"Like" One Under the Law

[Hadassah]

1 Corinthians. Specifically 9:19-20. So without getting into Romans and Hebrews, we can begin here to say that Christians who come from Judaism are certainly not bound by the Law. A related question is this: with the proper understanding of law and freedom in Christ, would it be acceptable for a Christian to live a Torah-observant life? I suppose the answer would depend on the intention and disposition of the individual, would it not?

[Athol]

Dear Hadassah,

I just posted a long answer that disappeared so I will just write something short for now. 'under law' [hupo nomos] is not the same as 'bound by Torah'. One needs to remember that PAUL IS A MYSTIC AND THAT MYSTICAL LANGUAGE IS NOT THE SAME AS THEOLOGICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL LANGUAGE. Paul mystically related to the Torah in a new or renewed way as the Redemption is now a reality for him and all the baptised, which it is not for the unbaptised - they are still aiming for the light of the Redemption. For the baptised jew the outward observance of the Torah is the same but the mitzvot are not just vessels to the light of the Redemption any more. For the baptised Jew has already that light. Now he observes the mitzvot in union with the Messiah so that now the mitzvot have a certain redemptive power for others and the mitzvot observed with redemptive light and power start the process leading to the Kingdom of sanctification. Paul has glimpsed this coming sanctification in what he calls the third Heaven- he calls this the Mystery of the Will.(see Ephesians).

[Hadassah]

Hello, Athol:

Perhaps I need the longer version of your reply to better understand your point. At the very least, I think need some frame of reference or clarification for the following statement:

"For the baptised jew the outward observance of the Torah is the same..."

From where do you draw this statement? Do you mean that this can be a personal choice which one makes ~ one path among others that can serve to glorify God and to contribute to the spiritual treasury of the Church? Or do you mean that a baptized Jew is legitimately bound to observe the commands of the Torah which now serve a different spiritual purpose and have a different meaning?

I am somewhat confused only because I read St. Paul as very clearly willing to take or leave observance of at least portions of the Torah (I am not advocating antinomianism), depending on the situation (e.g., 1 Corinthians 8:7-13).

Thank you,
Hadassah

[Athol]

Dear Hadassah,

I thought I would share something I wrote a long time ago on Paul so that you can see where I am coming from before I discuss Paul and Torah observance in more detail.


I Beheld The Lord Through The Mirror

“But all of us, with open (unveiled) faces, behold (see/adore/contemplate) the magnificence (Beauty/Glory) of the LORD (YHVH) like (as) in a mirror, and we are being transformed in to that Likeness from glory to glory by the Spirit who is the Lord (YHVH).” 2 Corinthians 3:18.

Thus writes St Paul in his second letter to the followers of the Way in the city of Corinth. Paul was his Roman name but he was also known as the Pharisaic Rabbi Sha’ul of Tarsus. He was trained by one of the greatest Torah scholars of his age – Gamaliel. This one verse in 2 Corinthians has a deep richness when examined in the light of the Jewish mystical tradition. This tradition was very familiar to Rabbi Sha’ul. Paul reveals in veiled terms his own ascent to the third heaven where he beheld unspeakable Divine mysteries. Many scholars in my opinion make a mistake with Paul and other New Testament writers by examining the meaning of the Greek words without realizing that the ideas are Hebraic and Paul and the other writers are choosing Greek words that best express the Hebraic meaning. This verse demonstrates this perfectly. In order to understand this verse one needs to understand the Jewish concepts of ‘open faces’, ‘the magnificence of YHVH’, ‘Likeness’, ‘glory to glory’ and ‘Spirit of YHVH’.

Open Faces

The verse begins “But all of us, with open faces….” What does Rabbi Sha’ul of Tarsus want us to understand? What does it mean to have an open face or an unveiled face? He refers to the veil that Moses (Moishe Rabbenu) wore after his encounter with God when he beheld the Divine Presence also called the Divine Face and Divine Glory. The Divine Face was also veiled and Moses could only behold the back of the Divine Glory. Paul comments further that a veil covers the minds and hearts of the Rabbinic Jews when they read the Old Covenant hiding from them the identity of the Eucharistic Lord. But the New Covenant believer who receives the Holy Spirit can now with unveiled and open faces adore the Beautiful Presence of the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. The Letter to the Hebrews* (i.e. Hebrew Catholics) confirms Paul’s insights:

“Let us then approach the Throne of Grace (i.e. Jesus in the Eucharist) with confidence, so that we may receive Mercy and attain grace to assist us in the time of need.”

