What does Catholicism have to do with Messianic Judaism????

[Open Heart]

I post all over CF. I post in the theology section, the ethics section, etc. If I want to talk about Catholic stuff, I don't post about it here. I don't see what it has to do with Messianic Judaism. I will post in OBOB, or in one of the other appropriate forums such as Mariology.

Yet when I come in here, there is always a thread or two going about the Catholic church or the pope (and not usually a nice one). Why? Why HERE?

I don't think it's appropriate to the forum. It's not in the rules, and there's nothing I do about it. But I can have my say, and my say is this: I wish you'd take it to the proper forum and leave it out of MJ.

 

[pat34lee]

The Pope and RCC are part of current events. It would be difficult to ignore them entirely. As to unfavorable views of both, that is where seventeen centuries of history come in.

 

[Open Heart]

The Pope and RCC are part of current events. It would be difficult to ignore them entirely. As to unfavorable views of both, that is where seventeen centuries of history come in.

We went through this with Hoshiyya over the Jews in American history thread. If it has direct bearing on Jewish stuff, then yeah it is of interest to the MJ forum. You wanna talk about Catholic dialogue with Jews? Go right ahead. Hey, we can talk about how Rome is in formal dialogue with the Hashivenu crowd... Otherwise, its not relevant to the forum.

 

[ContraMundum]

I post all over CF. I post in the theology section, the ethics section, etc. If I want to talk about Catholic stuff, I don't post about it here. I don't see what it has to do with Messianic Judaism. I will post in OBOB, or in one of the other appropriate forums such as Mariology.

Yet when I come in here, there is always a thread or two going about the Catholic church or the pope (and not usually a nice one). Why? Why HERE?

I don't think it's appropriate to the forum. It's not in the rules, and there's nothing I do about it. But I can have my say, and my say is this: I wish you'd take it to the proper forum and leave it out of MJ.

There is a thread of old-fashioned (outdated) Protestant anti-Catholicism in Christians who regard themselves as "outsiders" and prophecy watchdogs. It is not uncommon for those people to align themselves with a kind of independent MJism, and I think we have a few of that type of poster here. In fact, most of the MJ groups I have visited over the years seem to be fly paper for "outsider" and watchdog people. They never seem to stick around long in any single fellowship though. I think it's a spiritual/psychological issue.

 

[ContraMundum]

The Pope and RCC are part of current events. It would be difficult to ignore them entirely. As to unfavorable views of both, that is where seventeen centuries of history come in.

I see the influence of the RCC and in particular the Pope as wildly (and I mean wildly) exaggerated by people tainted by the brush of teachers like Alexander Hislop (and let's face it- all modern anti-RC'ism is essentially his stuff regurgitated- even if you have never heard of him. Mud sticks and bad report travels far) and let's face it, in most countries- who cares what the RCC says, does or teaches? Most Catholics don't. If it wasn't for the current scandals, no one would bat a eyelid. Sure, maybe there is influence in predominantly RC nations like Spain and Italy, but in the world...nah.

 

[Ken Rank]

I see the influence of the RCC and in particular the Pope as wildly (and I mean wildly) exaggerated by people tainted by the brush of teachers like Alexander Hislop (and let's face it- all modern anti-RC'ism is essentially his stuff regurgitated- even if you have never heard of him.

Well said... most of the claims made today are bogus claim that began by pseudo-scholars who wrote books or in blogs and made something SOUND so good it was believed by people who weren't trained in verifying historical data and thus we end up with an internet full of parrots, just mindlessly repeating what they hear! That isn't to say I think the RCC has it all correct, or wrong... same goes for the Protestant world and Judaism for that matter. But, fair is fair and we need to use good methods when it comes to linguistic or historical claims to prove or disprove a thing or we really have no right to even open our mouths!

 

[Open Heart]

There is a thread of old-fashioned (outdated) Protestant anti-Catholicism in Christians who regard themselves as "outsiders" and prophecy watchdogs. It is not uncommon for those people to align themselves with a kind of independent MJism, and I think we have a few of that type of poster here. In fact, most of the MJ groups I have visited over the years seem to be fly paper for "outsider" and watchdog people. They never seem to stick around long in any single fellowship though. I think it's a spiritual/psychological issue.

