No Final Agreement Yet Between the Holy See and Israel

[thereselittleflower]

Sadly, going back on promises has occurred with other groups as well. With the Israel's Bedouins being under persecution due to their settlements being erased and them herded in, it's a pity to see how much of the situation in the Middle East is ignored. before, many become focused on Palestinians vs Jews and yet not one considers the other groups in the conflict. The plight of Israel's Bedouins being under persecution due to their settlements being erased and them herded in is one primary example - and it's a pity to see how much of the situation in the Middle East is ignored.

For other places:

• Agriculture in Palestine
• Bedouin-Jewish Justice in Israel
• Israel’s environmental colonialism and eco-apartheid (Links)
• 'Turning Bedouin village into Jewish settlement is racist'
• Bedouins lament police brutality against kids - Israel News, Ynetnews
• Bedouin's plight: 'We want to maintain our traditions. But it's a dream
• Israel's Bedouins fight for their way of life | Middle East | DW.DE ...
• Isn't it true that Palestine was destitute until Israelis made its desert bloom?
• Palestinians made the desert bloom before the Israelis got there: THE JEWISH CHRONICLE ONLINE

There are other Jewish scholars on the issue that've often dealt with the issue in-depth. One of them is Israel Shahak, who was a a Polish-born Holocaust survivor and Israeli professor of chemistry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has done a lot of work addressing the ways that life existed before the formation of the Israeli state - including the myth that the land was not developed well by the Arabs/Jews who lived throughout it for a good bit.

A book that was written by a former Zionist Ashkenazi Jew speaks about the discriminatory treatment the Sephardic Jews experience at hands of the Ashkenazi Jews in Israel. He married one, and contrary to all his expectations when he emigrated to Israel from America, saw up close and first hand how the sephardic jews are treated as second class citizens, subjected to discrimination and mistreatement as inferiors.

This work can be found online - here is just one example:

The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel (1984)

The powerful Zionist propaganda machine has led the American people to believe that a Jew is a
Jew -- one race of people and that they are "God's Chosen People". I will deal with the "God's Chosen
People" LIE later. First, it is important for you to understand that Jews are NOT one race of
people.

There are two distinct groups of Jews in the world and they come from two different areas of the
world -- the Sephardic Jews from the Middle East and North Africa and the Ashkenazi Jews come
from Eastern Europe. The Sephardic is the oldest group and it is they, if any, who are the Jews
described in the Bible because they lived in the area described in the Bible. They are blood relatives
to the Arabs -- the only difference between them is the religion.

The Ashkenazi Jews, who now compromise 90% of the Jews in the world, had a rather strange
beginning. According to historians, many of them Jewish, the Ashkenazi Jews came into existence
about 1200 years ago. It happened this way:

At the eastern edge of Europe, there lived a tribe of people know as the Khazars. About the year 740
A.D., the Khazar king and his court decided they should adopt a religion for their people. So,
representatives of the three major religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, were invited to present
their religious doctrines. The Khazars chose Judaism, but it wasn't for religious reasons. If the
Khazars had chosen Islam, they would have angered the strong Christian world. If they had chosen
Christianity, they would have angered the strong Islamic world. So, they played it safe -- they chose
Judaism. It wasn't for religious reasons the Khazars chose Judaism; it was for political reasons.

Sometime during the 13th century, the Khazars were driven from their land and they migrated
westward with most of them settling in Poland and Russia. These Khazars are now known as
Ashkenazi Jews. Because these Khazar Ashkenazi Jews merely chose Judaism, they are not really
Jews - at least not blood Jews.

Throughout their history, these Polish and Russian Ashkenazi Jews practiced communism/socialism
and worked to have their ideas implemented in these countries.

By the late 1800s significant numbers of these communist/socialist Jews were found in Germany, the
Balkans and eventually all over Europe. Because of their interference in the social and governmental
affairs of Russia, they became the target of persecution by the Czars. Because of this, migration of
these communist/socialist oriented Jews began. Some went to Palestine; some to Central and South
America; and a large number of them came to the U.S.

Political Zionisim is Born



In 1897, the First Zionist Congress was held in Basle, Switzerland. At this Congress, it was decided to
work toward the establishment of a Jewish state and a search for land on which to build this Jewish
state began. Great Britain offered the Zionists land in Africa. This the Zionists rejected: they
wanted Palestine!

At the time, Palestine was inhabited by a half a million Palestinian Arabs and a few Palestinian Jews
who are blood related and who had lived together in peace for centuries. With Palestine as their
choice for a homeland, European Ashkenazi Jews began migrating to Palestine. As I explained
earlier, most were communist/socialist oriented with some of them being radical Bolshevik
communists whose aim is world domination.

So when you think of Jews, especially as related to Israel, keep in mind that there is a great
difference between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews. They are not one united people. They are
divided socially, politically and especially racially. Now, back to Ziva, a Sephardic Jewess and I an
Ashkenazi Jew, and our lives in the so-called democratic country of Israel.

Sephardic Jews -- Second Class Citizens

For the first three years of our marriage, it was necessary for us to live with Ziva's aunt. This was
because of the critical housing shortage in Israel and because of racism. Housing is allotted as
follows:

• Ashkenazi Jews who have lived in Israel for many years are given first choice.

• Second in line are Ashkenazi Jews from Europe -- especially if they are married or marry an
Israel-born Ashkenazi Jew.

• The next favored are Ashkenazi Jews from the U.S. -- especially if they marry an Israeli born
Ashkenazi.

• Sephardic Jews have the next choice of whatever housing is left.

• At the bottom of the list are Moslems, Druze and Christians.

Opportunities for employment follow the same pattern: Ashkenazi Jews get the choicest jobs,
Sephardic Jews next, and Moslem, Druze and Christians fill the menial jobs with a great many left
unemployed. Even through I was an Ashkenazi Jew from the U.S., I was placed lower on the list for
housing because I married a Sephardic Jewess.

Being denied housing was my second experience of the intense racism that exist in Israel. From the
very beginning of my arrival in Israel, many slurs were yelled at me. We American Jews were merely
being tolerated. Because Israel, to survive, must depend on gifts of American Jews and the sale of
worthless Israeli Bonds in America, there is jealousy among the elite Israeli Ashkenazi Jews toward
American Jews, even if the American Jews are also Ashkenazi. Many times I was told, "Go Home!"
and, "We want your money, but not you."

However, there was a portion of the American Jews who were welcome and given favored treatment.


Full text of "The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel"
​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

A book that was written by a former Zionist Ashkenazi Jew speaks about the discriminatory treatment the Sephardic Jews experience at hands of the Ashkenazi Jews in Israel. He married one, and contrary to all his expectations when he emigrated to Israel from America, saw up close and first hand how the sephardic jews are treated as second class citizens, subjected to discrimination and mistreatement as inferiors.

This work can be found online - here is just one example:

The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel (1984)

The powerful Zionist propaganda machine has led the American people to believe that a Jew is a
Jew -- one race of people and that they are "God's Chosen People". I will deal with the "God's Chosen
People" LIE later. First, it is important for you to understand that Jews are NOT one race of
people.
​

Thanks for the reference. I don't agree (nor see a lot of evidence) for the thought that Askhenazi Jews are simply others who chose Judaism rather than being of Jewish descent - nor do I hold the stance that all things Marxist (or Socialist ) are negative since many wonderful Jewish believers have held to such for valid reasons...and there are other articles on the issue I'd be glad to give out if interested. Nonetheless, I do see where Ashkenazi have more influence than others - and the Sephardic and Ashkenazi have an interesting relationship with one another which many are not certain of. A lot of the media portrayls are connected to economic conditions when it comes to economic aid given to Israel/making it out as if it's being given to the people it claimed resources were for - and yet behind the scenes, the finances never reach their destinations while the image that's fabricated is used to gain more economic aid and less investigation.

And in addition to ignoring the use of economic inequalities, people choose not to examine cultural inequalities and the background behind it. Others do not consider that the Israeli State was not formed with all Jews being equal - as the European Jews were the ones who came in dominance when the government was formed (right after the beginning of the Holocaust)....and the image of Jews being persecuted distracted from addressing the ways that Palestinians were harmed around the world. It also distracted from addressing the reality that many Jews witnessed when seeing other Jewish groups discriminating against one another (including those who were African Jews/Black Jews and yet never remembered due to the stigmas others had toward Jews of Color since white privelage was something that many Jewish groups took advantage of in the U.S/Europe).

There are many who are Jewish and yet fitting the depictions given..

​

​

For those who are followers of Yeshua/identify with him as a Jew, it is no small matter when those same people are told by others that Yeshua nor the Jewish people in the scriptures could've ever looked like them..even as they're told that he could've looked like the European Jews that are the dominant group in Israel and the prominent face coming to mind whenever others think on persecution of the Jewish people, from the Holocaust to Pogroms and many other things.

There were a lot of people who've noted the issue for decades when it came to all the Caucasian Jews who were harmed in the Holocaust. However, for anyone being historically honest on the facts, there was NO such cry when it came to the Black Jews (Afro-Germans as well) who were also harmed in the Holocaust (more shared here in #279 )...and not surprisingly, seeing that in the times not many were concerned for the affairs of black culture (the entire basis behind the Civil Rights era) and mostly everything black was despised while all things white were praised. Again, many blacks died in the Holocaust alongside others (more discussed here and here ), yet not many seemed to care about it in the times they lived in since being black wasn't a real concern for most of the world dominated by colonial thought/Euro-centric superiority.

Others have often been skeptical on the issue of Black/African Jews dying in the Holocaust..but it is reasonable that since there were limited Black Africans in most of Europe then, and fewer still that were Jewish, and that the Nazi's were out to exterminate Blacks as well as Jews, being both, (especially one of which you could not conceal), lowered your odds of surviving exponentionally. So highly likely the few there probably were, were some of the first exterminated.

