Ship of Fools: ignorance about Jews - Nostra aetate 50 years on

Thread: ignorance about Jews - Nostra aetate 50 years on Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029167

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

This document had revolutionary implications for Christian understanding of Judaism - for evangelism, in teaching, preaching, liturgy &c.

It doesn't seem that much has changed.

What do others think?

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

What weight does that carry in Church affairs today? I had a real sense of the love and compassion behind it as I was reading the text. Very moving.

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :

One of the things that struck me very forcibly this Easter at the Vigil service was how deep our roots are in Judaism......

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

True - though one commonly used Anglican version has the Jewish readings shrouded in darkness and the lights come on when we get to the New Testament - 'The people that in darkness sat....'

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

I think it might be useful to have some examples of those things you consider have not changed.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

There are still people who want to convert Jews.
People still think the pharisees were rule-bound and hypocritical.
Hymns still blame the Jews for killing jesus and not recognising as messiah.
Jews are spoken about in the past tense as if they no longer exist.
It is very rare for seminaries to deal with Jewish issues in scripture and preaching.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

The speaking about Jews only in the past tense is an interesting one that comes up just as much for progressives as conservatives. On Dead Horse issues, often people will reference the laws of kashrut as if nobody keeps kosher anymore!

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

All very noble on the surface.

Meanwhile, 70 years after the end of World War II in Europe the Vatican still won't open up its archives on how people in the curia established and ran a 'ratline' from early 1945 enabling thousands of nazi war criminals to flee Europe and begin new lives in, mainly, South America.

And the canonisation of Pius XII draws ever closer.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There are still people who want to convert Jews.

I'm not quite sure what is wrong with that. Surely every Christian should desire the conversion of the Jews, especially on account of our Lord who came from those people and preached to them the gospel first.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
People still think the pharisees were rule-bound and hypocritical.

Our Lord says they were.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Hymns still blame the Jews for killing jesus and not recognising as messiah.

This is a difficult one, bound to raise tempers. I won't go into it any further.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Jews are spoken about in the past tense as if they no longer exist.

Not sure what you mean here.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is very rare for seminaries to deal with Jewish issues in scripture and preaching.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean here or how it's relevant.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There are still people who want to convert Jews.
I'm not quite sure what is wrong with that. Surely every Christian should desire the conversion of the Jews, especially on account of our Lord who came from those people and preached to them the gospel first..

No - they have their own covenant and even Pope Benedict said that it was wrong to evangelise Jews.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
People still think the pharisees were rule-bound and hypocritical.
Our Lord says they were.

The scholarship that we now possess shows this to be false. Jesus engaged in intra-pharisaical argument with them and nothing that he said was any different from what other pharisees said to each other.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is very rare for seminaries to deal with Jewish issues in scripture and preaching.
Again, I'm not sure what you mean here or how it's relevant.

Have you read th Vatican document that this thread refers to? It explicitly instructs seminaries to deal with Judaism in the light of its teachings and they haven't done so.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There are still people who want to convert Jews.
I'm not quite sure what is wrong with that. Surely every Christian should desire the conversion of the Jews, especially on account of our Lord who came from those people and preached to them the gospel first..
No - they have their own covenant and even Pope Benedict said that it was wrong to evangelise Jews.

When did he say that? What is the point of our Lord inaugurating a new covenant then, a covenant both he and his Apostles preached to the Jews?

[ 20. May 2015, 15:05: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
People still think the pharisees were rule-bound and hypocritical.
Our Lord says they were.
The scholarship that we now possess shows this to be false. Jesus engaged in intra-pharisaical argument with them and nothing that he said was any different from what other pharisees said to each other.

Eh?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is very rare for seminaries to deal with Jewish issues in scripture and preaching.
Again, I'm not sure what you mean here or how it's relevant.
Have you read the Vatican document that this thread refers to? It explicitly instructs seminaries to deal with Judaism in the light of its teachings and they haven't done so.

Yes I have a number of times and whilst I would say there are some problems with the document I'm having trouble finding where it agrees with your first objection especially.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

And all of this is making the assumption that all Jews are religious, when that is far from the case.