Well, I find it odd. My personal real life experience with Messianic Judaism was with the Hashivenu crowd, who have an official dialogue going with Rome. In fact, I think I remember a post here in MJ about a UMJC rabbi collaborating with a Catholic priest.

 

[Norbert L]

I post all over CF. I post in the theology section, the ethics section, etc. If I want to talk about Catholic stuff, I don't post about it here. I don't see what it has to do with Messianic Judaism. I will post in OBOB, or in one of the other appropriate forums such as Mariology.

Yet when I come in here, there is always a thread or two going about the Catholic church or the pope (and not usually a nice one). Why? Why HERE?

I don't think it's appropriate to the forum. It's not in the rules, and there's nothing I do about it. But I can have my say, and my say is this: I wish you'd take it to the proper forum and leave it out of MJ.

There are legitimate issues of contention between MJ and RC. on how people should follow Yeshua. Look in the CCC:

2175 "Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:

Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death"

 

[ContraMundum]

There are legitimate issues of contention between MJ and RC. on how people should follow Yeshua. Look in the CCC:

2175 "Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:

Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death"

Yeah, but the good point is that the RCC never denies that the Sabbath falls on the last day of the week- Saturday. It obviously distinguishes Sunday from the Sabbath and states that everything is fulfilled in Christ. Which to me always points to a weak point in modern MJism- which states that everything is fulfilled in Christ except the Sabbath- which Christians have to fulfill. Pretty mixed up I think. The RC position is far more Christocentric and reverent.

So, while there are issues of contention, I don't think that was the point of OH's OP. She's more concerned with the nutty conspiracy stuff that is basically Catholic-bashing. It's the propagation of ignorant, inaccurate and poorly discerned lashon hara that she is concerned with as I understand. Such watery and nebulous slander does nothing to serve the greater good of the community of God. It should be debated in other forums.

 

[Ken Rank]

There are legitimate issues of contention between MJ and RC. on how people should follow Yeshua. Look in the CCC:

2175 "Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:

Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death"

The problem with that statement is "the Lord's Day" is not Sunday. The term was used in the Prophets ("The Day of the Lord") in dealing with end time events and thus when John, in Revelation, uses the term... he is not denoting "Sunday," he is drawing on a phrase understood by his contemporaries to be dealing with end time events. And so, there he sat, in the Spirit viewing the end time events and recording them. After the first century and once the weight shifted from the faith being more or less a sect of Judaism to distinguishing itself as a new religion, Greek philosophy entered and thus so too did the spiritualization of many things including the day of the resurrection which CULTURALLY was called, "The Lord's Day." So, he raised on Sunday and non-Jewish believers began to call that day the Lord's Day... and on the authority of the church and NOT Scripture... they shifted the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.

"It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church." Priest Brady, in an address reported in the Elizabeth, NJ News on March 18, 1903

"Protestants ... accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change... But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that ... in observing Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the Church, the pope." Our Sunday Visitor, February 5, 1950

"The [Roman Catholic] Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant, claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh-day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant." The Catholic Universe Bulletin, August 14, 1942, p. 4

So here are a few of many claims I can share proving that even the RCC acknowledges the change was their doing and not Scripture. And when did they do this?


The council of Laodicea states in cannon 29:

"Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ."

It took a decree AND the threat of ex-communication, to shift the church away from the Sabbath. We were then born 1600 years later into a culture that saw Sunday as the Christian Sabbath and we simply don't even know the was a question to ask.

* As a side note... if they had to pass a decree, then clearly there were enough Christians still honoring the Sabbath that a decree was even necessary.

 

[ContraMundum]

The problem with that statement is "the Lord's Day" is not Sunday. The term was used in the Prophets ("The Day of the Lord") in dealing with end time events and thus when John, in Revelation, uses the term... he is not denoting "Sunday," he is drawing on a phrase understood by his contemporaries to be dealing with end time events. And so, there he sat, in the Spirit viewing the end time events and recording them. After the first century and once the weight shifted from the faith being more or less a sect of Judaism to distinguishing itself as a new religion, Greek philosophy entered and thus so too did the spiritualization of many things including the day of the resurrection which CULTURALLY was called, "The Lord's Day." So, he raised on Sunday and non-Jewish believers began to call that day the Lord's Day... and on the authority of the church and NOT Scripture... they shifted the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.