You'll often hear of the Jews in Germany/Europe wiped out during the Holocaust in those areas...but what you don't often see is that during the North African campaign, 17 Concentration camps were establihed in places like Morocco, Libya , Algeria and Tunisi...directly impacting African Jews. This enterprise was a labor camp and no extermination camps were in place in North Africa. Jews living in those areas were rounded up, tortured and executed..and anyone being there in those places is aware of the Jews present who are dark-skinned in those areas (especially those who are Berber Jews)..just as there are light-skinned Jews there as well. The small numbers, did not mean that "African Jews" were not a part of the Holocaust.

​

​

For Black Jews who were mistreated in the U.S, if they recieved flack for being black/Jewish, no one would take them seriously on many sides---DESPITE the heritage being plain (more discussed here ). Part of that often had to do with others having stereotypes of what being "Jewish" was about since others often felt Jews were European or looked white---and there was ALOT of hatred toward that which was black that was evidenced by the ignoral of times blacks were wiped out (discussed here).

Many felt as if they didn't really have a voice on any side.

To be Jewish in the 1960s/earlier was not something you came out with openly/declared expecting to not be harrassed...and it was one of the reasons many white Jews were able to blend in with the dominant culture/get by and didn't bring up their Jewish ancestry.

And for those in the U.S, it was significant that many Jews were discriminated against in the nation with all types of demeaning names/mistreatment---yet for those who were biracial/black Jews, they were often not even considered a part of the equation since many Jewish communities told them they couldn't be Jewish due to buying into the error that all Jews looked European...something which sadly has been known to still continue to this day and it's an issue many Jewish communties have sought to fight against when it comes to ignorance of what it means to be Jewish and addressing the ways others fight against certain depictions of Jews while accepting/praising others.


For examples of where this is STILL happening...

• Eli Yishai Stoned By Haredim | Rosh Pina Pronect
• Christians harassed and spat upon in Jerusalem
• Call to blacklist Ethiopian Messianic Jews - Rosh Pina Project
• Racism against black Messianics in Israel -Rosh Pina Project

With economics and issues of mess within the camp, the Jerusalem Post attempted to tackle the thorny issue of disrimination of Sefardi Jews in the Haredi world by Ashkenazim- (i.e. European Jews, the main ones who came back to Israel during the Holocaust/got majority control)--as Ha’aretz thinks that Haredi arrogance is a result of Israeli governmental apathy in allowing another school system to flourish outside its control. To clarify, For those who do not know, "Sefardi Jews" are Jews who define themselves in terms of the Jewish customs and traditions which originated in the Iberian Peninsula (i.e. Modern Spain and Portugal) before the expulsion of Jews from that area in the late 15th century ( 1490's ) (after Islam was replaced by Christianity as the governing religion), and usually defined in contrast to Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews. They are an extremely fascinating group which I've enjoyed learning of over the years, alongside other Jewish groups of course (i.e. Ethopian Jews, Black Jews, etc)---as its cool to see the cultural diversity within the Jewish community.


In World War II, Sephardim in Europe suffered the same fate as other Jews, and most perished during the Holocaust. In a few places, such as Holland, they received some preferential treatment, meaning they were among the last to be liquidated. After the establishment of the State of Israel, conditions for Jews in many Islamic countries grew increasingly uncomfortable and, in some cases, their lives were threatened.

In the 1950's and 1960's, tens of thousands of Sephardic Jews fled from North Africa and other countries in the Middle East to settle in Israel, usually being forced by the Muslim authorities to leave behind most of their worldly possessions. Once they came to Israel, most of the Sephardic immigrants were put in transit camps and became dependent on welfare. The conditions in these camps were very bad and it was difficult for the newcomers to work their way out of the lower rung of Israeli society because they had less education than the established Ashkenazic community. Consequently, many worked in blue-collar professions. Today, tensions remain between Ashkenazim and Sephardim in Israel because of the poor treatment the latter received and the long, difficult road Sephardic Jews have had to travel to approach parity in society. Though they have not yet achieved equality, Sephardic Jews increasingly occupy positions of prestige and influence. Moroccan-born David Levy, for example, has served as foreign minister and, in July 2000, Iranian-born Moshe Katsav was elected president.

With that said, hopefully the reader can better understand the factors behind the tensions Sephardi Jews have had with European Jews...and why its a big deal today with the Sephardi Jews being greatly agitated with the rulling classes telling them how to raise their children

The issue of how Sephardi Jews are struggling again is s one dealing very much with those who are Ultra Orthodox---for during the formation of the State of Israel, the Haredi Jews were given extensive control of the educational systems in Israel. When it came to Zionists establishing Israel initially, the Zionists saw the Haredi Jews as "primitives" ...and to the Haredi, the Zionists were tyrannical/not knowing how to handle the very people they claimed to love. They still had to work together on some things...for in the days of the British Mandate in Palestine, there was a "status quo," , granting political authority (such as control over public institutions, the army, etc.) to the Zionists while religious authority (i.e. control over marriage, divorce, conversions, etc.) was given to the Orthodox. There was a compromise on the issue that came about before statehood went down for Israel, worked out by Labor Zionist leader Berl Katznelson, which ensured that public institutions accommodated the Orthodox by observing the Sabbath/ providing kosher food.

I think the issue touches on a myriad of levels, most of them similar to what often went down in certain minority communities when one dominant group did not respect the smaller one...and demanded the smaller to send their children to the dominant schools, with the smaller ones saying they had the right to raise their children however they wished----especially when it seems their own cultural views/heritiages are not respected anyway in the dominant schools.

Some examples coming to mind would be things like the BOARDING schools that many American Indians were sent to---and that told them it was "evil" for them to be American Indian/promote aspects of that culture (i.e. speaking in tribal language, using drums for worship, etc)...with many American Indians now being distrustful of schools where they're not in control.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

"Hitler's Pope," came from a fraudulent piece of work by the author John Cornwell, who fabricated the story about having read the secret letters between Pope Pius XII and Hitler.

Rabbi David G. Dalin, refuted Cornwell's accusation in his book, "The Myth of Hitler's Pope."

FYI, the Jews who praised Pius XII for saving thousands of Jews during the Holocaust, include Golda Meir, and the Jewish Counsel in Rome, along with countless other members of Jewish publications and organzations.

Thanks for noting this, as it is sad whenever others seem to continue that myth and act as if no popes ever aided the Jewish people

 

[Zeek]

Been reading some of your links Gxg, and listening to Chacour...I think you ahve given me food for thought on some issues. I did know the Ethiopians were oppressed by some, but if what I have read here is true, then it goes way beyond a small minority.

I also know some of the Haredim can display very unpleasant religious bigotry , and have Messianic friends who are constantly hassled on an almost daily basis...but although not excusing it, I have settled that some of these diverse groups are not reflective of the society as a whole, and certainly not encouaged by the government, although being a coalition they make some strange bed-fellows.

Its funny,(not haha) I have many friends in Israel, I have lived in Galilee, Jerusalem and been all over the place and visit whenever I can...but the vast majority of antagonism I have experienced and my friends (who seem fairly objective) tell a different story, and my experiences on the street in the UK trying to counter some of the Pro-Pal activism, re-inforces what I have seen and experienced for myself.

I have a Jewish friend that I am gradually warming to, and he is very much for reconciliation (much in line with what bro A was doing in Gaza), but I am far more cautious simply because I have been conned too many times in the past, and feel that to a large extent there is a Moslem/Pal incentive to garner support from the West because we are easy targets for their stories....the vast majority of which are often not their story, but the story of a friend of a friend.

Anyway, thanks as always for some of the stuff you have painstaking put together, you know I appreciate your patience and your good heart, even when strongly disagreeing with you about some things...and I hope you find in me someone who is always willing to reevaluate and weigh up pertinent reliable evidence.

Most of the way I communicate is straight from the heart, I just don't have the time to source everything and give chapter and verse unless it is especially poignant.

In Him. Zazal

 

[thereselittleflower]

I more than understand where you're coming from - for the fulfillment of all prophesy is solely in Christ/Yeshua ...the Promised Seed ( more discussed on the issue before here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and other places).



As said elsewhere, there was a good review on the issue with some good illustrations as well - from Israel and the Church - What's the Relationship?/Israel and the Church - Hebrew for Christians ..on the concept of Remnant Theology:

​

​

It seems more than Biblical to understand that Remnant Theology is the best way for understanding the scriptures - as Remnant Theology understands that the Church is "grafted in" or "in-placed" within remnant Israel, and not the other way around -- i.e., remnant Israel is NOT understood to be placed within the Church

Unfotunately, this is where we get into the problem of saying what is biblical and what is not biblical in a congregational forum where the concepts of what is and is not biblical are different than another congregational forums concepts.

To say in OBOB that, as fact, something is not biblical which we hold to be bliblical on OUR congregational forum is to, in effect, state as fact that the particular beliefs OUR congregational forum are wrong - and to do so IN OUR congregational forum.

This is just something way too much of is being done by our messianic friends in our forum. I for one would like to see such absolute statements stating or implying the Catholic Church is in error in Her teaching to be left in forums where it is allowed and not brought here.

There is a false distinction being made between replacement theology and remnant theology as if the two are incompatible.

Both are true. The Church is made of of those from both the Jews and the Gentiles. But, as the diagram above on remnant theology would have us believe, the Church would move towards and become part of the remnant of Israel.

Such remenant theology is teaching contrary to the Church.