My Jewish relatives range from the ultra religious to what are termed 'secular Jews'.

It wasn't for their religion that the jews were herded to the death camps, it was for their race.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

Or rather, the notion that there is such a thing as a Jewish race.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
People still think the pharisees were rule-bound and hypocritical.
Our Lord says they were.
The scholarship that we now possess shows this to be false. Jesus engaged in intra-pharisaical argument with them and nothing that he said was any different from what other pharisees said to each other.
Eh?

It wasn't a 'new'covenant but a 'renewed' (in the Greek) one which extended to Gentiles too.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Must remember to get myself circumcised then.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
People still think the pharisees were rule-bound and hypocritical.
Our Lord says they were.
The scholarship that we now possess shows this to be false. Jesus engaged in intra-pharisaical argument with them and nothing that he said was any different from what other pharisees said to each other.
Eh?

See Jesus and pharisees saying the sdame thing

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Yes - the Pharisees weren't inherently bad, just going by the letter of the law rather than the spirit. Jesus was in effect a liberal Pharisee.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Yes - the Pharisees weren't inherently bad, just going by the letter of the law rather than the spirit. Jesus was in effect a liberal Pharisee.

I think the point is that the old stereotype of the Pharisees going "by the letter of the Law" and misding the spirit is inaccurate. Within the movement, there was a huge amount of debate.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Indeed, I feel that how the Pharisees are portrayed in the Gospels is a bit of a caricature of how they really were. I guess every story needs some baddies.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

I for one am not willing to say that the Gospel writers and our Lord himself were wrong. If it contradicts what modern scholarship says then it is modern scholarship which must be in error.

[ 23. May 2015, 10:48: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Yes - the Pharisees weren't inherently bad, just going by the letter of the law rather than the spirit. Jesus was in effect a liberal Pharisee.
I think the point is that the old stereotype of the Pharisees going "by the letter of the Law" and misding the spirit is inaccurate. Within the movement, there was a huge amount of debate.

Also I think the term liberal is inaccurate and in a sense anachronistic. Jesus' view on divorce and arguably gentiles was not liberal.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It wasn't a 'new'covenant but a 'renewed' (in the Greek) one which extended to Gentiles too.

In fact, what the Catholic Church teaches - and has always taught and will always teach - is that the old covenant was fulfilled in Christ. "Renewed" conveys the highly misleading (because false) notion that all that changed was opening the same old deal up to more people.

If the old deal still applied to the Jewish people and was entirely sufficient and salvific for them, why did Christ come to establish the new covenant in His blood at all? Why did He call the Jews in the first place? What did He call them to? Why did the apostles and other disciples not only accept that new deal themselves, but preach it to all the other Jews as well as to the Gentiles?

Perhaps you really do believe that the Jewish people are missing nothing by not accepting Christ as their promised Messiah - as their saviour and the Lord their God. But I can assure you that that is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches. Chapter and verse from actual teaching documents, please, if you want to argue to the contrary.

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There are still people who want to convert Jews.
I'm not quite sure what is wrong with that. Surely every Christian should desire the conversion of the Jews, especially on account of our Lord who came from those people and preached to them the gospel first.

No, 'every Christian' should not. As I believe people have tried to explain to you before, you are not the arbiter of what any Christian should believe, much less all of us.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Hymns still blame the Jews for killing jesus and not recognising as messiah.
This is a difficult one, bound to raise tempers. I won't go into it any further.

But you still felt it necessary to post that. This 'not touching you' game is pretty tedious.

t

[ 23. May 2015, 13:28: Message edited by: Teufelchen ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Teulfechen, I don't see you beef with AdOr here. What was wrong with him saying that the issue leo raised about the hymns was a tricky one and one he was going to avoid?

More subtantively, and this is directed to leo too, do you not believe that Christ Himself wanted His own people - the Jews - to hear and embrace the good news (i.e., not "olds")? Did He not die for them too? If not, why not? I'm genuinely puzzled.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

If I thought I was the arbiter of what others should believe, which is why I said "should" instead of "must". However, I find it difficult squaring the contrary belief with the gospel. I just don't see it, for it would seem the both Christ and his Apostles were speaking bollocks.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I for one am not willing to say that the Gospel writers and our Lord himself were wrong. If it contradicts what modern scholarship says then it is modern scholarship which must be in error.