In Jewish thought the face (panim) is in the plural form. This is connected with the idea of the right and left profiles of the face. However a deeper understanding found in the mystical tradition is the concept of the outer and inner faces (panim). The face in the Jewish mystical tradition has a deep symbolism. Even the outer face mirrors or signifies the 10 major Divine Attributes of the Divinity as Divine Man (Adam Kadmon). Paul calls this Divine Man who is to become the Messiah Jesus the Second Adam. Each feature of the face signifies one of the 10 Attributes of the Godhead. The inner face however in adoration of the Shekinah (Divine Presence) shines forth as a shining light from the inner to the outer face. This is why Moses’ face shone and why many Eucharistic adorers leave the chapel with a glow on their face. This inner face reveals the person’s soul which mirrors the Divine Attributes of the Son of Man (Ben Adam). In the Torah Jacob in Genesis 32:31 Jacob beheld (raiti) God face to face. In Hebrew this is ‘panim el panim’ (faces to faces). Here we understand that the face is not just limited to the physical face but the face represents the whole person body and soul. It is their whole being. Jacob wrestled with the Divine Man in prayer and adoration with many tears according to the Jewish tradition. Jacob refers to this as seeing God face to face. In the verse we are discussing from Paul (2 Cor. 3:18) he alludes to this passage about Jacob. The verse in Hebrew in which Paul probably composed his draft copy refers to the words of Genesis 32:31 and even makes a pun of them. Jacob uses the word raiti (I beheld/saw) and Paul also uses it for we behold and also mariah (mirror/from or through the mirror). The Jewish mystical tradition associates the concept of the Divine Face with the Divine Glory (Kavod). One’s glory shines through the face. This is why Paul calls a womans hair her crowning glory. For her hair is like a crown surrounding her face.

The Divine Man or Likeness

When the Jewish mystics such as the prophet Daniel and John the Beloved ascend to the Divine Realms through adoration they behold the Divine Likeness in the form of a Man. Daniel calls him Ben Adam (Son of Man) as does Enoch. In the Jewish mystical tradition this Celestial or Divine Man is called ‘Yosher’ and also Adam Kadmon (Primordial Man/ God -Man). The ‘Yosher’ is the visible manifestation of the invisible deity in his 10 chief Attributes. This is visualized as a Divine Man or Body and it is also called the Tree of Life. St Louis de Monfort calls Mary the mirror of the Tree of Life. God’s Attributes are infinite but the Jewish tradition groups them into 10 types or emanations. They are called the Sefirot. The root of Sefirot is SPR (samech peh resh) which is connected with the words for counting (numbers), book and Sapphire. In a sense the Sefirot are the source of all mathematical knowledge (counting), the Sefirot are also the divine Book or Living Torah and the Sapphire (Blue) Sea in Heaven is linked to the Sefirot. Each one of the 10 Sefirot are seen as crowns, garments, fruit and mirrors of the Divine King – YHVH.

The first Sefirot (Attribute) is the highest or deepest level of the Divine Likeness and is called Keter/Nezer (Crown) and also it is the Sefirah of Divine Will (Ratzon Elohee) This Crown of the Divine King is linked directly with the last and tenth Sefirah of Malkut (Kingdom) which is also the Shekinah (Divine Presence). In a sense the union of the Crown (Keter/Ratzon) with the Kingdom creates the white cloud of the Divine Presence that encompasses all of the Sefirot in an inseparable unity (echad). The Divine Will uniting with the Kingdom of the Divine Will is Shekinah. For the Catholic this white cloud symbolizes the White Host of the Eucharist. However this process of Shekinah is also connected to the ‘concept of the heart’ which is the mirror known as the heart devotion of the Mother. Catholics call this the ‘alliance of the two hearts’ or ‘two hearts that beat as one’. This in time is the face (mirror/glass/window) of the Mother beholding her Son’s face at his birth, during his life and especially at the Cross on Golgotha. At Golgotha her Heart became one with his wounded heart, her face in Adoration became one with his disfigured face- his Divine Glory was mirrored in her. Mary became and is a Living Host and in Eternity she is always united to her Son. The ‘Divine Will to Create’ is the son and he chose to create his Mother as the perfect and unblemished mirror of the Divine Likeness. At the foot of the Cross on Golgotha the Mother’s will became one with his Divine Will in recreating and restoring Man to his place beside God. This is why the ‘Divine Will to Create’ is also called Gulgalta (the Aramaic for Golgotha) in the Jewish mystical tradition. This adds understanding to St John’s concept that Jesus is the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world. This uniting of the Mother and Son at Gulgalta is taken up into Eternity in the heart of the Divine Will. This is God’s Plan from all Eternity. This is the Blueprint (Adam Kadmon) which is the Living Torah. This is why the whole of Creation is made in the image of this unity of the Mother and the Son through the powerful action of the Holy Spirit. This is the single act of the Divine Will and the Divine Desire (Volition) to Create.

The second Sefirah (attribute) that blazes forth from the Divine Will is Wisdom and the third attribute is Understanding (Binah). These first three attributes make up the divine Head are also called the Higher Glory and the higher or inner Face of the Godhead. The next seven Attributes make up the Divine Body. However the first three of these seven are called the Heart or Torso of the Body. The whole ten are also called the Divine Heart and Body. The fourth Sefirah is Divine Mercy (Chesed) and the fifth Divine Judgement or Justice (Din). The Attribute that most closely represents the Heart or the inner heart is Tiferet/ Rahamim (Beauty/Compassion). This Heart unites the Divine Mercy with the Divine Justice and they shine forth from the Divine Heart as rays of white and red light. In time this is the blood and water gushing forth from the heart of Jesus on the Cross at Golgotha. The Divine Mercy is perceived as the right white arm of the Divine Man and the Divine Justice/ Judgement is the left red arm. This is our right and left as we gaze on him in the Mirror.