The diagram that is missing is one where Israel is on one side, the Gentiles are on the other and the Church is in the middle. I am not going to take the time to make a diagram and post it and link it, but imagine three circles

Middle Circle the Church​

Left Circle are the Jews ............ Right Circle the Gentiles​

The middle circle overlaps the left and right taking in part of each - the remnants of Israel and the converts from the gentiles, and in doing so create what Paul tells in scripture is no longer Jew or Gentile. . for there is no longer any Jew or Gentile in Christ. . . there is ONE NEW MAN.


The Church is the fulfillment of all of God's dealings with man in history, including His dealings with the people of Israel.

Now, all is fulfilled in Christ and there is no more Jew in Christ . . there is no more a physical nation/kingdom of Israel to be re-established -

NOW there is the Church.

 

[Zeek]

That is a lie Zazal.

The evidence is overwhelming.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=...kY1fwrkfIyc8nwo3WZHwyQAQ&ust=1360230085923802

The evidence is only overwhelming if you buy into the paltry evidence supplied to you...once again things aren't quite what they seem when you look into it a little more.

So you understand how this land is bought and sold, and you know that it is all Palestinian land?....If that is so, how come there are very tight laws with the land registry that actively encourage any Palestinian Arabs that believe the land the Jews are building on belongs to them, to come and plead their case....none have done so as far as I can recall.

Some Arabs have quite rightly despaired at the passage of the ghastly security fence and taken it before the Israeli court, where their complaint has been upheld and the S-F shifted accodingly.

From what I understand it is the country of Israel, and the Jews are at liberty to 'reclaim the land'. I am not endorsing some of the attitudes of some of the settlers, but Israeli law is not quite as blind or biased as some would have you believe....first there is the myth of present day Palestinian society, and on top of this are the myths about all the land they own....my attitude thus far is 'who is kidding who'.

The Israeli government has been prepared to make difficult concessions and move many settlers into about three areas of Judea and Samaria making up less than 3% of the total area which would then be annexed by Israel....result, nada.

Interesting to see how many Jews were allowed to live in Judea and Samaria when it was under Jordanian rule...klum/none....and how many Jews happily live in Jordan now....klum/none.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Unfotunately, this is where we get into the problem of saying what is biblical and what is not biblical in a congregational forum where the concepts of what is and is not biblical are different than another congregational forums concepts. To say in OBOB that, as fact, something is not biblical which we hold to be bliblical on OUR congregational forum is to, in effect, state as fact that the particular beliefs OUR congregational forum are wrong - and to do so IN OUR congregational forum.

This is just something way too much of is being done by our messianic friends in our forum. St. James Vicariate for Hebrew Speaking Catholics in Israel.

I can understand the sentiments and as other Catholics/other Non-Catholics on OBOB have noted before, the goal is to always be honorable. Nonetheless, where fellowship and agreement are concerned, that is another matter - and as other Catholics have noted the same multiple times, I am curious as to where it is the case that anything was said counter to OBOB. I am well aware of it and have taken time to study/be honorable on it - and on the issue (although it was not quoted in the quote you had of me prior to this response), I am a bit curious as to why the Catholics I noted on the issue who supported the concept did not get referenced.

• Catholics for Israel
• ← Jewish Identity I: The Zionists and The Millet
  
• Jewish Identity II: The Election Factor | The Groom's Family
• Jewish Identity III: Prophecy →
• Jewish Identity IV: Bits and Pieces →
• St. James Vicariate for Hebrew Speaking Catholics in Israel

Much has been said before here on the forum- as it concerns those who are connected to both Messianic and Hebrew Catholic circles ( #7 and#11 ), be it in the sense of believing that all the saints who've passed on are present with the Lord/lifting us up in the heavenlies or Mary and a host of other things ( #63 more shared here and here in #232 / #233 ).


For more:

• Five Kinds of Hebrew Catholics
• Inauguratory| The Groom's Family
• Peoplehood I | The Groom's Family
• Peoplehood II The Groom's Family
• Messianic Judaism - Catholics for Israel
• Anti-Christianism? | The Groom's Family
• More on Catholic Messianic Judaism Rosh Pina Project
• Standing Up To The Great Schism, The Great Divide, and the Great Divorce | The Groom's Family
• ']Jews in the Family: A Conversation with Father Paul Schenck | The Groom's Family
• Standing Up To The Great Schism, The Great Divide, and the Great Divorce | The Groom's Family

No one at any point has said any absolute statements outside of sharing their own views - and as I already shared earlier on the reality of the Catholic Church being supported (as have others as Catholics, even though they may disagree...just as Eastern Catholics disagree with Roman Catholics), IMHO, it doesn't seem to be really substantianted to say that the Catholic Church is being told it's in error.

There is a false distinction being made between replacement theology and remnant theology as if the two are incompatible.


Both are true. The Church is made of of those from both the Jews and the Gentiles. But, as the diagram above on remnant theology would have us believe, the Church would move towards and become part of the remnant of Israel.

Such remenant theology is teaching contrary to the Church.

You didn't understand the chart, then (or the others given to claify it) - as the Church is the New Israel - with the promises made toward Israel applying to it and all belonging to it. God's people - Jew and Gentile - are the New Israel and those in the secular state of Israel are ones who must connect with Israel as God defined it.....and thus, there's no seperation of Israel/the CHurch. The Two are simultaneous.

For the sake of clarity, another way of seeing it is Spiritual Israel. Personally, I can see why the concept of a Spiritual Israel has merit...as opposed to believing Israel always is about being physical. It's why (IMHO) Paul (when speaking to the Gentile audience in Galatians) noted "Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God" ( Galatians 6:15-17 ). It seems clear that in this verse Paul cannot be pronouncing a benediction upon persons who are not included in the phrase "as many as shall walk by this rule" (the rule of boasting only in the cross which he discussed earlier). The entire argument of the epistle prevents any idea that here in 6:16 he would give a blessing to those who are not included in this group.

In many of the traditional stances, "Israel" is often interpreted typologically. The Church is understood to be a "Spiritual Israel," so that many things said in connection with Israel in Scripture are applied to the Church. For instance, the words of Psalm 122, "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee," are understood as in Matthew Henry's commentary: "The peace and welfare of the gospel church ... is to be earnestly desired and prayed for." This is in keeping with the method of the apostles, as for instance in Galatians 4:26, where the apostle Paul speaks of "the Jerusalem that is above" when also speaking on the Jerusalem that is below/earthly and in bondage. ..Thus, when Paul speaks of "the Israel of God" in 6:16, the meaning of this expression is readily grasped. Rather than seeing a contrast, a deeply meaningful typological relationship is perceived.

For many saying the Church is never called "Israel" in any sense when seeing scripture and it is said that "all is contrast" between the two, then in what sense can Christians of Jewish background be called "Israel" any longer, if they are in the Church? If someone in the Church is being called "Israel," then the all-important distinction between Israel and the Church has been breached. If it is said that people of Jewish background may still be called "Israel" after they have become Christians, then it must be admitted that the strict terminological distinction between "Israel" and "the Church" has broken down at this point. Further, if it is said that only persons of Jewish backgound can be so called, then we may rightly ask if we have a separate class of "Jewish Christians"/Jewish disciples who alone are entitled to the name "Israel of God"? If so, what is the significance of this?

Again, IMHO, it doesn't seem that difficult in noting how assuming from Galatians 6 that Paul speaking of "Israel of God" to the carnal sons of Judah not saved as opposed to Jews/Gentiles betrays a fundamentally wrong approach to biblical interpretation, and to New Testament theology in particular. Paul adds the words "upon the Israel of God" and therefore peace is upon Gentiles and Jews, provided that they go by the rule of faith and the Spirit. There's a difference between the New Israel (Church of Jews and Gentiles ) and the National Israel of Jewish/Hebrew people which are in need of salvation....with the Spiritual Israel/Remnant of Israel playing a huge role in outreach to those people so that ALL of Israel nationally will be saved Hope that makes sense as to where I was coming from..

The diagram that is missing is one where Israel is on one side, the Gentiles are on the other and the Church is in the middle. I am not going to take the time to make a diagram and post it and link it, but imagine three circles

Middle Circle the Church​

Left Circle are the Jews ............ Right Circle the Gentiles​

The middle circle overlaps the left and right taking in part of each - the remnants of Israel and the converts from the gentiles, and in doing so create what Paul tells in scripture is no longer Jew or Gentile. . for there is no longer any Jew or Gentile in Christ. . . there is ONE NEW MAN.


The Church is the fulfillment of all of God's dealings with man in history, including His dealings with the people of Israel.

Now, all is fulfilled in Christ and there is no more Jew in Christ . . there is no more a physical nation/kingdom of Israel to be re-established -

NOW there is the Church

Indeed - and as said earlier, if you read the rest of the charts, there'd be less misunderstanding. For in CHrist - although there are distinctions of Jews and Gentiles - all are united in Him and all is fulfilled in the Lord.

As said before:

​

With the Bottom chart, the CHurch is clearly in the Middle - identified with the Remnant Israel. As I understand it and have seen from other Catholics, a person can be 1) outside of relationship to Israel altogether (i.e., a Gentile); 2) within ethnic Israel by virtue of birth (to a Jewish mother); 3) within both ethnic Israel (i.e., of Jewish lineage) and as part of the faithful remnant (as a Jew who trusts the God of Israel), or 4) a Gentile who partakes of the blessings given to the faithful Remnant of Israel. As another wisely noted (for brief excerpt):

The Church is new. In the New Covenant Scriptures, the first mention of the Church is found in Matthew 16:18, where Jesus spoke of building His Church. Thus, the Church is a new undertaking, specifically because it is the Messiah's congregation that He would build on the basis of His atoning death and resurrection. Like Moses who brought the ekklesia (the Israelites) out of Egypt physically, the Messiah would bring His ekklesia out of the world spiritually, to form a spiritual assembly that included both Jews and Gentiles.