It isn't that the gospels are 'wrong' - it's our interpretation of them. Much moden scholarhip has helped us to understand Jesus against his Jewish background and shown us that the words he spoke resonated very differently agaimnst that backdrop.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
More subtantively, and this is directed to leo too, do you not believe that Christ Himself wanted His own people - the Jews - to hear and embrace the good news (i.e., not "olds")? Did He not die for them too? If not, why not? I'm genuinely puzzled.

He died for all.

The 'good news' for Jews was recalling them to the extension of the covenant to gentiles and the 'new hearts' written of by Ezekiel et al.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

This puts me in the almost unheard of position of thinking that Chesterbelloc and Ad Orientem have a good point. If Jesus was the Messiah, is he not the Messiah of the Jewish people as much as (more than, even) the gentiles?

(X-post with Leo, whose post I can't somehow make sense of)

[ 23. May 2015, 15:04: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It wasn't a 'new'covenant but a 'renewed' (in the Greek) one which extended to Gentiles too.
In fact, what the Catholic Church teaches - and has always taught and will always teach - is that the old covenant was fulfilled in Christ. "Renewed" conveys the highly misleading (because false) notion that all that changed was opening the same old deal up to more people.

If the old deal still applied to the Jewish people and was entirely sufficient and salvific for them, why did Christ come to establish the new covenant in His blood at all? Why did He call the Jews in the first place? What did He call them to? Why did the apostles and other disciples not only accept that new deal themselves, but preach it to all the other Jews as well as to the Gentiles?

Perhaps you really do believe that the Jewish people are missing nothing by not accepting Christ as their promised Messiah - as their saviour and the Lord their God. But I can assure you that that is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches. Chapter and verse from actual teaching documents, please, if you want to argue to the contrary.

Obviously, I disagree. Then again, I heard Prof. Gavin D'Costa recently saying that different people select their favourite bits of Nostra Aetate and that it needs to be read in the light of Lumen Gentium, whicxh has hifgher authority becausde it is a doctrine/teaching document whereas the former is 'guidelines'.

The differing interpretatiomns bny extreme traditionalists and the likes of Kaspar are spelt out in

"campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church."

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Teulfechen, I don't see you beef with AdOr here. What was wrong with him saying that the issue leo raised about the hymns was a tricky one and one he was going to avoid?

More subtantively, and this is directed to leo too, do you not believe that Christ Himself wanted His own people - the Jews - to hear and embrace the good news (i.e., not "olds")? Did He not die for them too? If not, why not? I'm genuinely puzzled.

I believe it is the action of God through Jesus Christ which is effective for salvation, not our witless attempts at proselytising. If Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews, it's not our business to try and make Jews un-Jewish.

I also don't think we have anything like sufficient distance from the manifold evils perpetrated in the name of converting the Jews to be able to view any current or future such project neutrally.

And my beef with Ad Orientem was that he picked up a reference to the one area of our religious practice where we still dig up the wretched idea of Jews as Christ-killers, and said it was bound to raise tempers, so he wouldn't say any more. I don't suppose saying 'yes, that's bad' would raise tempers, so it looks an awful lot like coming close to saying something alternative to that, and then shying away. If he didn't want to say anything, he could just have said nothing.

t

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I heard Prof. Gavin D'Costa recently saying that different people select their favourite bits of Nostra Aetate and that it needs to be read in the light of Lumen Gentium, whicxh has hifgher authority becausde it is a doctrine/teaching document whereas the former is 'guidelines'.

So where does Lumen Gentium say that the Jews needn't concern themselves with the Gospel of Christ?

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The differing interpretatiomns bny extreme traditionalists and the likes of Kaspar are spelt out in "campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church."

What is the point you wish to make in linking to that particular (lengthy) document? It's rather a smokescreen without your saying what relevance it has to the point in hand.