"It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church." Priest Brady, in an address reported in the Elizabeth, NJ News on March 18, 1903

"Protestants ... accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change... But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that ... in observing Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the Church, the pope." Our Sunday Visitor, February 5, 1950

"The [Roman Catholic] Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant, claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh-day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant." The Catholic Universe Bulletin, August 14, 1942, p. 4

So here are a few of many claims I can share proving that even the RCC acknowledges the change was their doing and not Scripture. And when did they do this?


The council of Laodicea states in cannon 29:

"Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ."

It took a decree AND the threat of ex-communication, to shift the church away from the Sabbath. We were then born 1600 years later into a culture that saw Sunday as the Christian Sabbath and we simply don't even know the was a question to ask.

* As a side note... if they had to pass a decree, then clearly there were enough Christians still honoring the Sabbath that a decree was even necessary.

Oh gosh, where to start?

I don't think "The Lord's Day" has any singular definition in scripture. I think squeezing the NT usage into one single prophetic usage seems a little out of context. Furthermore, the testimony of the early Christians is in tandem with the traditional understanding, and the idea that it is purely a reference to the prophetic end-times I have yet to see taught by the ancients. Please understand that I put ancient consensus way above modern speculations and assertions. They decided on and gave us the canon after all.

Secondly, the Council of Laodicea is not an ecumenical council. It was only a local council. Therefore its canons are not binding on the whole church, and have never been regarded as speaking for the whole church. What its canons testify sheds no light on whether or not Sunday was being introduced as a new day of worship or whether or not it was merely codifying the prevailing practice of the congregations. History pretty much answers that for us- Sunday was a day of worship even in NT times. We find no time in history where Sunday worship is not practiced. Sabbath worship (but not necessarily Sabbath keeping) is also found in some communities. Clearly the day of worship was an adiaphoron in the ancient Church but there was obviously a false teaching about it in the region of Laodicea that the local council needed to address. When praxis effects the witness of the Church it may be adjusted to clarify that witness.

In other words, when a part of the church starts to create a new doctrine around what is clearly adiaphora (eg. Rom. 14 type things) then the ancients would often make a halachic ruling that strengthened the opposite position. In this case, clearly some people had begun to teach that the only legal time to worship God was on the Sabbath, thus violating the authority of Christ and the scriptures. The response was rather an example of Newton's law- the action created an equal but opposite reaction- Sabbath keeping was ruled out in protection of the principles outlined in the scriptures eg Rom 14. Both positions equally wrong. However, the canons of Laodicea were never regarded as either universally binding or infallible dogma. Nor can it be proven that they bring in a new theological innovation. Only half-witted modern "scholars" make such absurd and baseless assertions. Those modern spirits have a lot of influence in the Messianic movement, sadly.

 

[visionary]

Any time you try to figure out Revelation as it relates to today's powerhouses of influence whether it is in politics, religion, or finance, you are trying to connect who would behave like the beast described, the harlot potrayed, the kings, the image of the beast, the false prophet, etc.... Revelation is an MJ subject... therefore anyone deemed possible player in the end game, are up for review on how they could possible be the one who fits the description. We know it will happen as portrayed in Revelation. We know we are in the end times when it all will go literal, on appointed time, and with swiftness, and we sure do not want to be caught drinking the wine cup of abominations.

 

[outsidethecamp]

Any time you try to figure out Revelation as it relates to today's powerhouses of influence whether it is in politics, religion, or finance, you are trying to connect who would behave like the beast described, the harlot potrayed, the kings, the image of the beast, the false prophet, etc.... Revelation is an MJ subject... therefore anyone deemed possible player in the end game, are up for review on how they could possible be the one who fits the description. We know it will happen as portrayed in Revelation. We know we are in the end times when it all will go literal, on appointed time, and with swiftness, and we sure do not want to be caught drinking the wine cup of abominations.