The Church is also new regarding the New Covenant's promise of the indwelling Spirit (Ezekiel 36:24-26; Jeremiah 31:31-33). ..........But the Church is not new. The Church is not new because it is simply remnant Israel. Some people claim that Paul's olive tree is the Church, others claim it is Israel.
.....Because the Church is remnant Israel, Paul could say that Gentile believers are no longer "excluded from citizenship in Israel" and no longer "foreigners to the covenants of the promise" (Ephesians 2:12). Because the Church is remnant Israel, Paul could say that Gentile believers "are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household" (Ephesians 2:19). These truths would make no sense if the Church were a totally new enterprise, completely separate from or replacing remnant Israel.

​

 

[thereselittleflower]

I can understand the sentiments and as other Catholics/other Non-Catholics on OBOB have noted before, the goal is to always be honorable. Nonetheless, where fellowship and agreement are concerned, that is another matter - and as other Catholics have noted the same multiple times, I am curious as to where it is the case that anything was said counter to OBOB. For Catholics overall do not adhere to Replacement Theology.

Nor do we adhere to remnant theology, which is what you were stating is the correct biblical interpretation.

It would simply be nice not to be told something is biblical in our forum when, in fact, we do not believe it to be biblical at all, thus making a defacto statement our beliefs to the contrary are not biblical.

 

[thereselittleflower]

The evidence is only overwhelming if you buy into the paltry evidence supplied to you...once again things aren't quite what they seem when you look into it a little more.

So you understand how this land is bought and sold, and you know that it is all Palestinian land?....If that is so, how come there are very tight laws with the land registry that actively encourage any Palestinian Arabs that believe the land the Jews are building on belongs to them, to come and plead their case....none have done so as far as I can recall.

Some Arabs have quite rightly despaired at the passage of the ghastly security fence and taken it before the Israeli court, where their complaint has been upheld and the S-F shifted accodingly.

From what I understand it is the country of Israel, and the Jews are at liberty to 'reclaim the land'. I am not endorsing some of the attitudes of some of the settlers, but Israeli law is not quite as blind or biased as some would have you believe....first there is the myth of present day Palestinian society, and on top of this are the myths about all the land they own....my attitude thus far is 'who is kidding who'.

The Israeli government has been prepared to make difficult concessions and move many settlers into about three areas of Judea and Samaria making up less than 3% of the total area which would then be annexed by Israel....result, nada.

Interesting to see how many Jews were allowed to live in Judea and Samaria when it was under Jordanian rule...klum/none....and how many Jews happily live in Jordan now....klum/none.

Zazal, I am not going to argue with you about the State of Israel. I have tried to reason with you but to no avail. You are so steeped in propaganda that the forest is lost to the trees.

The evidence is overwhelming to the entire world that the State zionists support as from God is essentially no different in its actions than those of Nazi Germany or Aparthied South Africa which has been demonstrated with ample evidence in this thread.

To continue to be blind to these facts is a testimony to the strength and power of zionist propaganda to blind the soul to truth.

The State of Israel is running itself into the ground, and taking the US with it. I look for a complete break with Israel as the US comes more and more to understand the high cost of supporting an unsustainable, failed. morally defunct regime, economically, politically and morally. There are reports that Henry Kissinger has stated in 2012 that in 10 years there will no longer be an Israel. And no surprise if it is true. The goverment is destroying the country economically and morally from the inside out. The Palestinians are not its only victims. Jews are victims too.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Nor do we adhere to remnant theology, which is what you were stating is the correct biblical interpretation.

It would simply be nice not to be told something is biblical in our forum when, in fact, we do not believe it to be biblical at all, thus making a defacto statement our beliefs to the contrary are not biblical.

Respectfully, If you had read fully, you'd see where other Catholics already shared before on the forum where they do not support Replacement Theology in the extreme or absolute sense. It's not new nor something that hasn't been discussed before - and as said earlier, IMHO, you misunderstood what was said when avoiding the fact that no one said that Jew/Gentile make up the New Israel/Church. Jewish Catholics have noted this as well repeatedly - and there is no real problem documenting such on the forum repeatedly in what other Catholics have said/dscussed and fellowshipped on. If you do not believe it, that's you...

But as said before, I have no issue with what the Church has taught when saying that those Jews/Gentiles joining are the New Israel - whereas those who do not join are in rebellion against the Lord and apostate/secular Israel in need of evangelism. One is the Remnant and another is the one which will never last.

As one prominent Catholic organization explained best (for brief excerpt) in Replacement Theology - Israel: What do Catholics believe about the Jewish people?Are Catholics into Replacement Theology? - Catholic Bridge :

The Church is not a replacement for Israel of old, but an unbroken continuation of Israel under the promised King and Messiah of Israel, and His Church is His Kingdom of Israel, expanded to include all the Gentile peoples of the earth. The Bible says:

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. (Romans 2:28, 29)
​

The true Israel is not Israel "in the flesh" (i.e., ethnic Judaism) but Israel in the spirit. There is a constant theme in the Bible that the elder son will be replaced by the younger son as the true heir of God's promises. When Cain (the eldest) killed Abel, the legitimate descent from Adam was transferred to the descendents of the younger son. ........After the crucifixion, the curtain of the Jewish sanctuary was torn in two (Mk 15:37-39, Lk 23:44-46, Mt 27:51). At that point a transfer of authority happened and I believe that the fledgling Church became the New Israel. In that respect we hold beliefs similar to Replacement Theology. However, there is a distinction between "Israel" and the "New Israel". The Catholic Catechism Article 63 explains:

Israel is the priestly people of God, "called by the name of the LORD", and "the first to hear the word of God", the people of "elder brethren" in the faith of Abraham.
​

So the Catholic Church is saying that Israel includes BOTH Christianity (New Israel), and it's older brother in the faith of Abraham (Jewish people yet to accept Christ). That is why we can say there is still something special and relevant about Judaism, our older brother in the faith.

​

​

Same thing was noted earlier when it came to my discussing Remnant Theology. There is no escaping the fact that Catholics have long noted the same thing - if aware, of course, of those who are Hebrew Catholics. One basic resource for investigation:

• Remnant of Israel: Proclaiming the Jewish Roots of the Gospel

For a list of well known Jewish converts to Catholicism:

• St. Angelus of Jerusalem
• St. Juan de Ávila (Councelour of St. Teresa de Jesús)
• St. Teresa de Jesús (de Ávila, the discalced carmelite founder)
• St. Juan de la Cruz (the discalced carmelite founder)
• St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein)
• Fr. Luis de León (Spanish writer friar and translator)
• Luis de Carvajal (Spanish Conqueror of Nuevo León, México)
• Fr. Hermann Cohen, O.C.D.
• Fr. Francis Liebermann, C.S.S.R
• The Lemann Brothers (Jewish Twins who became Catholic Priests)
• The Ratisbonne Brothers (Jewish Brothers who became Catholic Priests)
• Msgr. Jean-Marie Cardinal Lutiger (Arch. of Paris)
• Eugenio Zolli (Israel Zoller, former Chief Rabbi of Rome during the WWII)
• Fr. Elias Friedman, O.C.D. (Founder of the Association of Hebrew Catholics)
• Fr. Arthur Klyber (Founder of ROI)
• Fr. Cyril Axelrod
• David Goldstein
• Fr. Bruno Hussar (Founder of NSWAS, Neve Shalom - Wahat al Salam, Oasis of Peace)
• Msgr. Jean-Baptiste Gourion (Former Auxiliar Bishop of Jerusalem)

And there are other threads in the forum which have been dedicated to discussing the issue before - one of the most prominent being What kind of Hebrew roots does the RCC have? ( #4 ) or Jewish Roots of the Holy Spirit - other Catholics noting the same thing when it came to being for Israel - one of them being the organization known as Catholics for Israel! (in addition to What is Replacement Theology? - Catholics for Israel) and others addressing the Jewish aspect to things.

 

[thereselittleflower]

If you had read fully, you'd see where other Catholics already shared before on the forum where they do not support Replacement Theology.

You're missing my point I think. It is not a matter of supporting either replacement theology or remnant theology. That is a false dichotomy you are presenting as if to not support replacement theology one must then, by default, support remnant theology.

We support NEITHER. And so promoting remnant theology here is promoting something contrary to Catholic teaching.


Wheter individual Catholics support one or the other is immaterial.

The Church's stand, if one must choose, is closer to replacement theology than remnant as you provided in your post. So yes, what you proclaimed as biblical here is not biblical according to the teaching of the Church.

I have presented numerous quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that demonstrate that no one can justly say the Catholic Church sees the remnant theology as biblical.


It is the active promotion of remnant theology as biblical that I am bringing to your attention as problematic.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

You're missing my point I think. It is not a matter of supporting either replacement theology or remnant theology. That is a false dichotomy you are presenting as if to not support replacement theology one must then, by default, support remnant theology.

We support NEITHER. And so promoting remnant theology here is promoting something contrary to Catholic teaching. Church's stand, if one must choose, is closer to replacement theology than remnant as you provided in your post. So yes, what you proclaimed as biblical here is not biblical according to the teaching of the Church.

Respectfully, nothing of what you said dealt with the issue that was already stated - that there are already Catholics here, on this forum, and elsewhere who've long noted in dozens of conversations that they/the Church does not support Replacement Theology. A term used to describe a way of thinking - and with plenty of nuance, seeing that there are differing forms of Replacement ideology (in regards to some setting aside and expanding of blessing to other groups) - and some concepts having the term "replacement theology" on it and yet not being what other Catholics have come against when it comes to teaching the form of Replacement Theology that says the Jews have been set aside fully and all things Jewish are to be removed in favor of what's Gentile.