I repeat that if what you're trying to do is claim that the Catholic Church does not teach that Christ came to bring Jews and gentiles alike into His mystical body the Church, and that the Church should not preach the Gospel to all, Jews and gentiles both, you'll need to point to the bits of actual authoritative teaching documents where you think that is being said.

quote:
It isn't that the gospels are 'wrong' - it's our interpretation of them. Much moden scholarhip has helped us to understand Jesus against his Jewish background and shown us that the words he spoke resonated very differently agaimnst that backdrop.

[...]

The 'good news' for Jews was recalling them to the extension of the covenant to gentiles and the 'new hearts' written of by Ezekiel et al.

Like Karl, I don't understand what you mean by that.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
I believe it is the action of God through Jesus Christ which is effective for salvation, not our witless attempts at proselytising.

Naturally I agree, but isn't it therefore important, that being true, to tell everyone whom it affects as un-witlessly as we can? Our witlessness shouldn't be used as a cop-out for being witnessless.

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
If Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews, it's not our business to try and make Jews un-Jewish.

Meaning what, precisely? That the gospel the Jewish Messiah preached isn't Jewish enough for Jews? [Confused]

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
I also don't think we have anything like sufficient distance from the manifold evils perpetrated in the name of converting the Jews to be able to view any current or future such project neutrally.

I think that's just another cop-out, I'm afraid. Don't we as Christians believe that the fulness of the truth about Jesus Christ sets people free - that it is good for them to hear it? Isn't your argument a bit like saying: "I don't think doctors have anything like sufficient distance from the manifold evils perpetrated against patients in the history of medicine to be able to view any current or future treatment of illness"? [Just to pre-empt, I am not saying that Jewish people are "sick" in any sense at all: that's not the point of my analogy.]

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
And my beef with Ad Orientem was that he picked up a reference to the one area of our religious practice where we still dig up the wretched idea of Jews as Christ-killers, and said it was bound to raise tempers, so he wouldn't say any more. I don't suppose saying 'yes, that's bad' would raise tempers, so it looks an awful lot like coming close to saying something alternative to that, and then shying away. If he didn't want to say anything, he could just have said nothing.

I think he just wanted to acknowledge the point and to indicate that he thought it too thorny to tackle: saying nothing looks like just ignoring it. Perhaps I'm wrong: I can't speak for him.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Chester,

Yes.

Teulfelchen,

I wasn't aware convertion to Christianity changes a person's DNA.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Our witlessness shouldn't be used as a cop-out for being witnessless.

Nice!

(Closed course, professional driver. Do not attempt in your own homily.)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I heard Prof. Gavin D'Costa recently saying that different people select their favourite bits of Nostra Aetate and that it needs to be read in the light of Lumen Gentium, whicxh has hifgher authority becausde it is a doctrine/teaching document whereas the former is 'guidelines'.
So where does Lumen Gentium say that the Jews needn't concern themselves with the Gospel of Christ?

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The differing interpretatiomns bny extreme traditionalists and the likes of Kaspar are spelt out in "campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church."
What is the point you wish to make in linking to that particular (lengthy) document? It's rather a smokescreen without your saying what relevance it has to the point in hand.

The point of the 'lengthy' document was to spell out the different interpretations held by RCs.

I repeat that if what you're trying to do is claim that the Catholic Church does not teach that Christ came to bring Jews and gentiles alike into His mystical body the Church, and that the Church should not preach the Gospel to all, Jews and gentiles both, you'll need to point to the bits of actual authoritative teaching documents where you think that is being said.

D'Costa is a prof. of RC theology and on the pontifical commission that deals with other faiths and he explained that different people cherry pick Nostra Aetate but that Lumen gentium has more authority and it ranks religions in salvific order.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
It isn't that the gospels are 'wrong' - it's our interpretation of them. Much moden scholarhip has helped us to understand Jesus against his Jewish background and shown us that the words he spoke resonated very differently agaimnst that backdrop.

[...]

The 'good news' for Jews was recalling them to the extension of the covenant to gentiles and the 'new hearts' written of by Ezekiel et al.
Like Karl, I don't understand what you mean by that.

I can't fully explain that as it would take a summary of Sanders or, on a more simple level, N. T. Wright.

