What on Earth?

[Fr. Rob]

Okay, now I do have a beef that I would have had weather or not I was a Roman Catholic. . .

Catholics reject evangelization of Jews

By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff, 8/13/2002

The Catholic Church, which spent hundreds of years trying forcibly to convert Jews to Christianity, has come to the conclusion that it is theologically unacceptable to target Jews for evangelization, according to a statement issued yesterday by organizations representing US Catholic bishops and rabbis from the country's two largest Jewish denominations.

Citing teachings dating back to the Second Vatican Council, and statements by Pope John Paul II throughout his papacy, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops declared unequivocally that the biblical covenant between Jews and God is valid and therefore Jews do not need to be saved through faith in Jesus.

''A deepening Catholic appreciation of the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people, together with a recognition of a divinely-given mission to Jews to witness to God's faithful love, lead to the conclusion that campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church,'' declares the document, ''Reflections on Covenant and Mission.''

The rest of the article can be viewed at: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/225/metro/Catholics_reject_evangelization_of_Jews+.shtml

Now, my problem is not surrounding the whole targeting debate, but it does surround the statement that the Jews can get to heaven without faith in Jesus Christ.

As the Church taught for many years, we are the inheritors of the covenant. We are the Israel of God. Circumcision of the flesh (i.e., membership in a race) no longer means anything. . . what means something is the spiritual position we take. If we are not redeemed by Jesus Christ, if we make a conscious effort to refuse him, then we can be in a million covenants by the flesh, we still cannot enter into heaven.

This smacks of the hard-core Dispensationalist belief that God worked in an exception for the Jews. . . and I don't find it to be biblical.

Has Roman Catholic teaching on this matter changed? I am not saying that I support the holocaust or the mass slaughter of Jews or anything. . . but since when did, "There is no other name under heaven through which thou mayest receive health and salvation, except for the name of Jesus Christ" pass into the category of "bible verse to be ignored."

Help.

Fr. Rob

 

[jukesk9]

I don't know what the official Church teaching on this matter is, but I've always believed that God doesn't break His covenants. I honestly don't believe a faithful Jew will go to hell because the Jews are God's Chosen People. Now, on the other hand, I sure hope this doesn't lead to some sort of declaration that Islam and other religions are valid without Jesus......

 

[Fr. Rob]

Jukes,

As I see it, God is not breaking his covenant, because it is still Israel that he is calling his chosen, but it's Israel by the faith not Israel by the flesh.

I'll find the Scriptures on the topic a little later in the morning.

Fr. Rob

 

[VOW]

To Fr Rob:

I'm with Jukes on this one. I don't think God breaks His promises; if He does, we're all in a world a-hurtin'. The way I see it, the Jews are God's Chosen People, the People of the Old Covenant.

When Jesus brought the New Covenant, He opened the door for all of us to be "adopted Jews," and to share in their inheritance.

There is simply too much evidence in my mind on how God has had His hand on the Jews for thousands of years. Their recovery from the horrors of the Holocaust is just one example.

When God made His promise to Abraham, He didn't say, "You will be My people....until I supercede this covenant with you." As far as salvation goes, *I* am not the one to pass judgment. God is the one who created the situation, and I'll gladly leave it to His Mercy.

(If you want to complicate matters, I think the Arabs have a partial claim to being the Chosen People, through Ishmael. And again, I'm going to trust God to unravel everything at Judgment Day.)



Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Fr. Rob]

Here are the Bible and Early Church citations that seem to support the claim that the Jews (by the Flesh) are not the Chosen ones of the Bible:

Do not think to say to yourselves, "We have Abraham as our father." For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. Matthew 3: 9

I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. Matt. 21:43

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly. Romans 2: 28, 29

They are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham. Romans 9: 6, 7

In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. Gal. 6: 15, 16

From the Early Church:

For the true spiritual Israel, and descendeants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ. Justin Martyr, c. 160.