The lower three attributes are Victory (Netzach), Majesty (Hod) and Foundation/Righteousness (Yesod/Tzaddik). They are associated with the two legs and phallus of the Divine Man. The last attribute of Malkut (kingdom), as mentioned above, unites with Keter/Ratzon (Crown /Will) and manifests in time and space as the Shekinah. These 10 Sefirot (Attributes) are one essence with God – they are three Lights (or persons) in the one Godhead. This Divine Man or Likeness is the Divine Face known as the Prince of the Face (Sar ha Panim) in Jewish tradition. The inner face of this Divine Face or Prince of the Face beholds the Father’s glory and mirrors it to us through and with and in the Heart and Face of the Mother united and consumed with the Holy Spirit. The lower or outer Face of the Divine or Holy Face is the face that beholds man’s face with love and mercy through the face of the Mother who is Queen and Mother of all mankind. In beholding her face at Golgotha he beholds the face of her children and this appeases his Divine Judgement/Justice.

Magnificence of YHVH

The word that Paul uses for magnificence is the same word used in the Aramaic (Peshitta) in 1 Chronicles 29:11 ‘teshbuchta’. In Hebrew this is Tiferet (Beauty/magnificence). This is also the inner heart of the Divine Man- the Heart of compassion. It is the heart that we are called to console or compassionate. However we can only behold this Divine Heart ‘as in a mirror’. This mirror is the heart devotion of the Mother. Mirror is Mariah in Hebrew. This mirror is also in Catholic terms the Eucharistic Host/Bread which is the body and blood of Jesus. This body and blood he receives uniquely only from his mother. He is blood of her blood, bone of her bone, flesh of her flesh and heart of her heart. Paul is alluding to the fact that when we gaze on this magnificent and beautiful Divine Heart as/like in a mirror then we activate or transform the Sefirot of our being more closely to this Divine Likeness which is the Divine Glory (Kavod). The inner light of the Attribute of Tiferet is the ‘light of glory’ (Or Kavod). The higher or deeper glory is the Divine Face or Head beholding (seeing) the Father- and the Father beholding his Son’s Face. This is the glory of the Father. The lower or manifesting glory is the concept of the Son, through the power of the Spirit, united with his Mother beholding the Spirit working in and through and with the Mother of Mankind. This is the glory of the Son. The divine glory perceived as uniting the Father and the Son and uniting the 10 attributes as one form or body is the glory of the Holy Spirit. Thus we have three glories that are One Glory and three faces that are one face and three heads that are one Head. Glory of Glories, Faces and Faces, Head of Heads, Lord of Lords, Holy of Holies, Sanctity of Sanctities and Eternity of Eternities are all terms of a Trinitarian nature.

Likeness

The Divine Likeness is mentioned in Genesis and is the Divine Man. Paul in 2 Corinthians 4:4 states “…the Messiah who is the likeness of God.” Thus Jesus is the Divine Likeness mentioned in Genesis. The concept of going from ‘glory to glory’ is connected with the spiritual ascent of the Divine Tree or Body seen as/like in a mirror. This begins with entering the Kingdom (Malkut) and immersing ourselves in the Divine Presence (Shekinah) in the Blessed Sacrament. As we gaze at or adore our Eucharistic King, through the Mother’s Heart, we ascend the spiritual Tree or Ladder ascending from one glory to the next level of glory along the 32 paths of Wisdom which are the Divine Heart. Thus the use by Paul of the term ‘glory to glory’ is referring to the Divine Attributes of the ‘Likeness’ which our faces/souls/inner being receive from on High by the Spirit of YHVH. Here Paul is alluding to Isaiah 11:2 which links the Spirit of YHVH with the Divine Attributes. Thus this single verse of Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians reveals the Triune God at work. With open or receiving faces/souls/hearts we behold the Divine Beauty of the Lord (God the Father) in the mirror of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary. We are transformed into a ever purer mirror of the Divine Likeness (God the Son) through his Divine Attributes (glory to glory/Divinization). This beholding and transforming is achieved by the Holy Spirit (spirit of YHVH). Thus the only way of being transformed into Christ as other Christs and as living Hosts is through adoring (beholding) the Divine Trinity in the mirror that is Mary’s Heart in Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

This Divine Likeness is also called by Paul in Romans 8:29 “the Likeness of the Image of his Son” and in Colossian 3:10 “the Likeness of his Creator” and in 1 Corinthians 15:49 “the Likeness of the One who is from Heaven”. This is how we put on Christ. We were created in the Divine Image but in Adam we lost his Divine Likeness and now through the second Adam we can regain that Divine Likeness in our souls or beings. Man was made in a unique way in the Image of God revealed in his chief 10 Attributes as a vessel that could receive the Divine Likeness or Glory to the greatest extent and give that glory or likeness as a reflected light to others. By living in the Divine Will we enter in to the highest level of the eternally ‘new and Divine Holiness’ so that we participate by adoption as co-Creators, co-Redeemers and co –Sanctifiers in and with and through the Mirror which is the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

[Athol]

Hello, Athol:


"For the baptised jew the outward observance of the Torah is the same..."

From where do you draw this statement? Do you mean that this can be a personal choice which one makes ~ one path among others that can serve to glorify God and to contribute to the spiritual treasury of the Church? Or do you mean that a baptized Jew is legitimately bound to observe the commands of the Torah which now serve a different spiritual purpose and have a different meaning?