Because the covenant is extended to gentiles, the Jews don't have to bear the weight of being a priestly people all on their own.

[ 24. May 2015, 15:37: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Leo, apart from the "salvific order" bit (which I simply don't understand: "Christianity: now 63% more saving than Judaism!"?) you've already said this. Nothing that prof says has any teaching authority in itself: why not just point to the bits of Nost. Aet. or Lum. Gen. that you think tell us the Jews don't need Christ's new covenant?

And why can't you summarise the theory you're propounding for us?

As for:

quote:
Because the covenant is extended to gentiles, the Jews don't have to bear the weight of being a priestly people all on their own.

I've already pointed out that "extension of the old covenant" is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches: Christ fulfilled the old covenant and makes everyone, Jews and gentiles alike, a new covenant in His blood. If you want to suggest otherwise, give us chapter and verse from magisterial documents.

[ 24. May 2015, 15:53: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
It isn't that the gospels are 'wrong' - it's our interpretation of them. Much moden scholarhip has helped us to understand Jesus against his Jewish background and shown us that the words he spoke resonated very differently agaimnst that backdrop.

[...]

The 'good news' for Jews was recalling them to the extension of the covenant to gentiles and the 'new hearts' written of by Ezekiel et al.
Like Karl, I don't understand what you mean by that.
I can't fully explain that as it would take a summary of Sanders or, on a more simple level, N. T. Wright.

Because the covenant is extended to gentiles, the Jews don't have to bear the weight of being a priestly people all on their own.

The implication almost seems to be that once enough Jews had become convinced that Jesus was a the Messiah to go out into the Gentile world, and preach, then that was the Jewish people sorted so to speak regarding their relationship with God's actions in Christ.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Yes - the Pharisees weren't inherently bad, just going by the letter of the law rather than the spirit. Jesus was in effect a liberal Pharisee.
I think the point is that the old stereotype of the Pharisees going "by the letter of the Law" and misding the spirit is inaccurate. Within the movement, there was a huge amount of debate.
Also I think the term liberal is inaccurate and in a sense anachronistic. Jesus' view on divorce and arguably gentiles was not liberal.

Sorry, using 'liberal' in the sense of less rigid/legalistic - but you're right that it's not the most accurate word.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Leo, apart from the "salvific order" bit (which I simply don't understand: "Christianity: now 63% more saving than Judaism!"?) you've already said this. Nothing that prof says has any teaching authority in itself: why not just point to the bits of Nost. Aet. or Lum. Gen. that you think tell us the Jews don't need Christ's new covenant?

And why can't you summarise the theory you're propounding for us?

As for:

quote:
Because the covenant is extended to gentiles, the Jews don't have to bear the weight of being a priestly people all on their own.

I've already pointed out that "extension of the old covenant" is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches: Christ fulfilled the old covenant and makes everyone, Jews and gentiles alike, a new covenant in His blood. If you want to suggest otherwise, give us chapter and verse from magisterial documents.

The document to which I linked shows the wide variety of views at Vatican 2 - the RCC isn't as monolithic as you believe it to be.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
give us chapter and verse from magisterial documents.

Oh. And what is all this chapter and verse stuff. An evo. fundie uses that sort of language.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And why can't you summarise the theory you're propounding for us?

Because I can't summarise a whole load of books.

If you were genuinely interested, you'd read some of them.

Also, you have fixated on one issue - the converting of Jews - they say that conversion is worse than the holocaust and many RCs now see that.

You could look at

this.

and this.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Rather, I suspect, the Catholic Chursh is not as loosey-goosey as you would like it to be. It has actual, checkable, written-down teachings. Like every other body, around those core tenets there is naturally a wide variety of arguments, opinions, etc, more or less assenting to that core but which in themseleves carry no magisterial authortiy whatsoever.

So, once more for luck, I'm asking for two things from you:

1) a reasonable summary of the arguments you cite in your cause;

2) bits of actual teaching documents - not secondary websites or references to what other scholars, no matter how closely involved with the Church's work, may have said - which actually say what you say the Church teaches about the Jews not needing to accept the Gospel of Christ (such that it would be wrong to preach it to them).