God blesses this people [i.e., Christians], and calls them Israel, and declares them to be His inheritance. So why is it that you [Jews] do not repent of the deception you practice on yourselves, as if you alone were the Israel? Justin Martyr, c. 160

The Gentiles, rather than the Jews, attain to the kingdom of heaven. Cyprian, c. 250

 

[Wolseley]

I'll have to do some research into this one, but just for the record, I personally am not about to shove a Bible in God's face and say, "I'm sorry, Lord, but You cannot save the Jews under the Old Covenant! It is un-Scriptural, and I will not stand for it! Just in case You aren't aware of it, I must bring Your attention to the 14th chapter of John's Gospel, verse 6....."

I'm going to say this to God??? I'm going to tell God what He can and cannot do?

Not me. My arms are way too short to box with the Almighty. He can make as many different types of covenants with as many different types of people as He chooses, and that's His business, not mine. It is not my call to judge people worthy of going to hell simply because they don't believe as I do. My job is provide witness of what I believe to be the truth, and leave their salvation up to the mercy of God. What He does is up to Him.

"For whatsoever judgement ye judge, the same judgement shall be rendered unto you."

 

[Fr. Rob]

Wols,

What I am more interested in is the question of, is this a change in the way that the Roman Church has elected to express it's thoughts about the Jews?

From my own perspective, I don't feel it's right to target any specific group of people to be evangelised, for the whole World needs to be evangelised. Jew and Gentile alike need to hear the Gospel, for Jesus Christ himself says that he is the only way to the Father.

I believe in the Israel of God concept, but I am more interested in the way that the Church has understood the verses and Apostolic quotes I offered in relation with Salvation and the Jewish People.

Blessings,
Fr. Rob

 

[Miss Shelby]

Man, Catholics just cannot win for losing. If someone had written an article stating that the Pope said that Jews must be evangalized to because Christians are now God's chosen and the Jews aren't.... how loud would people be screaming "Replacement Theology!?"

Michelle

 

[VOW]

Thank you, Miss Shelby!



Peace,
~VOW

 

[Polycarp]

Originally posted by Wolseley
Not me. My arms are way too short to box with the Almighty. He can make as many different types of covenants with as many different types of people as He chooses, and that's His business, not mine. It is not my call to judge people worthy of going to hell simply because they don't believe as I do. My job is provide witness of what I believe to be the truth, and leave their salvation up to the mercy of God. What He does is up to Him.

"For whatsoever judgement ye judge, the same judgement shall be rendered unto you."

AMEN! - This is exactly what I have been trying to say, and I have failed misserably - you have said it so well.

When I realized this - It was so freeing.

Thanks Wols.

 

[Wolseley]

This is exactly what I have been trying to say, and I have failed misserably - you have said it so well.

When I realized this - It was so freeing.

Thanks Wols.

You're welcome.

My only caveat would be to caution adherents of those various covenants not to "liberate" themselves into outright heresy; because while there may be many covenants, there are also stipulations within those covenants.

 

[bouncer]

I'm still having problems understanding this one......

How do I reconcile this present ruling of the Catholic church with these words of Jesus:

"I am the way, the truth, and the life; NO ONE cometh unto the Father but by me. "

Not me. My arms are way too short to box with the Almighty. He can make as many different types of covenants with as many different types of people as He chooses, and that's His business, not mine. It is not my call to judge people worthy of going to hell simply because they don't believe as I do. My job is provide witness of what I believe to be the truth, and leave their salvation up to the mercy of God. What He does is up to Him.

"For whatsoever judgement ye judge, the same judgement shall be rendered unto you."

I dont want to say that anyone should be condemned to hell just because they believe differently than I do.  I'd be happy if God, took the whole world to heaven with him....the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists....everyone!!!

BUT....did God really assure the Jews of eternal life without Jesus ? Fr. Rob's post had this verse that contained the definition of a Jew:

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly. Romans 2: 28, 29

I'm no Bible scholar, so hopefully one of you who understands this new ruling can make it clearer to me......