Dear Hadassah,

I mean that the Jewish people as a collective are legimately bound to observe the commands of the Torah appropriate to their calling- this applies to the whole of the Jewish people which in God's time one day will as a collective embrace Yeshua as the Messiah and they will observe the Jewish way of sanctification. As individuals whether baptised or not individual Jews are at different levels of understanding. In the past baptised Jews were forbidden by religious authorities to observe the Jewish ways of sanctity and forced to observe in the Gentile way. Many baptised Jews understanding is a reflection of those who taught them who did not understand the unique place of the Jews in God's plan of salvation- so they observe in Gentile ways.

In recent years the Church has come more and more to reflect on the mystery of Israel and the role of the Jewish people in God's plan of salvation and thus they have created a place for baptised Jews to observe in Jewish ways. However I hope that one day the church will allow and create the space necessary for the Jews as a people - a collective- to live out their vocation. For the Jewish vocation is collective even if it does had an individual dimension.

Cheers Athol

[Athol]

Hello, Athol:


I am somewhat confused only because I read St. Paul as very clearly willing to take or leave observance of at least portions of the Torah (I am not advocating antinomianism), depending on the situation (e.g., 1 Corinthians 8:7-13).

Thank you,
Hadassah

Dear Hadassah,

Paul is a mystic that has been transformed by his encounter with the Lord and he glories in his new freedom in the Messiah. He knows that the Jewish food laws and the mitzvot are only the vessels to the light not the light itself- this is why it is not necessary for Gentiles, children and Jewish women to observe certain mitzvot that Jewish males do. He knows that the outward understanding of food laws is secondary to the inner meaning just as Jesus did in Mark 7.

Neither Jesus or Paul meant that Jews should now start eating non-kosher food. To think they did shows that one has missed the whole point and slipped back into the mundane. Paul knows that it is the spiritual fruit of observing the food laws that is the goal and that is why he allows (and the Jewish church allowed) non Jews to not observe the food laws in the Jewish way but to develop their own customs or vessels which would produce the spiritual fruit of the food laws. Both Paul and Jesus know tht it is not the actual food that pollutes but the heart intention. The food just passes through the body and is purged and dumped in the toilet as jesus said in Mark 7. Paul in Corinthians warns his readers not to misunderstand him or they could cause much spiritual damage to souls.

It is obvious from Acts 21 that both Paul and all the early Jewish Christians continued to observe the Torah in a Jewish manner most zealously while allowing Gentiles the freedom to live out their calling in the Messiah according to their own customs. The inner principles are the same but the outward manifestations will be different in different cultures. However for Jews God has already given a culture for godliness so it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel so to speak. this is the culture that Jesus, Mary and Joseph lived out faithfully though with a heart intenion (kevanah) that noone at the the time would have understood. Outwardly they observed Torah as every other Jew did- but internally that was another story- the were living internally that third heaven that Paul only glimpsed in his ascent. It is like when Jewish Catholics observe passover- outwardly they may observe exactly as they did before they came to Catholic Faith but now the Passover's signs and symbols and realities have a new freshness and understanding connected with the Eucharisitic passover Lamb that takes away the sins of the world. and so it is for all the Jewish festivals and customs.

Cheers Athol

[Hadassah]

Hello Athol:

You said: “Neither Jesus nor Paul meant that Jews should now start eating non-kosher food. To think they did shows that one has missed the whole point and slipped back into the mundane.”

I think that you’re making a real leap here and that much of Paul’s writing suggests (even states outright) that he can take or leave these ritual observances. Acts 21 only makes sense in light of what he says in 1 Corinthians 9:19ff. Perhaps you have a deeper understanding than I do... In humility, I will just leave this point where it lies.

However, in response to my request for clarification you said: “I mean that the Jewish people as a collective are legimately bound to observe the commands of the Torah appropriate to their calling...” and “In the past baptised Jews were forbidden by religious authorities to observe the Jewish ways of sanctity and forced to observe in the Gentile way.”

And so for you, this would include the Magisterium, I suppose? That may sound a little sarcastic in e-mail, but I don’t mean it so. I mean it as a sincere question. I am reminded of paragraph 1972 in the Catechism:

“The New Law is called a law of love because it makes us act out of the love infused by the Holy Spirit, rather than from fear; a law of grace, because it confers the strength of grace to act, by means of faith and the sacraments; a law of freedom, because it sets us free from the ritual and juridical observances of the Old Law...”

In your view, does this paragraph apply only to non-Hebrew Catholics?

Given this, it would seem to me that CHOOSING to abide by the “ritual and juridical observances” of the Torah (again with a proper understanding of law and freedom in Christ) may be a perfectly reasonable and beautiful way for a Hebrew Catholic to glorify God, pursue the path to holiness, and honor and respect the faith of his fathers. However, I must say that feeling BOUND to observance seems to contradict magisterial teaching (and modern, very recent magisterial teaching at that).

Good day,
Hadassah

[Athol]

Dear Hadassah,

Maybe I am not expressing myself well. I believe all Catholics -Jews and Gentiles -are bound or obliged to observe the Torah. Gentile Catholics are free to observe it in Gentile ways and Jewish Catholics are free to observe it in Jewish ways. There is only one Torah or Law of God revealed in Divine Revelation. When one speaks of Old law and New Law it must be clarified. The Catechism associates the Beatitudes as the new Law- it means that in the Messiah and his Gospel it is a renewed and deeper spiritual way of interpreting and understanding the Torah in the messiah- old LAW IS THE OLD WAY OF interpreting the law using fear as a school master- the new way is a way of freedom and love as sons of the redemption. In the church an individual Jew who becomes a Catholic is free to choose which way they want to observe but if one wishes to embrace the Jewish vocation then that means following the Jewish spiritual way given at Sinai and freely chosen by Jews of course interpretated in the new way as reveal by Yeshua. I am not talking about individuals being forced to observe the jewish ways but about those who have freely chosen that as their vocation. Just as a priest in an order choses to be one and thus is bound by the observances of his calling.