I will take your claim that the RCC teaches that Jews don't need Christ's Gospel to be withdrawn if you comment no further on it.

My only concern is that Catholic teaching not be misrepresented. There are enough Catholics out there misrepresenting it without outside voices adding to the throng.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It wasn't a 'new'covenant but a 'renewed' (in the Greek) one which extended to Gentiles too.
In fact, what the Catholic Church teaches - and has always taught and will always teachhapter and verse from actual teaching documents, please, if you want to argue to the contrary.

Do you have some sort of prophetic insight into the future so as to know what it will teach for all time in the future.

Isn't certainty wonderful?

I prefer faith.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
"Renewed" conveys the highly misleading (because false) notion that all that changed was opening the same old deal up to more people. that is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches. Chapter and verse from actual teaching documents, please, if you want to argue to the contrary.

The notion of God doing 'deal's with peopler sounds like a used car salesman.

Is the covenant kaine or neos?

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
give us chapter and verse from magisterial documents.
Oh. And what is all this chapter and verse stuff. An evo. fundie uses that sort of language.

Wanting evidence is reasonable and surely is the case for most people. The issue with evo fundies is using chapter and verse out of context, not simply wanting citations. Are Wikipedia editors saying citation needed now also evo fundies?

I have no horse in this race, I'm just not seeing the relevence of bringing up evangelicalism!

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
give us chapter and verse from magisterial documents.
Oh. And what is all this chapter and verse stuff.

What it is is refusing to let someone smokescreen their way out of substantiating a claim that the Catholic Church teaches something that she doesn't and never has. If she did so teach, it would be the easiest thing in the world to point to the sections of the documents - some of which you name but noticeably do not actually cite in your own defence - which say what you claim the Church teaches.

Since you won't stump up the evidence for your claim - indeed, since you don't even seem able to summarise it - but instead ignore my specific responses to your approach, I feel justified in concluding that you have no intention of trying to argue for your position. You'll have to forgive me, therefore, if I conclude that you can't.

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

Chesterbelloc, if you dislike unprovable claims, perhaps you'd like to retract your assertion that the RCC will always teach the same thing in the future?

t

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

If you mean my claim that the RCC will always teach that Christ came for all, including the Jews, to set up a new covenant for the whole world, I won't withdraw my claim to know that, if you don't mind.

Why not? Because if she ever did so she would not be the Catholic Church, founded by Christ, and I'd have to conclude that there probably never was such a church in the first place.

The Church is only the Church if she can justify her own claims to be the Church. If she can't, she isn't.

But this is all rather a sidetrack. What I want to address is something much more provable: whether the RCC teaches what leo claims she does. I haven't seen the evidence for that yet, and I hope I'll be forgiven if I don't expect to do so.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
give us chapter and verse from magisterial documents.
Oh. And what is all this chapter and verse stuff.
What it is is refusing to let someone smokescreen their way out of substantiating a claim that the Catholic Church teaches something that she doesn't and never has. If she did so teach, it would be the easiest thing in the world to point to the sections of the documents - some of which you name but noticeably do not actually cite in your own defence - which say what you claim the Church teaches.

Since you won't stump up the evidence for your claim - indeed, since you don't even seem able to summarise it - but instead ignore my specific responses to your approach, I feel justified in concluding that you have no intention of trying to argue for your position. You'll have to forgive me, therefore, if I conclude that you can't.

You don't seem to have looked at the referfences I have already given, especially the one where Pope Benedict concluded (against Avery Dulles) that it is wrong to try and convert Jews.

You also seem to believe that the RCC never changes her teaching - so the earth does move around the sun.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Why not? Because if she ever did so she would not be the Catholic Church, founded by Christ, and I'd have to conclude that there probably never was such a church in the first place.

That belief is the refuge of conservative/traditionalist RCs who don't want change.

I know of one of those Lefebre-ites who claimed that John Paul 2nd was a heretic; indeed that Vatican 2 hasd no authority.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
give us chapter and verse from magisterial documents.
Oh. And what is all this chapter and verse stuff. An evo. fundie uses that sort of language.
Wanting evidence is reasonable and surely is the case for most people. The issue with evo fundies is using chapter and verse out of context, not simply wanting citations. Are Wikipedia editors saying citation

But have you noticed the tone hectoring, harassing tone of he who has been asking for references and then either not reading them or else not liking the information in the references i have given so wants some different refefences.