 

 

 

[ZooMom]

From the Catechism:

674. "The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by 'all Israel', for 'a hardening has come upon part of Israel' in their 'unbelief' toward Jesus.[Rom I 1:20-26 ; cf. Mt 23:39 .] St. Peter says to the JEWS of Jerusalem after Pentecost: 'Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old.'[Acts 3:19-21 .] St. Paul echoes him: 'For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?'[Rom 11:15 .] The 'full inclusion' of the JEWS in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of 'the full number of the Gentiles',[Rom 11:12, 25 ; cf. Lk 21:24 .] will enable the People of God to achieve 'the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ', in which 'God may be all in all'.[Eph 4:13 ; 1 Cor 15:28 .]"


Perhaps this will help. The last part especially seems to be saying that the Jews will have a place in Christ's Salvation only after all the 'Gentiles' have come to Him. They have an existing Covenant with God. It was neither broken nor superseded by Christ's Sacrifice. It will be fulfilled eventually through the Blood of the Lamb, one way or another. I didn't write the script, I'm just watchin' the show.

 

[ZooMom]

Ah! More!

839. "'Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.'[LG 16.]
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,[Cf. NA 4.] 'the first to hear the Word of God.'[Roman Missal, Good Friday 13: General Intercessions, VI.] The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the JEWS 'belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ',[Rom 9:4-5 .] 'for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.'[Rom 11:29 .]"

How's that?

 

[bouncer]

This is really hard reading.....I still can't understand.

 

[bouncer]

To the JEWS 'belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ',[Rom 9:4-5 .] 'for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.'[Rom 11:29 .]"

Hmm....but if we substitute Pauls definition of a Jew from Romans 2:28,29 ;
that seems to exclude people who were simply born into that particular race, but the verse does not make clear who is actually considered a Jew.....

so basically im still confused..... unless of course, the word Jew is taken literally.

 

[ZooMom]

Well, then, what makes someone a Jew? So the Sciptures tell us that one must be a Jew 'inwardly'. What does that mean? Does it mean that ancestry just falls by the wayside? Can't be, because what about the prophecy that the Christ would be of the line of David? Who would bother making a prophecy about something that was of no importance? Does it refer to culture, religion, what? Faith? Hmmm...could be that, but Jews don't have faith in the Christ, they put their faith in God. There's a happy puzzle. So, I guess we need to figure out what it means to be a Jew before we can figure out anything else about them. And I've got no clue. Anyone?

 

[KC Catholic]

I got this from Mark Shea's blog http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/:

Chill, People

Sheesh! The American Bishops come out with some tentative document (promulgated by who? with what force? binding on the faithful how?) whose very first word is "Reflections" (hint: rumination, cogitation, thinking, working through, not the Final Word) and half my readers are ready to leave the Church. One of them posts the link and says "Let the excuses begin". Not surprisingly, he later condemns the document (one wonders if he'd read it before posting the link). Others are rending their garments and saying things like "This USCCB document is therefore fundamentally flawed, and dare I say, heretical. Moreover, it demonstrates a growing disturbing trend in the Church to dispose of her authority and become Unitarian. Finally, the fact that the non-Roman Churches are part of the USCCB means that they too, are complicit in the demise of the Church. Catholics, where will we go?"


May I suggest nobody go anywhere, even if the document is rank heresy (which I am not at all convinced it is)? Worst case scenario: Some bishops committee issues a document tomorrow declaring that Jesus is unnecessary for salvation. They would have to do it tomorrow because--mark this--<I><B>they didn't do it today</B></I>. Today's document makes clear that Jesus is the savior of all people, whether they realize it or not. It was to that question I originally spoke and there is simply no shred of evidence that the bishops denied this. That would be the essential heretical statement, if there were one in this document. It's not there.
But suppose it was? Then what. Well, first of all its just some bishop's committee. Second, even if the American bishops signed off on it, we have to ask ourselves "Should I have bailed on the Church when most of the bishops were Arian in the 4th century?" If not, then what should I have done?