Cheers Athol

[Athol]

I think Cardinal Lustiger of paris says it much better than I.

"The Church appears in Jerusalem, after Pentecost, as an "assembly"
kahal in Hebrew, ecclesia in Greek. It is unthinkable that she would
claim to replace Israel. She is not another Israel, but the very,
fulfillment, in Israel, of God's plan...The Church is then faced
with the question of the extent to which these pagans who share in
Israel's Election should be obliged to observe the laws which are
Israel's trust, responsibility, and privilege. To what extent should
these pagans be associated with the totality of Israel's mission?
This is the major problem facing the first generations of
Christians, as all the New Testament writings testify...In this
early Church, the status of the pagan-Christian assemblies begins to
be established. They are not dispensed from observing the Law- if
the pagans did not observe the Law, they would have no share in
either Israel's Election or grace. But the gift of the Holy Spirit,
a grace of the messiah, enables pagans to observe the law
differently from Israel, which remains charged with
this "delightful" burden of observance. The Church of Jerusalem is,
in the Catholic church, the permanence of the promise made to
Israel, the presence of the fulfillment of that promise, an
attestation of the grace bestowed on the pagans. Thus, the church is
that of both Jews and pagans. The fact that this church of Jerusalem
was to survive only until the sixth century is one of history's
great mysteries and may well be a great spiritual tragedy-whose
final outcome remains hidden. For this matter the separation of the
church into Eastern and Western branches, cannot be considered
settled. These mysteries are a part of the wounds, the sins, that
we must acknowledge...The commandment to love as Jesus loves is not
to be substituted for the other commandments. That would make no
sense. There is only one holy Law. The law is the revelation of
God's commandments. The newness is in God's act, in that he sends
Israel his obedient Son... Jesus obviously spent much time
meditating on the commandments. Everything psalm 119 has to say
about the "delights" of the Law was certainly an essential part of
his prayer...The commandments were constantly being meditated by
Jesus as word of life...Why do these commandments have such
importance? How can we increase our understanding of them? The words
from Leviticus – `You shall be holy; for I am holy (11:44;19:2)- are
echoed in the Sermon on the Mount...It makes no sense to understand
the Sermon on the Mount as the substitution of one commandment for
another...It is essential to understand what is meant by the
expression "a new law". If the novelty meant is that the Holy Spirit
enters the heart of the one who participates in Christ's life –
the `law of the spirit' ,as Saint Paul expresses it- then, yes, the
expression "new law" is appropriate. However to maintain that the
revelation has been substituted for another is to understand
absolutely nothing of the mystery of Christ. It is to deny the gift
of God.

Why have these commandments been given to us?...The Law
enables us to act as God acts. And in Jesus meditation, the law
reveals how God acts. Just as much as the law is a precept given to
man, it is also revelation of God's action and his mystery...How can
it be suggested that by observing the Ten Commandments, we act as
God does, unless the commandments reveal to us how God acts? We have
to enter into Jesus' prayer – the gospel makes it possible – to
understand what the commandments tell us about the way God acts, how
they allow us to participate in God's own action...Undoubtedly,
there are several ways of observing certain precepts and practices
in religious life: that of the Church of Jerusalem, as described in
the Acts of the apostles in the first days of Christianity, a
community composed of observant Jews; an example of this way today
is monastic life – whereas the pagan- Christian communities do not
have the same obligations. All however, being ordered by love, which
is the greatest good of the church. This diversity is given for the
edification of all; but there is only one way to observe the will of
God and that is to obey the commandments." ( Cardinal Lustiger `The
Promise' JESUS AND THE LAW)

[Athol]

I am reminded of paragraph 1972 in the Catechism:

“The New Law is called a law of love because it makes us act out of the love infused by the Holy Spirit, rather than from fear; a law of grace, because it confers the strength of grace to act, by means of faith and the sacraments; a law of freedom, because it sets us free from the ritual and juridical observances of the Old Law...”

In your view, does this paragraph apply only to non-Hebrew Catholics?

Given this, it would seem to me that CHOOSING to abide by the “ritual and juridical observances” of the Torah (again with a proper understanding of law and freedom in Christ) may be a perfectly reasonable and beautiful way for a Hebrew Catholic to glorify God, pursue the path to holiness, and honor and respect the faith of his fathers. However, I must say that feeling BOUND to observance seems to contradict magisterial teaching (and modern, very recent magisterial teaching at that).

Good day,
Hadassah

Dear hadassah, I thus understand 1972 as meaning that those who are in the Messiah Yeshua are now free to observe the rituals and jurdicial obsevances in the new transformed way of love rather than in the old legalistic way appropriate to young students. Of course those connected with the sacrificial aspects of Judaism are now transformed into the sacrificial rituals of the New covenant - however the inner meaning is the same but deeper, outwardly they are transformed to suit the new reality. However that does not mean the old forms are of no use. for example the mass s the transformed Passover Seder but the old form of the Passover also has value and in fact helps one to understand and appreciate the New in a way otherwise impossible. This is why i believe God has preserved Judaism outside the church so that the living tradition of Judaism is not lost due to the Gentiles not being ready to receive them. When the Church has developed its theology in order to allow this heritage to continue in the Church then there is no need for Judaism outside the Church. Sadly that day has not dawned just yet but at least we are on the way.