Again, if truly understanding what Remnant Theology was about, one would not assume another idea was made seperate from what the Church said - and I know this already based on what other Catholics have said on the issue here...easily documented.

Originally Posted by PilgrimToChrist
​

The Catholic position on the Jews is not exactly Replacement Theology nor Dual-Covenant Theology (even though this false idea is in the New Mass and the New Catechism), the orthodox position has to be the position that the Church does not replace Israel and Judaism nor exists alongside Israel and Judaism but rather that it is the fulfillment of Israel and Judaism. The Church is the New Israel, that is, it is Israel renewed and expanded.

The appropriate place of Jews in the Church is as representatives of the Jewish ethnicity and a reminder of the Old Covenant but otherwise just as Catholics like everybody else.
​

Originally Posted bybenedictaoo

Israel and the Church (This Rock: February 1999)

The proper Catholic position is, we don't adhere to none of it, covenant, replacement (which I think is the same thing) and we sure as heck are not dispensationalists. But there is some truth found in both.

[/quote]
​

It has already been shared directly that Jews and Gentiles are brought together and that they are united as the New Israel in Christ - His Bride being the Church.

For reference:

• The Whole Armor: Renmant Theology and the Church Today
• What does Remnant Theology have to teach us about the Church Today? | Archdiocese of Washington

Christ present within the early Jewish community (alongside Gentile Churches where the Gospel was contexualized in their frameworks , Romans 16:3-5 ), as it pertains to the ecclesia/local bodies (Acts 8:1-3 , Acts 9:30-32, Acts 15:40-41, Acts 16:4-6, Romans 16:15-17, 1 Corinthians 7:16-18, 1 Corinthians 11:15-17 , 1 Corinthians 14:32-34 , 1 Corinthians 16:18-20, 2 Corinthians 8:17-19 , Galatians 1:1-3, 1 Thessalonians 2:13-15, Revelation 1:3-5 , Revelation 22:15-17, etc ) and the issue of where the Lord proclaimed how He would establish His Church upon the apostles ( Matthew 16:17-19, Matthew 18:16-18 )....

That's well understood within Catholic (or Orthodox Circles) - even though the language to describe such can differ...and many times, if unfamilar with the terminology, can be susceptible for others assuming more on what is said than what was said. Thus, as said before, IMHO, you really didn't understand what was said and it is always a good thing to see such before assuming something is being advocated that was not. For sometimes, one may be repsonding based more so on what they heard rather than what was said. It was already shared earlier how other Catholics have discussed the matter with others - including people like N.T Wright (whom many Catholics have long supported), who noted what it means to be united in the New Israel of the Lord established by Christ( as shared in #254 ).

Again, as said in one of Wright's books:

He [Jesus] had not come to rehabilitate the symbol of the holy land, but to subsume it within a different fulfillment of the kingdom, which would embrace the whole creation. …Jesus spent his whole ministry redefining what the kingdom meant. He refused to give up the symbolic language of the kingdom, but filled it with such new content that, as we have seen, he powerfully subverted Jewish expectations.

Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK: 1996), 446, 471. 17.

​

Through the Messiah and the preaching which heralds him, Israel is transformed from being an ethnic people into a worldwide family

The Climax of the Covenant (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 240. 18.
​

Those who now belonged to Jesus’ people were not identical with ethnic Israel, since Israel’s history had reached its intended fulfillment; they claimed to be the continuation of Israel in a new situation, able to draw on Israel-images to express their self-identity, able to read Israel’s Scriptures (through the lens of Messiah and spirit) and apply them to their own life. They were thrust out by that claim, and that reading, to fulfill Israel’s vocation on behalf of the world

The New Testament and the People of God (London: SPCK, 1992), 457–58.
​

​

• N.T. Wright, Israel & The Holy Land |

For reference on what N.T. Wrignt noted:

• The Holy Land Today by Tom Wright
• Jesus, Israel and the Cross - N.T. Wright Page
• The New Inheritance According to Paul by N.T. Wright

All of that is said to establish the point of how the Lord has a NEW People in Him - both Jew/Gentile - and the Land of Promise takes on a new dimension in Yeshua....especially when considering that the Promise LAND alluded to Him and trust in Him(Hebrews 3-4), Heavenly Jerusalem is found in Him ( Hebrews 12:21-23)

With the New Perspective of Paul, one of the central issues in debate is how is it that others are to see Israel--for whereas many see Paul supporting what most people in Christian Zionism do with saying the physical land of Israel is only for Jews/all others must leave, those seeing Paul as being open to it being more diverse fall on the other side of the debate and feel that Paul truly was for Judaism and yet felt that others disqualified themselves from inheriting it if they did not trust in Messiah...and that Paul would've been a Jewish theologian/consistent with the viewpoint just as there are others today who are in Judaism (such as many Orthodox Jews protesting against the State of Israel) and yet believe that those claiming Israel should be supported by all are wrong since they feel that they are currently in disobediance to what the Lord commanded to the Hebrews on what it took to remain in the Land. In Romans 11:7, we read, "What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened" (ESV). From the way the words Israel and elect are used, we see the importance of context. Taken out of context, this verse could mean that all Israel is non-elect. We know better, though, because Paul identified himself as "an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin" (11:1). He then added, "God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew" (11:2)--an allusion to Romans 8:29. All this jibes with Romans 9:6-12, where Paul showed that "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring. ... This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring" (9:7-8).

I have presented numerous quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that demonstrate that no one can justly say the Catholic Church sees the remnant theology as biblical.

It is the active promotion of remnant theology as biblical that I am bringing to your attention as problematic

Sincerly/respectfully, from what I've seen fellowshipping with other Catholics, what you brought up is not something that all the Church agrees to - for it is a caricature of Remnant Theology rather than a real assessment of it, IMHO - and the caricature you gave isn't what is supported by others. That's said in accordance to dozens of Catholics on the board who have often noted that negative variations of Replacement Theology are far from what the Church ever advocated - and things that the Church already has had to apologize for. And as it, seeing that it seems you already misunderstood what remnant theology was even about/made a bit of false scenario on it while ignoring where others already said unification comes in the Church, that is something that is a matter of one's personal opinion. Not of what is teaching according to the Church.

There have been no quotes given from the Catechism of the Catholic Church given to say anywhere that the idea of Remnant Theology is not Catholic - and as other Catholics have long disagreed on it in discussion, I one may need to do more to establish anything. And it is the speaking in sweeping terms/broad generalizations that I am bringing to your attention as an issue - paticulalry when it's the case that other Catholics/the Church is ignored and one responds to a caricature of what another says rather than addressing what they said in context. Talking to other Catholics (especially Eastern Catholics, as that's connected to where I'm at) and having good friendships with others on here for a long time, it's not something where I really see anything other than yourself speaking for all and yet not all speaking up in agreement.

As said before in #270 when referencing Replacement Theology - Israel: What do Catholics believe about the Jewish people?Are Catholics into Replacement Theology? - Catholic Bridge :

...After the crucifixion, the curtain of the Jewish sanctuary was torn in two (Mk 15:37-39, Lk 23:44-46, Mt 27:51). At that point a transfer of authority happened and I believe that the fledgling Church became the New Israel. In that respect we hold beliefs similar to Replacement Theology. However, there is a distinction between "Israel" and the "New Israel". The Catholic Catechism Article 63 explains:

Israel is the priestly people of God, "called by the name of the LORD", and "the first to hear the word of God", the people of "elder brethren" in the faith of Abraham.
​

So the Catholic Church is saying that Israel includes BOTH Christianity (New Israel), and it's older brother in the faith of Abraham (Jewish people yet to accept Christ). That is why we can say there is still something special and relevant about Judaism, our older brother in the faith.

​

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Been reading some of your links Gxg, and listening to Chacour...I think you ahve given me food for thought on some issues. I did know the Ethiopians were oppressed by some, but if what I have read here is true, then it goes way beyond a small minority.

I also know some of the Haredim can display very unpleasant religious bigotry , and have Messianic friends who are constantly hassled on an almost daily basis...but although not excusing it, I have settled that some of these diverse groups are not reflective of the society as a whole, and certainly not encouaged by the government, although being a coalition they make some strange bed-fellows.

Its funny,(not haha) I have many friends in Israel, I have lived in Galilee, Jerusalem and been all over the place and visit whenever I can...but the vast majority of antagonism I have experienced and my friends (who seem fairly objective) tell a different story, and my experiences on the street in the UK trying to counter some of the Pro-Pal activism, re-inforces what I have seen and experienced for myself.

I have a Jewish friend that I am gradually warming to, and he is very much for reconciliation (much in line with what bro A was doing in Gaza), but I am far more cautious simply because I have been conned too many times in the past, and feel that to a large extent there is a Moslem/Pal incentive to garner support from the West because we are easy targets for their stories....the vast majority of which are often not their story, but the story of a friend of a friend.

Anyway, thanks as always for some of the stuff you have painstaking put together, you know I appreciate your patience and your good heart, even when strongly disagreeing with you about some things...and I hope you find in me someone who is always willing to reevaluate and weigh up pertinent reliable evidence.

Most of the way I communicate is straight from the heart, I just don't have the time to source everything and give chapter and verse unless it is especially poignant.

In Him. Zazal

Cool to know, Bruh....

The issue of how Ethiopian Jews are treated is indeed something that's on a large scale - and not a simple minority. Having had friends who've experienced harrassment in Israel, it's not small issue. Although the government may not "officially" endorse behavior, silence is also a form of consent - and whenever the government allows certain groups to remain in power even after they've harrassed others, that says volumes. As it concerns other groups, having had friends/family lived in Israel, it's amazing how they see things and witness them in stunning numbers - on both sides - and yet others act as if it's only one side doing things. But often, where you're at and who you're with makes a world of difference. They, as well as I, have not seen anything that reinforces the Pro-Secular Zionism/Anti-Palestinian views - just as they don't see anything that is Anti-Israeli....and facts are facts.