Also noter that nowhere at all has he ever given references that support his views - in this threrad or, I am fairly certain, any other thread to which he has spoken in a fairly pontifical manner.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But have you noticed the tone hectoring, harassing tone of he who has been asking for references and then either not reading them or else not liking the information in the references i have given so wants some different refefences.

Also noter that nowhere at all has he ever given references that support his views - in this threrad or, I am fairly certain, any other thread to which he has spoken in a fairly pontifical manner.

I've been wondering how long you two could carry on before this exchange sank to the usual levels. You know perfectly well that personal attacks are out of bounds here.

Take the argument to Hell or take the personal sniping out of it. Or get a room.

Chesterbelloc, in my judgement leo may have actually crossed the line first, but consider yourself similarly warned.

/hosting

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Eutychus, I'm taking full account of your admonition and I consider myself duly warned.

I'll be leaving a decent gap - at least dinner-length - before getting back to leo.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You don't seem to have looked at the referfences I have already given

First, they are lengthy and I'm unsure how you think they explicitly support your position - because you refuse to do more than say (in effect): "Read this link to see that I'm right." This is a discussion board, not a classroom where giving people lengthy reading assignments instead of articulating your own arguments is a reasonable or respectful alternative. You started the thread, you made the pronouncements: why won't you lay out your argument for us?

But most frustratingly you seem to offer only speculative, individual theological opinions and documents, despite my repeated request for what is actually available to you: the magisterial documents issued by the Church. You cite Lumen Gentium, which is highly relevant to this debate, but you won't quote the bits you think shore up you opinion.

quote:
Also noter that nowhere at all has [Chesterbelloc] ever given references that support his views.

Because the burden of proof is with you! The Catholic teaching that ALL are called to belong to Christ through membership of His Church is pretty well known. But you want a citation?

quote:
[T]he Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door.

Don't like that? Too anti-Vat II, crypto-Lefebvrian? Well, it's from ... Lumen Gentium, as quoted in St John Paul II's Catechism.

quote:
You also seem to believe that the RCC never changes her teaching - so the earth does move around the sun.

Don't make me answer that one, leo.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I cannot put forward an argument for RC doctrine, but to me it seems very odd to suggest Christ was not for converting Jews when he and all the disciples were Jewish, when Paul and the apostles were arrested for preaching change in Jewish religious buildings etc and so on. It seems very obvious to me that the call was to Jews to be converted.

Where there is a conflict in the NT it seems to be about the status of Jewish believers after conversion and whether one could be a Christ believer without first becoming a Jew. The epistle writers seem to put this to bed by saying all believers are equal in the kingdom and that circumcision was not needed. At this point it would have been very easy to make it clear that salvation was not needed by the Jews.

The quandary is, as far as I can see, how to hold any exclusive religious position which entails believing full spiritual fullness is only achieved in a certain way which requires conversion and commitment whilst at the same time valuing other religious heritages. I can see that this is a difficult thing to wrestle with.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You don't seem to have looked at the referfences I have already given, especially the one where Pope Benedict concluded (against Avery Dulles) that it is wrong to try and convert Jews.

You put your own spin on his words if you like, but never does he endorse dual-covenant theology. Briefly what he says is that, in his own opinion, there is a time appointed for the conversion of the Jews and that we shouldn't try and anticipate this. Each of us can make up our own minds as to what he actually means by that but never does he say that the Jews need not convert. If he did then, quite frankly, it would be just one more reason to believe that the bishop of Rome is a heretic.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

That, and he was clearly speaking in a private capacity, not as Peter laying down teaching. I have an enormous amount of respect and filial affection for HH Benedict XVI, but except when he was explicitly invoking his unique magisterial office he was just Prof Ratzinger. Indeed, he said as much himself concerning his authorship of his Jesus of Nazereth trilogy. At all times, even as pope, he was the servant, not the master, of the Tradition.

[ 27. May 2015, 18:54: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0