Cheers Athol

[Athol]

Also this is from Cardinal Lustiger.

"Pagans also have a right to the Law , as
a holy law inscribed in their hearts. It is by acting through the
Messiah , with him and in him who made himself obedient to the Law
to death on the Cross, that they obey the Law. The discipline of the
church dispenses them from Israel's observances, a burden to heavy
for them, and which remains Israel's privilege. It is not for the
pagans to take on the physical history of the Hebrews, since they,
through Christ, have become spiritual offspring of Abraham, but not
his physical descendants. Nevertheless, in Christ they have access
to the plenitude of the law, and receive the Holy Spirit which
allows them to fulfil it." (Cardinal Lustiger "The Promise" ACCESS
THROUGH CHRIST TO ALL THE RICHES OF ISRAEL)

[Ariel]

Yes, I would generally tend to agree with Athol, though I might formulate it a bit differently. I do believe that one of the main reasons for the 'failure' of the Church to bring Christ to the Jewish people was that this would have caused their assimilation and practical dissolution of their Jewish identity.

This is why, as stated on some of our mission statements, I think that it's important for the Church to prepare a "space" where Jews who wish can become Catholic can do so without them forsaking the Jewish heritage.

Now on how exactly to do this, I certainly don't pretend to have all the answers...

Ariel

[Athol]

Here is a link for Cardinal newman's writings on the Development of Doctrine.

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/

[Athol]

Both Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Schonborn see no opposition between the Torah and the Gospel. They both quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1968 “The Lord’s sermon on the Mount, far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law, releases their hidden potential and has new demands arise from them: it reveals their entire divine and human truth. It does not add new external precepts, but proceeds to reform the heart, the root of human acts.” Cardinal Schonborn states that the Torah “is the plan of God’s heart, the plan by which he created the world, the plan that he revealed to his people. That is why there is no greater happiness than to be faithful to God’s Law. Jesus will even say that this fidelity is his ‘food’ (John 4:34).”

cheers Athol

[Athol]

Father Aidan Nichols another leading orthodox Catholic theologian also speaks of the Jews in the Church: “Since Judaism is not in the fullest sense a different religion from Christianity, there can be and are such a thing as Hebrew Catholics, Jews who have entered the Church but with every intention of maintaining their Jewish heritage intact…Hebrew Catholics…have a special place in the Church; their association enables them to experience a common identity as the prototype of the Israel of the end, and not merely a random collection of assimilated Jews…”. Father Aidan sees that “Judaism’s distinctive continuing light can add to the Church an orthopractic concern with mitzvoth, the divine precepts, whose actualization is a sign that makes present the Creator’s reign and so consecrating it to God through human agency.”


Cheers Athol

[Athol]

Louis Bouyer the great modern Catholic theologian states: “…the Church of the Gentiles subsists only as a graft on the trunk of Israel…Christianity will always be the legacy of Israel, which the Jews alone could give to the whole of mankind…”. Louis Bouyer calls the Church of the Circumcision, Judeo-Christianity, and states that it “cannot be considered a transitory phase of abolished Christianity” replaced and superseded by Gentile Catholicism. He emphasizes that Judeo-Christianity is the mother form of the Faith and the one which all other forms of Catholicism must have recourse to for authentic renewal and development. He perceives that it is a great weakness for the Church that the Jewish form of Catholicism does not at present subsist fully in the Church but only in tracings. Louis Bouyer believes that the Church will not reach its ultimate stage of development until the Jewish form of Catholicism has been rediscovered and allowed to fully live and breathe in the Church. This Jewish Church must express the definitive expression of the Gospel in the forms and categories of Judaism contained in both the Written and oral Torah of Judaism for the sake of the whole Church. Louis Bouyer states: “The Word of the Gospel, as Christ uttered it, as the apostles elucidated it, is woven entirely of the written Word of the Old Testament and its living commentary in Jewish tradition. To uproot them from the New Testament would make it not only incomprehensible but dumb and empty, for all its notions, images and vocabulary, like all the realities to which this totality applies, proceeds from the Old Testament, and from the unwritten as well as the written Torah.” He sees the survival of Judaism outside the church as providential for Christians during this period until the time they enter the Church bringing the full Israelite heritage with them. He sees this as the final blossoming of ‘the great tree of all the sons of Abraham”.