Doesn't matter what an extreme group does in trying to falsify stories - for too many missionaries who've lived there for years and see miracles/God's work daily often get ignored because people do guilt-by-association in assuming "It's just those Palestinians/Muslims trying to get respect" when the bottom line is that it was Christians with family present/living life who dared to love others....and people didn't have time for it or willingness to see it.

People have got to do better with reflecting what Christ did and not letting culture rule us - for the Good Samaritan is where the world needs to remember things today (Luke 10:24-26).

That said, I appreciate your sharing from the heart - as do other believers here when it comes to growing in Christ together. Shalom

 

[thereselittleflower]

Nothing of what you said dealt with the issue that was already stated - that there are already Catholics here, on this forum, who've long noted in dozens of conversations that they/the Church does not support Replacement Theology. A term used to describe a way of thinking - and if understanding what Remnant Theology was about, one would not assume another idea was made seperate from what the Church said - and I know this already based on what other Catholics have said on the issue here...easily documented. It has already been shared directly that Jews and Gentiles are brought together and that they are united as the New Israel in Christ - His Bride being the Church.

The Diagram you gave on remnant theology does not show that. It shows the Church being brough into the remnant in Israel.




And that is not taught by the Catholic Church.

I really don't see where the difficulty lies in understanding this.

You presented two false views and told us one was biblical. '

This is false.

The view of replacement theology you presented above is that the Jews enter a GENTILE Church.

The Church does not teach this for in CHRIST there is no Jew or Gentile. There is no such thing as a "gentile Church". So the diagram of replacement theology is of course false to the Catholic mind - not sinply because there is no transference of the covenants from the ancient people of Israel to the Church, but because the Church is not "gentile" as opposed to "jewish", and there is no "transfer" as the original covenants and promises given to Israel have concluded, been fulfilled, come to their natural end.

It is not a matter of tranference. It is a matter of the New Covenant and its promises have superseded the Old.

A NEW Covenant has been made and this covenant is with the Church which is comprised of both Jews and Gentiles who are no longer Jew or Gentile in Christ, but ONE NEW MAN.


And in looking at the diagram on remnant theology, that is also false according to Catholic teaching. The Church does not, and must not, identfy Herself with remnant Israel for there is no Jew in Christ. Remnant Israel must becomem the Church. The Church does not become Jewish. The Jews become Christian.

The Church is the goal of all of God's promises. And in the Church the Jewish remnant find their fulfillment of all of God's promises along with the gentiles who convert.

And presenting scripture in contradiction to Catholic teaching is not going change the fact that what is being presented is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

There have been no quotes given from the Catechism of the Catholic Church given to say anywhere that the idea of what you feel Remnant Theology to be is unbiblical - and as other Catholics have long disagreed on it in discussion, one may need to do more to establish anything. And it is the speaking in sweeping terms/broad generalizations that I am bringing to your attention as an issue - paticulalry when it's the case that other Catholics/the Church is ignored and one responds to a caricature of what another says rather than addressing what they said in context. Talking to other Catholics/having good friendships with others on here for a long time, it's not something where I really see anything other than yourself speaking for all and yet not all speaking up in agreement.

I disagree, and that is the point. This debate should not be happening between us here in OBOB, and those outside of this congretational forum should not be trying to teach Catholics what the Catholic Church does or does not teach in our own forum.

Please respect this.

You are in error in your understanding of Catholic teaching, that's all.

As I have posted before - The CHURCH is the NEW Israel according to the Catholic Church:

The Church teaches the ingathering of the Jews takes place IN the Church, that the Church is the ultimate goal of God's creation - the Church is the NEW Israel:

The Church- foreshadowed from the world's beginning

760 Christians of the first centuries said, "The world was created for the sake of the Church."153 God created the world for the sake of communion with his divine life, a communion brought about by the "convocation" of men in Christ, and this "convocation" is the Church. The Church is the goal of all things,154 and God permitted such painful upheavals as the angels' fall and man's sin only as occasions and means for displaying all the power of his arm and the whole measure of the love he wanted to give the world:
Just as God's will is creation and is called "the world," so his intention is the salvation of men, and it is called "the Church."155


778 The Church is both the means and the goal of God's plan: prefigured in creation, prepared for in the Old Covenant, founded by the words and actions of Jesus Christ, fulfilled by his redeeming cross and his Resurrection, the Church has been manifested as the mystery of salvation by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. She will be perfected in the glory of heaven as the assembly of all the redeemed of the earth (cf. Rev 14:4).


60 The people descended from Abraham would be the trustee of the promise made to the patriarchs, the chosen people, called to prepare for that day when God would gather all his children into the unity of the Church.18 They would be the root on to which the Gentiles would be grafted, once they came to believe.19


Church's ultimate trial

675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.576

676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,577 especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.578

677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.579 The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.580 God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.581

436 The word "Christ" comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Messiah, which means "anointed". It became the name proper to Jesus only because he accomplished perfectly the divine mission that "Christ" signifies. In effect, in Israel those consecrated to God for a mission that he gave were anointed in his name. This was the case for kings, for priests and, in rare instances, for prophets.29 This had to be the case all the more so for the Messiah whom God would send to inaugurate his kingdom definitively.30 It was necessary that the Messiah be anointed by the Spirit of the Lord at once as king and priest, and also as prophet.31 Jesus fulfilled the messianic hope of Israel in his threefold office of priest, prophet and king.



422 'But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.'1 This is 'the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God':'2 God has visited his people. He has fulfilled the promise he made to Abraham and his descendants. He acted far beyond all expectation - he has sent his own 'beloved Son'.3

1716 The Beatitudes are at the heart of Jesus' preaching. They take up the promises made to the chosen people since Abraham. The Beatitudes fulfill the promises by ordering them no longer merely to the possession of a territory,but to the Kingdom of heaven:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
Rejoice and be glad,
for your reward is great in heaven.12
​

709 The Law, the sign of God's promise and covenant, ought to have governed the hearts and institutions of that people to whom Abraham's faith gave birth. "If you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, . . . you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."75 But after David, Israel gave in to the temptation of becoming a kingdom like other nations. The Kingdom, however, the object of the promise made to David,76 would be the work of the Holy Spirit; it would belong to the poor according to the Spirit.

710 The forgetting of the Law and the infidelity to the covenant end in death: it is the Exile, apparently the failure of the promises, which is in fact the mysterious fidelity of the Savior God and the beginning of a promised restoration, but according to the Spirit. The People of God had to suffer this purification.77 In God's plan, the Exile already stands in the shadow of the Cross, and the Remnant of the poor that returns from the Exile is one of the most transparent prefigurations of the Church


877 Likewise, it belongs to the sacramental nature of ecclesial ministry that it have a collegial character. In fact, from the beginning of his ministry, the Lord Jesus instituted the Twelve as "the seeds of the new Israel and the beginning of the sacred hierarchy." Chosen together, they were also sent out together, and their fraternal unity would be at the service of the fraternal communion of all the faithful: they would reflect and witness to the communion of the divine persons. For this reason every bishop exercises his ministry from within the episcopal college, in communion with the bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter and head of the college. So also priests exercise their ministry from within the presbyterium of the diocese, under the direction of their bishop.

​

The old Israel is no more. The NEW Israel is the Church which includes the gentiles and the Jewish remnant together, whose kingdom is spiritual, no longer a territory, but a heavenly kingdom. This is Catholic teaching.

Jesus said:

“My kingdom is not of this world."​

John 18:36
​

Archbiship Cyril Salim's statement given early in this thread:

"The theme of the Promised Land cannot be used as a basis to justify the return of the Jews to Israel and the expatriation of the Palestinians. "We Christians cannot speak of the 'Promised Land' as an exclusive right for a privileged Jewish people. This promise was nullified by Christ. There is no longer a chosen people -- all men and women of all countries have become the chosen people."
​

is soundly based in Catholic theology and teaching

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The Diagram you gave on remnant theology does not show that. It shows the Church being brough into the remnant in Israel.

Again, sorry - but respectfully (IMHO), you didn't understand the chart since it was advocating that the Church is identified with the Remnant of Israel, being synomous with the Remnant of Israel.

For the sake of clarity, the form of Replacement Theology it was combatting was one that said all things Jewish were erased and Gentile perspectives were what define the New Israel - with the Jews entering into a Church that's predominately Gentile rather than one that's also Jewish in expression/one knowing the Lord will eventually see all of Secular Israel saved according to Romans 11 - it being brought into Remnant Israel as those from Remnant Israel (especially believers who are descendants of Jacob/Israel) reach out to them and address the many ways the Hebrew culture was isolated over the centuries (and eventually hated) for many reasons. Thomas Robinson’s book, Ignatius of Antioch and the Parting of the Ways: Early Jewish-Christian Relations, goes more depth about the reasons for this phenomenon...in addition to other works like In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity that address the issue of how many early leaders in the Church (Justin being one of them) saw where the Lord/His prophets critiqued Israel - and in battling with those in Judaism, he/others concluded the Jews had a natural inclination toward sin/disbelief while the Gentiles did not and thus were the "New Israel" on that basis. That form of Replacement Theology is what the Chart is against...

Many Catholics have noted this for awhile - and it's why I have said respectfully that it seems you don't understand what other Catholics have said on the issue when it comes to the Church being a part of Israel/the New Israel. To ignore that is to create a caricature - and if that is your choice, by all means - but it again is not anywhere close to what all Catholics or the Church has said. One can start with what others have already said on the forum - as well as what Hebrew Catholics have long noted and the rest of the Church - but outside of that, one isn't dealing with what is said and is instead (IMHO) responding on what you think something to be rather than what has already been said.