But all this is extremely hypothetical since, in fact, the bishops' reflection is not, so far as I can see, heretical. So what is there?
Lawrence King sums it up nicely below: "The Old Covenant is indeed salvific, <I>because the New Covenant is hidden in the Old</I>." That's the kernel of what the bishops are getting at. As a result of that insight, the bishops initiate nothing new, they simply note that the Church as an institution, will not be "targeting" Jews for conversion. No institution-driven proselytizing. Can individual Catholics bear witness to their faith? Of course! Can Jews bear witness to theirs (which is also from God and of permanent validity according to Romans 11)? Yes. Is Jesus the savior of all? Yes. The only real question the bishops deal with is the highly tentative matter of what is the best way to proceed in terms of dialogue with our Jewish elder brothers. And that, so far from being revolutionary, looks like a reassuring statement for the benefit of Jews that Catholics will basically go on as they have been doing, honoring their tradition and not demanding they violate their consciences.


I think it vital that panicky Catholics remember that the Church is indefectible *and* that the bishops are basically in the same boat as the rest of us as they mull over the relationship of the Church and the Jews: that is, they are indeed mulling at this point. The document is called "Reflections" for a reason. It has all the earmarks of a meditation (which some practical attempts to put legs on that meditation, of course). It is not written for the ages and it is not the final word of the Church by any stretch. Instead of insta-judgements and calls to abandon ship, some sense of proportion is called for.


Or, if you really think the Church is proposing something wildly different from what you are, in fact, doing already with respect to your Jewish neighbor let me candidly ask you: when was the last time you walked up to your Jewish friend and said, "Repent! And become a Christian!" Tell me how successful that was. If you haven't done that lately, what exactly are you screaming at the bishops for?
Are our bishops frequently a bunch of spineless screwups? Readers of my blog know my answer to that. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Deep cleansing breaths everybody. And then discuss.
<SPAN class=byline>posted by Mark Shea at 4:05 PM

</SPAN>

 

[VOW]

To Bouncer:

How do I reconcile this present ruling of the Catholic church with these words of Jesus:

"I am the way, the truth, and the life; NO ONE cometh unto the Father but by me. "

Well, I suggest you start by not taking just ONE verse out of context. When people go after Scripture with tweezers and a razor blade, they end up with something that sounds more like a ransom note than a message from God.

To reiterate my position:

The Jews are God's Chosen People. Very few outsiders have been able to join the Jewish faith. I think most of the 'outsiders' were gained by intermarriage, and the circumstances leading up to that usually meant the Jews were in the "disobedient" part of their relationship with God, and they typically got the snot kicked out of them. But the Jews have never gone around the world actively recruiting others to join them. The "Chosen People" status was pretty special to them.

Then, after the Ascension of Jesus and the Pentecost, the Apostles make the WONDERFUL discovery that the message of Jesus is intended not only for the Jews, but for the Gentiles, too! They were commanded to go forth and TEACH.

The way I see it, the New Covenant through Jesus allows all of us unworthy, wretched, miserable Gentiles to SHARE in the inheritance of God's Chosen People. We're "grafted on."

The New Covenant exists only because the Old Covenant did. I'm not one to kick out the ladder beneath me. As Wols said, let's give this one to God to straighten out.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Fr. Rob]

I guess the problem I see with this is the fact that we see the fufillment of all kinds of other orders, commands, and prophecies in Scripture.

Circumcision is an imperfect allusion to Water Baptism in the New Covenant.

The Passover Feast is an imperfect allusion to the Eucharist and the Crucifixion in the New Covenant.

If we accept that Circumcision and the Passover set the stage for Baptism and the Eucharist (which the Church does), then why can we not accept that Fleshly Israel set the stage for Spritual Israel.

Also, I don't see how one can take "NO ONE" out of context when discussing the mode of approach to the Father. No one means no one. It's like saying that God was a failure. There's no way to say it that isn't heretical.

Now, if we want to discuss normal or exceptional modes of salvation. . .well. . . that's one thing. I have a hard time believing that someone who had never heard of Jesus Christ at all in his or her life would not be given a chance by God to hear the Gospel. . . but to hear it, know of it, and actively reject it is the source of condemnation.

I doubt you will find a Jew who has not heard of Jesus Christ. Refusing his free gift of salvation is a very serious thing. . . and if indeed the Old Covenant was the precursor of the New, if the rites of the Old Covenant were superceded by the rites of the New, then the Jewish people by the flesh are in trouble, because they do not have a saving knowledge of Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

Fr. Rob