Cheers athol

[Athol]

Pope Benedict XVI states that the Catechism of the Catholic Church “holds principally to the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, seeing in Jesus the Messiah, the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven: as such he knew he was “to fulfill the Law by keeping it in its all embracing detail…down to ‘the least of these commandments’ (CCC 578)” The Catechism thus connects the special mission of Jesus to his fidelity to the Law…” Cardinal Schonborn also speaks of this fidelity of Jesus to the Torah as his food as mention above. Jesus lived the Torah perfectly as did his Mother. In their persons they represent all Israel’s fidelity to the Torah. This perfect fidelity allows the Messiah through his life, death and resurrection to open the Torah to be universalized. Pope Benedict states: ‘The faith of Israel is directed to universality…But, the Law, in which it was expressed, was particular, quite concretely directed to Israel and its history; it could not be universalized in this form. In the intersection of these paradoxes stands Jesus of Nazareth, who himself as a Jew lived under the Law of Israel but knew himself to be at the same time the mediator of the universality of God…Jesus opened up the Law…claiming to be, acting as Son, with the authority of God himself…Jesus broadened the Law, wanted to open it up…but in strictest obedience to its fulfillment…”. The Pope sees that in God the Law and the Promise are One in person of the Messiah. He also sees that one cannot just separate out the moral laws of the Torah and leave the rest. The Torah is a whole and the Revelation of God. He says “…one cannot simply separate out universally valid moral principles and transitory ritual and legal norms without destroying the Torah itself, which is something integral, which owes its existence to God’s address to Israel. The idea that, on the one hand, there are pure morals which are reasonable and universal, and on the other that there are rites that are conditioned by time and ultimately dispensable mistakes entirely the inner structure of the five books of Moses. The ‘Decalogue’ as the core of the work of the Law shows clearly enough that the worship of God is completely indivisible from morals, cult, and ethos.”

[Hadassah]

Wonderful quotes from Cardinal Ratzinger, and a great place to go with this discussion.

It would seem useful to put these quotes together with what precedes and what follows them. If anyone is reading along, Athol is quoting from _Many Religious, One Covenant_ by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

Cardinal Ratzinger begins by noting that the Catechism states that: (1) "the Law is led to its fullness through the renewal of the heart” (CCC 1968) and (2) “externally this results in a suspension of ritual and juridical observances” (CCC 1972).

He continues: “How could this happen? How is this compatible with fulfillment of the Law to the last iota?” He goes on to explain how this can be.

Next follow the statements that you accurately just quoted. But you say that he implies that “perfect fidelity" allows the Messiah through his life, death and resurrection to open the Torah to be universalized.”

I don’t think that Cardinal Ratzinger says that perfect fidelity allows the Messiah to open the Torah to be universalized. He does say:

“Jesus opened up the Law quite theologically conscious of, and claiming to be, acting as Son, with the authority of God himself, and innermost unity with God the Father. Only God himself could fundamentally reinterpret the Law and manifest that it’s broadening transformation and conservation is its actually intended meaning. Jesus’ interpretation of the Law makes sense only if it is interpretation with divine authority.”

He notes that this must end in a conflict for Jews:

“Only when one penetrates to this point can he also see the tragic depth of the conflict.”

“On the one hand, Jesus broadened the Law, wanted to open it up, not as a liberal reformer, not out of lesser loyalty to the Law, but in strictest obedience to its fulfillment, out of his being one with the Father in whom alone Law and promise are one and in whom Israel could become blessing and salvation for the nations.”

“On the other hand, Israel ‘had to’ see here something much more serious than a violation of this or that commandment (my insertion: implying that at a basic level Israel would have seen Jesus’ reinterpretation as a violation), namely the injuring of that basic disobedience, of the actual core of its revelation and faith: Hear, O Israel, your God is one God. Here obedience (my insertion: to Jesus’ divine reinterpretation of the Law) clashes with obedience (my insertion: to the one true God).

This conflict, says Cardinal Ratzinger, can only be resolved on the cross!

A few paragraphs later, he later notes the following: “The New Testament sees the death of Christ in this perspective, as a fulfillment of this course of events. This meant that all cultic ordinances of the Old Testament are seen to be taken up into his death and brought to their deepest meaning. All sacrifices are acts of representation, which, from symbols, in the great act of real representation become reality, so that the symbols can be dropped without one iota being lost.”

[Hadassah]

My Dear Athol,

Interestingly, while reading Sacred Scripture earlier this afternoon, Galatians 2:11ff came to my attention. I was drawn back to your point that all the early Jews observed the law zealously. This, of course, is that passage that harkens back to Paul’s advisory role in the Council of Jerusalem.

“And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised. And the rest of the Jews (also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, "If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Blessings,
Hadassah

[Hadassah]

Please understand that I uphold the privileged place of Israel in the plan of God and treasure the foundation on which Christianity is built and the origins from which the Church continues to draw. I am, however, interested in honestly understanding and reflecting on Scripture and the teaching of the Church as it relates to this topic. I find it necessary in these situations to proceed with great care in interpretation.

Blessings,
Hadassah

[Ariel]

Athol and Hadassah,

I am glad to see you're having quite a lively debate on this issue.

For future reference, please try to avoid very long citations on the forum if possible - it would be better to add a link if the text is already online elsewhere.

Regarding your quote from Gal 2, Hadassah, I would be careful to not read into the text what is not there. Paul is not upset at Peter because Peter is keeping Torah. The passage says that the problem was that Peter was causing a situation of division between Jewish and Gentile believers, and also apparently because he may have been "compelling the Gentiles to live like Jews."

Ariel

[Hadassah]

Regarding your quote from Gal 2, Hadassah, I would be careful to not read into the text what is not there. Paul is not upset at Peter because Peter is keeping Torah.

How is it, then, that Peter is (in Paul's words) "not living like a Jew"?

I apologize for the quotes, but I did not see another way to do that that was clear. And I do not know a site where that book is published.