The Church identifying with Israel is understood to be the case that the Church is Israel/connected to OT Israel rather than seperate from it - and that goes for Jews or Gentiles. It has already been shared directly that Jews and Gentiles are brought together and that they are united as the New Israel in Christ - His Bride being the Church. And I suspect you've not read properly due to focusing on one chart/claiming nothing was there about the Church being central when I already laid that out in others which were also shared:

Counter to your assertions, the Church was - and has ALWAYS been in the Middle. And or reference:

• What does Remnant Theology have to teach us about the Church Today? | Archdiocese of Washington

As another wisely noted:

The mystery aspect of the Church was that non-Jews would also receive the Spirit and be placed within the same body (with believing Jews) through the Spirit (Acts 10:45, 15:8; Ephesians 2:19-3:6). ....

But the Church is not new. The Church is not new because it is simply remnant Israel.
.....Because the Church is remnant Israel, Paul--certainly a member of the Church--could say that since he was a believer in Jesus, he was part of remnant Israel (Romans 11:1-5). Because the Church is remnant Israel, Paul could say that Gentile believers in Jesus have been grafted into remnant Israel (Romans 11:17). Because the Church is remnant Israel, both Paul and Peter could say that Jews who didn't accept Jesus would be cut off from Israel (Romans 11:17; Acts 3:23).
​

The view of replacement theology you presented above is that the Jews enter a GENTILE Church.

The Church does not teach this for in CHRIST there is no Jew or Gentile.

Respectfully, what you said here has been noted to not be a part of the Cathecism or what the Catholic Church at large has noted - and that's said in light of what others in the Church have already noted when it comes to noting that much of the Church has not be in Jewish expression - and thus, the need for HEBREW Catholics arising with approval from the Church. All are One in Messiah/united in Him - yet there are stil distinctions between Groups, be it Jew and Gentile or male/female ( 1 Corinthians 10:31-33, Colossians 3:10-12 & Galatians 3:27-29). All are a part of the Church if they trust in Christ - but that doesn't doesn't automatically erase distinction as if there hasn't been an issue for centuries the Church has long sought to address when it comes to reaching out to the Jewish people.

..the Church is not "gentile" as opposed to "jewish", and there is no "transfer" as the original covenants and promises given to Israel have concluded, been fulfilled, come to their natural end.

As said earlier, what you note isn't something I've seen other Catholics note to represent the fullness of the issue - especially as it concerns the ways that fellowships made predominately of Gentiles are different than those of Jewish make-up. That was a constant theme within the scriptures when it came to ministry amongst Jewish people being distinctly different than ministry amongst Gentiles (Romans 14-15, I Corinthians 8, Acts 16:1-3, etc.) Obviously, All things are fulfilled in Christ

It is not a matter of tranference. It is a matter of the New Covenant and its promises have superseded the Old.

Nothing was said counter to this at any point...and Matthew 13 notes that, as well as II Corinthians 3-4 and those for Remnant Theology. Again, IMHO, it seems one is arguing against a caricature and not listening to what was already stated - as we have a NEW Covenant that is superior to the OLD one.

in looking at the diagram on remnant theology, that is also false according to Catholic teaching. The Church does not, and must not, identfy Herself with remnant Israel for there is no Jew in Christ. Remnant Israel must become the Church. The Church does not become Jewish.

Respectfully, you may feel otherwise - but what you said isn't something I've seen most Catholics note to be according to the Church, TLF - which has repeatedly spoken on the issue of identifying with Jewish believers and aiding them. Facts are facts...and sincerly, either one acknowledges that - and the work of Hebrew Catholics - or they don't really address what the Church has said on the matter for a good bit now.

• A Catholic Jew Speaks: Five Kinds of Hebrew Catholics

I disagree

You - not all Catholics, based on what has already been saidB BY other Catholics on the board/the Church. Personal opinion is not the same as what the Church says

This debate should not be happening between us here in OBOB, and those outside of this congretational forum should not be trying to teach Catholics what the Catholic Church does or does not teach in our own forum. Please respect this. You are in error in your understanding of Catholic teaching, that's all. As I have posted before - The CHURCH is the NEW Israel according to the Catholic Church: The Church teaches the ingathering of the Jews takes place IN the Church, that the Church is the ultimate goal of God's creation - the Church is the NEW Israel

If/when able to show what has been said to be counter to what other Catholics have said, then one can claim that what was stated is not Catholic. Thus far, not much has been given - and in already having had extensive fellowship/dialouge with CATHOLICS here who've noted the issue, I'll go with them. I'd hope that can be respected and one could please the caricatures...or the claims that anyone's "debating" you in giving clarification on where you seem to have misunderstood several points others made before accusing them.

I've already said that the Church was the focus I've already referenced other Catholics and what the Church has said directly on the subject (even though, of course, the Church for me is Orthodoxy) - and if one disagrees with that and what other Catholics here have noted, that is their choice. But it's far from disagreement with OBOB and what the Church has long noted.

For reference on what the Church/other Catholics have taught directly on the issue:

Originally Posted by PilgrimToChrist
​

The Catholic position on the Jews is not exactly Replacement Theology nor Dual-Covenant Theology (even though this false idea is in the New Mass and the New Catechism), the orthodox position has to be the position that the Church does not replace Israel and Judaism nor exists alongside Israel and Judaism but rather that it is the fulfillment of Israel and Judaism. The Church is the New Israel, that is, it is Israel renewed and expanded.

Originally Posted bybenedictaoo

​

Israel and the Church (This Rock: February 1999)

The proper Catholic position is, we don't adhere to none of it, covenant, replacement (which I think is the same thing) and we sure as heck are not dispensationalists. But there is some truth found in both.

[/quote]

Originally Posted byQuantaCura

One of the reasons why the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council chose to use the phrase "People of God" to refer to the Church is to show the continuity with OT Israel, who were also the People of God. It is not pure replacement theology in that one entity was not totally destroyed/cut off and replaced by another. The Jews (namely the Apostles) remained as the roots and stump from which all else was grafted in and sprouted.

Also, from Lumen Gentium:

"Israel according to the flesh, which wandered as an exile in the desert, was already called the Church of God.(96) So likewise the new Israel which while living in this present age goes in search of a future and abiding city (97) is called the Church of Christ.(98)"

Pope Benedict explained this not too long back:

The number 12, which evidently refers to the 12 tribes of Israel, already reveals the meaning of the prophetic-symbolic action implicit in the new initiative to re-establish the holy people. As the system of the 12 tribes had long since faded out, the hope of Israel awaited their restoration as a sign of the eschatological time (as referred to at the end of the Book of Ezekiel: 37: 15-19; 39: 23-29; 40-48). In choosing the Twelve, introducing them into a communion of life with himself and involving them in his mission of proclaiming the Kingdom in words and works (cf. Mk 6: 7-13; Mt 10: 5-8; Lk 9: 1-6; 6: 13), Jesus wants to say that the definitive time has arrived in which to constitute the new People of God, the people of the 12 tribes, which now becomes a universal people, his Church.

Appeal for Israel

With their very own existence, the Twelve - called from different backgrounds - become an appeal for all of Israel to convert and allow herself to be gathered into the new covenant, complete and perfect fulfilment of the ancient one.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/be...060315_en.html

​

Not that difficult to understand.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Sorry - but as said before, you neither understood the chart nor understood what other Catholics have said on the issue when it comes to the Church being a part of Israel/the New Israel. That is a caricature. SImple as that - and if that is your choice, by all means - but it again is not anywhere close to what all Catholics or the Church has said. One can start with what others have already said on the forum - as well as what Hebrew Catholics have long noted and the rest of the Church - but outside of that, one isn't dealing with what is said and is instead (IMHO) responding on what you think something to be rather than what has already been said.

And regardless of what you understand "other" Catholics to have said, it is not for you to teach us what the Catholic Church teaches or doesn't teach.

May I refer you to this post for clarification:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7709133-43/#post62300536

Please stop flooding our forum with charts, statements, etc to teach us what is right biblical interpretation etc. in our forum. This is not your place to debate us, and you don't even show you understandn what you've even quoted from other Catholics, for instance, the quote from QuantaCura:

It is not pure replacement theology in that one entity was not totally destroyed/cut off and replaced by another.

​

It is a qualified statement, and clearly implies a replacement to some degree, just not pure or total. You are simply not understanding what people are saying and reading into it what you will.

And in regards to a "Catholic Zionist" - anyone who identifies with political zionism has put themselves at odds with the Church. Individuals do not determine Catholic taeching - the Magesterium does. You can find any number of individual Catholics who will claim things at total odds with Catholic teaching. That does not permit you to present them here as if they have any validity or to substitute what these individuals say for what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Gxg, you simply do not understand what the Catholic Church teaches on the matter. Chill.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Originally Posted by thereselittleflower

Archbiship Cyril Salim's statement given early in this thread:

"The theme of the Promised Land cannot be used as a basis to justify the return of the Jews to Israel and the expatriation of the Palestinians.
​

Respectfully, had you read what was already shared earlier (from #258 ) as it concerns Elias Chacour - Archbishop of the Melkite Catholic Church - and what he meant to be a part of the people of God - there would be no need for assuming this was missed - as it was already stated that the Promise land being fulfilled was in Christ. In Christ all - Jew or Gentile - are His Chosen People. Not repeating it again, as it has already been noted enough. This was noted with N.T Wright when it came to him noting what it means to be in Christ and all promises found in Him. And it was also noted earlier when it came to the issue of various forms of Zionism - with some being forms other Catholics have supported with support from the Church.