When you hear: it is pre, mid, post, a, or pan, don't take the "mark," it is "time, time and half a time," and you can't get through the next hour, It is time to get back to Jesus alone ...

 

[ContraMundum]

Any time you try to figure out Revelation as it relates to today's powerhouses of influence whether it is in politics, religion, or finance, you are trying to connect who would behave like the beast described, the harlot potrayed, the kings, the image of the beast, the false prophet, etc.... Revelation is an MJ subject... therefore anyone deemed possible player in the end game, are up for review on how they could possible be the one who fits the description. We know it will happen as portrayed in Revelation. We know we are in the end times when it all will go literal, on appointed time, and with swiftness, and we sure do not want to be caught drinking the wine cup of abominations.

Why did the early Christians equate the things you equate with the RCC with the Roman Empire? For me, that's obvious. It fit the bill perfectly. The prophecies came true. Now, we are in serious danger of engaging in confirmation bias when we try to find something to fit into our interpretation of a very difficult book. I'll go with the ancients.

 

[visionary]

Why did the early Christians equate the things you equate with the RCC with the Roman Empire? For me, that's obvious. It fit the bill perfectly. The prophecies came true. Now, we are in serious danger of engaging in confirmation bias when we try to find something to fit into our interpretation of a very difficult book. I'll go with the ancients.

We are still here, so obviously all of Revelation has not yet come to pass. Time to rethink the old view.

 

[pat34lee]

When you hear: it is pre, mid, post, a, or pan, don't take the "mark," it is "time, time and half a time," and you can't get through the next hour, It is time to get back to Jesus alone ...

Not really. He is "the way, the truth and the life" but not the goal.
What is the rest of that quote? "No man comes to the Father but through me."
Christianity tends to promote Yeshua to God and demote Yahweh to a background figure.

 

[outsidethecamp]

Not really. He is "the way, the truth and the life" but not the goal.
What is the rest of that quote? "No man comes to the Father but through me."
Christianity tends to promote Yeshua to God and demote Yahweh to a background figure.

Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

1Jn_5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

 

[Norbert L]

Yeah, but the good point is that the RCC never denies that the Sabbath falls on the last day of the week- Saturday. It obviously distinguishes Sunday from the Sabbath and states that everything is fulfilled in Christ. ...

So, while there are issues of contention, I don't think that was the point of OH's OP. ...

It should be debated in other forums.

"Yet when I come in here, there is always a thread or two going about the Catholic church or the pope (and not usually a nice one). Why? Why HERE?"

Given the choice of words and I would admit I'm not always clear in my own comments, it seemed to me that it included all comments about RCC with emphasis towards those that are not nice.

And when it comes to that specific teaching in the CCC. Yes, I understand the RCC knows the Sabbath falls on the seventh day, I also believe Christians are free to follow the biblical example of assembling on the first day. However I believe the ecclesiastical authority to make the decision of replacing the 7th day with the first ended with the 12 apostles and Paul. They made no such requirement. That any future generation (no matter how immediate) of believers have much more limited authority, which is similar to a statement in Galatians 1, "Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead) ". There is an ancient church who are only successors of men.

Why did the early Christians equate the things you equate with the RCC with the Roman Empire? For me, that's obvious. It fit the bill perfectly. The prophecies came true. Now, we are in serious danger of engaging in confirmation bias when we try to find something to fit into our interpretation of a very difficult book. I'll go with the ancients.

The way I see it. Given the political climate of the time, the literal life and death problems with Judea and the resulting wars. Include a message that there was another king than Caesar called Yeshua; the cultural pressures of their time would also lead them to create a confirmation bias of their own.

 

[ContraMundum]

We are still here, so obviously all of Revelation has not yet come to pass. Time to rethink the old view.

The old view is still ok, actually. Not all things in Revelation have come to pass. A newer view says that nothing in Revelation has come to pass.

 

[outsidethecamp]

The old view is still ok, actually. Not all things in Revelation have come to pass. A newer view says that nothing in Revelation has come to pass.

Single best treatise I have ever read on the book of Revelation: Jesus: Victor Over Religion