily by action.
Jews are eligible for salvation through God's covenant with Moses. We evangelize them because of Jesus' Great Commission. But in doing so, we recognize that they are already eligible for salvation through the covenant of Moses. Christians, however, are not.
Carlus Magnus quoted from Pope Eugene IV, "All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors." (Emphasis added.) It seems obvious to me from the context of the statement that this statement was directed at Christians who believed that works of the law could save them, just as they are salvific for Jews. This statement would condemn Seventh Day Adventists and other fringe Christians who express belief in the Sabbath rather than celebrate the day of the Resurrection, and those Christians who refuse to eat pork or shellfish, believing that these laws are necessary for salvation. It would not condemn Jews, because this is indeed the covenant under which God offered them salvation. But once the New Covenant has been accepted, a person would no longer be subject to the Old Covenant, and a Christian who believes that following the Old Covenant is necessary for salvation will be condemned for it.y
For centuries Jews complained of the burdens of the Covenant of Moses, so much that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for following the letter of the law and ignoring its spirit. They washed their hands according to a precise ritual while they hated their brothers and sisters. Jesus said that love was the greater command, and that the entire law was summed up in two: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. So Jesus said that washing your hands is useless for salvation if you don't have love in your heart.
But if a Jew is to expect salvation under the Old Covenant, he had better follow both the letter and spirit of the law precisely. Once he accepts belief in Jesus, he is freed because our Savior's "yoke is easy and [his] burden light".
Muslims are eligible for salvation not because of the Qu'ran, but because of the covenant with Abraham and the law of God written on their hearts. If they have enough faith to be willing to sacrifice their own beloved children on God's command (and not in a suicide bombing), then they may be saved. It is not the teaching of Mohammed that saves them, but the faith of Abraham. And those who are not descended from Abraham can be saved through God's promise to Noah, again by following the law of God written on their hearts. Matthew 25:31-46 does not mention faith. "Whatever you do to the least of my people, you do to me." God wrote love onto our hearts, and as long as we follow that law, we may be saved. It is easier for a Christian, and easier still for a Catholic, because we have specific instructions from Jesus and his Church on how to follow that law. Others have to figure it out on their own.
So the teaching of the Church has not changed. When St. Paul wrote to the Romans, Colossians, and others, he was writing to Christians, not Jews, He even said that when he talked to Jews he was a Jew (meaning he followed the laws of Moses) so that they would accept him. But he also acknowledged that his salvation would come from Jesus, not from his works. Even the Letter to the Hebrews was written to converts to Christianity.
So we have the covenant of Jesus which requires faith alive with action; the covenant of Moses, which requires observance; the covenant of Abraham, which requires obedience; and covenant of Noah, which requires love of all humanity. Each is easier to figure out than the one before it, and only one gives us ongoing guidance, and that is the New Covenant which is guided by the Kingdom of God on earth, the pilgrim Church.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29th, 2007 02:56 am |
|
If the catechsim already lists ways that those who suffer from invincible ignorance may be saved than why does it need to invent other explanations for groups of Jews and Moslems? I just find this too be a little difficult to take. The Romans passage clearly says that people who persist in unbelief are not in a saving relationship with God, and all the preaching to the Jews would not have been done with the same fervor were they already in a covenant that could save them. The law can not save. Why would Paul say that he would personally wish himself cursed if it meant the Jews coming into faith in Christ. Because their disbelief is a serious problem if they are capable of knowing who He is.
I maintain that these explanations are just ways that the church is trying to be political and show ways that we have things in common. But I think that Dominus Iesus makes it clear that there is nothing salvific about these other religions only that Christ saves and they are only saved because they mystically are grafted in to our Church and our covenant. Without Christ's blood cleansing them somehow they are not eligible for salvation as far as I could see it. I think we are simply trying to build bridges and point to common elements, for I do acknowledge that these people are unique heirs of true covenants. But I do not think that this guarantees them a way to salvation now that Chrsit has fulfilled all covenants in a most unique way. Anyway, I am not saying God would be a liar, but the covenant requires faithfulness on both parties to be binding, so if God does not offer salvation to anyone through an old covenant it is because they have failed to meet the requirements to love God and neighbor properly. But I am not concerned about if the covenant still exists, so much as how and why we believe these covenants aid them in salvation.
You say that Paul is writing to believers, and maybe so, but this verse sems to clearly be speaking of the problem that the Jewish people are not belieiving in Jesus and it says that are not grafted in, not that hey are still eligible for salvation under some other covenant. In order to get back in they need to believe. It seems clear that this verse speaks of them as grafted out of God's saving plan. The only thing I can say that may be different for Jews now is the same we say of the protestants which is that if they are born in a time and place where they had no opportunity to understand the fulness of these things than God can not judge them for causing schisms the same way he could the first generations of schismatics.
23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again
(emphasis mine) why would God need to graft something in again if it is already grafted in and always has been. I also wonder if these teachings are not part of our deposit of faith and something I am free to disagree about since they seem to me to be more theories in the interest of ecumenical dialogue and not part of an original depsoit of faith.
This is a quote from one of your posts, Rick. I think it should apply to all people of all covenants as the only way salvation is possible if they do not come to believe in Jesus...
You are not seeing the "whole picture". The Word of God (Jesus) is necessary for salvation for those who are aware. If God is just, then he cannot hold those people responsible who do not hold knowledge, including those whose knowledge of the Church is lacking or incomplete through no fault of their own.
See I do not want to even worry that much about the whole who has what covenant thing. I want to argue that the same rules apply for all. If they are aware of the truth of the Church than the only way for them to be saved is through entering the Church wheither moslem Jew or anyone. And if they choose not to than this could be a huge problem. And if they are not aware than they may achieve eternal salvation through whatever means they were able to understand and follow God, but only based on Christ. Because no flesh shall be justified by works of the law, if a Jew is saved I would think it is because he did the best he could to obey God and honor the covenant, but his sins were still forgiven because of Jesus and what he really was saved by was the faith he had in Jesus so much as he was able to understand it. He is not saved apart from Chrsit or because he was perfectly able to please God through some other agreement that does not depend on Jesus.
I can buy the theory of these people being saved through their covenants if coupled with the idea of invisible ignorance. That they were incapable of having truly known the saving work of Jesus Christ, or else they would enter the Church. And lastly, that it is still achieved through the salvific work and mercy of Christ and not because they earned salvation, but because they asked for mercy and tried to please God with their lives.
I can unsersatnd why we avoid evangelizing groups as a whole or with less than graceful approaches, but all individuals of all nations need to be evangelized in order for us to be faithful to Jesus' command.
Last edited on Sat Sep 29th, 2007 03:17 am by brian
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29th, 2007 04:13 pm |
|
brian wrote:
You are not seeing the "whole picture". The Word of God (Jesus) is necessary for salvation for those who are aware.
See I do not want to even worry that much about the whole who has what covenant thing. I want to argue that the same rules apply for all.
But that would be true only if the other covenants did not exist. A Jew is eligible for salvation under the covenant of Moses only if he has not accepted the New Covenant. However, he is not eligible under the covenant of Abraham, as he is not invincibly ignorant of the covenant of Moses. Presumably he is invincibly ignorant of the New Covenant.
Each person is eligible for salvation under the highest covenant they have accepted, whether that be the covenant of Noah in the case of pagans; the covenant of Abraham in the case of Muslims; the covenant of Moses in the case of Jews; the New Covenant of Jesus in the case of Christians; or the ongoing Sacramental Covenant offered by God through the Catholic Church. One who accepts and understands a higher covenant is held to that standard.
That doesn't mean all humanity is not called to the highest covenant, which is why Jesu | | |