This was tackled earlier in #216 when I noted agreement with you on some of what you noted and pointed it out. Sincerly, it's your own choice to make caricatures but it's not something I care to respond to just as other Catholics have noted.

Originally Posted by thereselittleflower

it is not for you to teach us what the Catholic Church teaches or doesn't teach.
​

Respectfully, as said before, I don't have to teach you anything nor was I ever concerned with such (seeing that others Catholics already agreed to what I noted/I shared in agreement and fellowship with them..) - and responding to a false accusation on what was said is not the same as teaching, no more than someone agreeing with another and then having someone say "You're not black!!!" the moment you note you are and then explaining why the accusation is not founded or verified. And noting where one agrees with another is not "teaching" anything, nor is it "teaching" when it comes to responding to things where there was a lack of clarity prior to response. ...just as other Catholics have long noted.

Speaking of terms of "us" really doesn't reflect what other Catholics have noted when they do not see connection with you or connection in what you've said with how the Church at large feels.


THus again, no need responding based on what you think others have said when nothing said was against OBOB or what other Catholics have said on the matter, be it Knightwolf, TheOtherHockeyMom, Rhamiel, Catherine, or a host of others that can be easily brought up for reference. As it is, myself being Oriential Orthodox (as well as Messianic) and working with others who are have Catholicity in the OO Tradition, I am aware of what Catholic is and have been for years. For they (Orthodox) sometimes refer to their church as the Orthodox Catholic Church - more noted in the thread by Sister Daughter of Ararat in her thread Are Orthodox at all Catholic? ..and I've already had to combat against others blasting all things Catholic (as seen here and here elsewhere). I have already gone to Catholic schools growing up - as does my sister (as much of my family on mom's side is Catholic - more shared in #1 and Does anyone here know of any Africian American Saints? ). And where I'm at, we already work with other Catholics - specifically, Antiochian Catholic Church. One can see more dialouges on the issue of where they're coming from and how they have addressed others:

• Mystery of the Church
• Antiochian Catholic Church in America
• Gregory Ned Blevins - Kodak, Antiochian Catholic Church in ...

Again, you may disagree...but I'm well aware of what's said in Catholic circles

Please stop flooding our forum with charts, statements, etc to teach us

Nothing was "flooded" - although it is interesting to see the comment from yourself in light of how other Catholics already said the same of yourself earlier when it came to the issue ( as seen in #40 #161 and#167) - and others have noted the same when it comes to speaking as if you speak for ALL of them even when many have long noted you don't talk for the entire Church or what other Catholics have said/noted to be proper on OBOB.

Other Catholics already noted that your interpretation is not the same as what the Church has said fully or reflective of the diversity of Catholic beliefs in the Church on the matter - and many Catholics here, although they do not support Political Zionism, are very much for supporting Israel as a nation with the right to defend itself and supporting the concept of how they need national salvation...and yet the Lord is not done with them yet. As another wisely noted earlier:

Rhamiel

I do love the Jewish people, and I recognize that they have been deeply blessed by God, I understand that their role in Salvation History is not done but I have no love of the Nation of Israel, or atleast, not anymore love then what I have for Thailand or any other country
​

I disagree with your interpretation - not the Church

This is not your place to debate us, and you don't even show you understandn what you've even quoted from other Catholics, for instance, the quote from QuantaCura:

It is not pure replacement theology in that one entity was not totally destroyed/cut off and replaced by another.
​

It is a qualified statement, and clearly implies a replacement to some degree, just not pure or total
​

As said before, had you paid attention, as said earlier, you'd understand that Replacement theology was not denoucned or dismissed entirely - but one variation of such. Nothing more nor anything less - and thus, as said before, it's apparent you've not been reading properly...

The Church has already spoken as it concerns the issue of Hebrew Catholics and the issue of Jewish expression as well as Israel.

• Catholics for Israel
• St. James Vicariate for Hebrew Speaking Catholics in Israel

YOUr voice alone is not one I have really seen to really reflect what other Catholics here have said on the Church - and noting that I disagree/don't care to submit to your view isn't a matter of debate as much as it is noting where I simply do not agree with you and agree with other Catholics whom I've fellowshipped with/learned from.

Chill.

I'm actually rather serene at the moment Thus, not really certain as to how one feels another is the opposite of "chill" since it is not really vexing for me to respond plainly.

Gxg, you simply do not understand what the Catholic Church teaches on the matter.

thereselittleflower, it is your right to feel however you wish - but you didn't address what the Catholic Church said (or what OBOB says) or the diverse views of other Catholic Brethren - paticularly as it concerns Hebrew Catholics - and you responded based on a caricature rather than what was said.

You simply do not reflect or understand the diversity of belief in the Catholic Church which other Catholics have long noted - none of those disagreements ever being seen as in disagreement with the Church as you claim.

I've been here long enough as have others to see where that basic issue - if ignored - is not really reflective of what Catholics at large hold to...and sincerely, it's not my problem if that is your own decision since others know where people stand and have noted such. Other Catholics have noted this before in addition to other issues, as stone noted earlier ( #15 #82 #95 #174, #179 #186, #192 #82 #95 #123 #143 #145 #184 ) and others ( #215 #220 #234 ). If you want to debate the matter, you can do so alone - as I don't care for it nor have I ever - in honor of OBOB and the fact that I'm concerned for fellowship with other Catholics - and there've already been Catholics who again have not agreed to your views.. Be it from what others shared here in agreement with it or what others have shared on it such as Elias Chacour - Archbishop of the Melkite Catholic Church.

A Man of Galilee
Archbishop Elias Chacour at Montreat
Making the Holy Land Holy
Elias Chacour on Relationships in the Middle East
Archbishop Elias Chacour Unity Within Diversity: Myth or Reality?
TalkingStickTV - Archbishop Elias Chacour - Palestinian-Arab-Christian-Israeli​

Other Catholics have shared on him before and I appreciate seeing the voice of Chacour as well as others who stood up on the same issues plauging things today - such as others like Joseph Raya, one extensively involved in the American civil rights movement, and later, while serving as Archbishop of Akko, Haifa, Nazareth and all Galilee while doing extensive work with Dr. Martin Luther King (as both a co-laborer and dear friend) and other rabbis working for desegration/fair treatment toward both Jews and Blacks. Being a very controversial/radical figure in the church....helping to organize marches/often suffering alongside other blacks, he was twice beaten badly by the Ku Klux Klan....but later sought to emulate Dr.King's example with the marches over in Palestine. For a Video clip of Archbishop Raya leading a peaceful protest, 1972-08-14. But all of that is noted to share the point that there has always been a wide diversity of Catholics within the Body. As it concerns identifying with the West Eastern Catholicism/Byzantine Catholics stand out in many ways (having much in common with Orthodoxy/beauty).​

I do not expect you to address it or acknowledge it as with other things since you have said to others (be it Catholics or Non-Catholics) that anyone disagreeing with you is automatically disagreeing with the Church - despite where others have already shared that the Church never agreed to some of the things you're saying....and as you don't feel you have to address those things disagreeeing with you since it's essentially a matter of yourself only having the "right biblical interpretation" even after other Catholics have noted it's not, I don't see much issue going back and forth as said before.

As said before, other Catholics have never agreed with you and that is something that is present in discussion - whether it is acknowledged or not. Peace, thereselittleflower

 

[thereselittleflower]

Gxp, you are treating this as a debate where I have to "answer" something you challenge me with. You are not allowed to debate us here. I do not have to respond to you as if I owe you an answer. I have tried to engage you nicely, and ask that you refrain from teaching us what is right or wrong biblical intepretation or our faith. Yet, all I have been met with is you tellilng me how you understand Church teaching on the matter better than I do and a refusal to be corrected. So I will be very direct with you.

You are wrong.

I have already multiple times presented what the Catholic Church teaches. I don't need to take every pretext offered by the stripping out of comments by leaders of the Church from their context to be used to challenge Catholic teaching and respond to it. These attempts to engage in debate are simply not going to work.

The voice of Chacour or any one Bishop does not the Magesterium make, and it is the Magesteriial teaching of the Church which concerns us here.

We see the voice of someone who is controversial in the Church being promoted as somehow dictating or indicitive of what the Church believes or teaches. This just simply goes further to demonstrate there is still yet a failure to understand the teaching of the Catholic Church or how the Magesterium operates, or how truth is recognized in the Catholic Church.

We see the view being promoted that what Catholics at large hold to is what defines the Catholic faith and teaching. This only shows there is still yet a failure to grasp how truth is determined in the Catholic Church.

Catholic teaching is not dictated by what Catholics at large believe. It is not a matter of popular vote. Catholic teaching is determined by the Magesterium which does not change Her teaching based on popular opinion. She does not change Her teaching period. The vast majority of Catholics in the last half of last century were very poorly catechized, especially in America. You can find Catholics who will agree with you on anything you want because they don't understand the teaching of the Church. That means nothing.

We have yet to see taken into consideration ANY Magesterial teaching in proper context on the subject. This demonstrates a failure to understand the source of Catholic teaching.

All of this simply manifestes a lack of understanding of Church teaching on a multitude of levels, yet what we see here is presumption to come in here and teach us our own faith and what the bible says. And in these attempts to do so, what is demonstrated is not only a contineud, very poor grasp regarding Catholic teaching, but this constant argument about it also demonstrates an unwilingness to be taught about something not personally agreed with.

That is not fellowship.

You simply don't understand what you are talking about here. Plain and simple.

 

[Rhamiel]

from what I understand
there are certain strands Remnant theology that are accaptable for Catholics to believe in.

TLF, there are differant schools of thought in Catholicism