[Athol]

Dear Hadassah,

When the Pope is talking about cultic observances he is referring to the priesthood and sacrifices of the Temple. In Messiah these have been fulfilled and transformed into the new priesthood and the New Sacrifice. The inner principles of the system are still valid but the outward forms are transformed to reflect the reality that the Messiah has come as High Priest and victim. This of course is done through the power of the Cross.

Also Galatians is written by St Paul to Gentiles not Jews and much be read in that light. the same goes for Corinthians and other letters.

As for the situation between Peter and Paul it was nothing to do with eating kosher but a question of following the extreme rules instituted by the Shammai school of Pharisees which made it almost impossible for Gentiles to eat with Jews. At this time the school of Hillel with its more loving approach was not dominant but the school of shammai was and they instituted a number of new rulings to which the Hillelites were opposed that enforce greater separation between jews and Gentiles. It wasn't until the destruction of the Temple etc that it was decided by a voice from heaven that the rulings of the school of Hillel would be followed when they clashed with those of the school of Shammai.
To think that Peter was sitting down and eating a pork chop with oysters with the Gentiles is ridiculous. Both Peter and Paul and all the early Jewish Church were observant of the teaching of the Torah. I also think that it may have taken time for the early Jewish Church to understand that the new Gentile Christians were not in the same category as Gentile idolaters. It is obvious Peter was having struggles in this area and when a group of believers who came from Shammaite background were present he separated himself from eating at the same table with them.

Cheers athol

[Athol]

Reconciling Torah and Gospel- Pope Benedict XVI

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/GOSTORAH.HTM

[Hadassah]

Heavy sigh ...

[Athol]

Dear Hadassah,

I have been thinking what it would mean if your interpretation or those similiar to it is correct and the final word on this topic.

From what I understand of your position (which is similiar to the position of many others) - a Jew who becomes a Catholic can if he wants keep some of the customs of his heritage as his/her personal spiritual discipline but this is just one's own quaint or eccentric choice and doesn't really have any meaning for the Church or God's plan of salvation. There is no collective mission or vocation just a need by those who are still clinging to the burdensome old rules of Judaism and the torah while those Jews who become Catholics who jettison their entire vocation as an Israelite and their heritage as Jews embrace and enter the wonderful world of Gentile 'law-free' Christianity. Judasim is an old dead relic which is only useful as a museum to show how Catholicism developed. There is now no special calling and mission for the Jewish people other than to embrace Gentile assimilation in the Church and bring about the end of the Jewish people.

If this is true then the fears of the Rabbis about 'conversion' to Christianity and Catholicism are totally valid and a form of genocide by assimilation. Nothing has changed still the old model of total assimilation but letting those Jews who feel a nostalgia for the past to cling to a few old Jewish trappings rather than putting them before the Spanish Inquisition. Also letting them have a bit of a jewish dress up will be good for proselytising other Jews and 'converting' them as long as they don't really see any significance in their old Jewish observances. Let them eat bagels and lox and dance some lovely old Jewish dances- we don't mind a few nice ethnic touches but as for a unique vocation and a continuing mission for Jews and Judaism in God's plan of salvation that is all heresy and Jewish bunk.

Cheers Athol

[Hadassah]

Wow! That's a lot of interpretation to impose on an argument that I've for the most part only kept in Scripture and Catechism...

...but this is just one's own quaint or eccentric choice...Also letting them have a bit of aJjewish dress up will be good for proselytising other Jews and 'converting' them as long as they don't really see any significance in their old Jewish observances. Let them eat bagels and lox and dance some lovely old Jewish dances- we don't mind a few nice ethnic touches

I have to say that the above are examples (among other statements in your scenario) of what would constitute a truly condescending attitude ~ one that I hope I have not manifested in this conversation, despite the fact that I disagree with you that Jews are still bound to Torah observance. This would be like "patting you on the head" and I would not treat you this way.

as for a unique vocation and a continuing mission for Jews and Judaism in God's plan of salvation that is all heresy and Jewish bunk.

And this cannot stand for several reasons, not least of which is that it is not the understanding or teaching of the Church!

...rather than putting them before the Spanish Inquisition...

And I’m not even going to talk about what I think about even mentioning this kind of thing!

I don’t agree that all of that is the natural conclusion of my argument here. I don’t pretend to have an authoritative interpretation of what it means in today’s world for the Jews to be set apart, and to fulfill their mission and vocation before the Lord. This is something that I am in the process of pondering, and it would be my hope that someone like you would help me to do that.

I do think that it’s possible (and I don’t think I’m alone in this among those who think seriously and with a spirit of charity on this) that some of those things that served as signs of the covenant have been transformed. If I understand your view, only their meaning has been changed. I think that Scripture might indicate that so have the signs themselves. One thing I do know is this: Even if the Lord has transformed the signs, He is still capable of ensuring that there is no “end to the Jewish people.”

I do become frustrated (thus my heavy sigh) with responses such as the one to Galatians 2 regarding the Hillelites and the Shammaites. Paul says very directly, "If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" You seem to suggest that what he really means is something like, “If you, though a more loving Jew, are living like a more harsh and intolerant Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” That doesn’t seem to fit and it takes the long way around to explain what seems to me a very clear text. And it certainly doesn’t fit ~ in my opinion; I am sure that have a different take on it ~ with Acts 10:13ff.

Please remember, Athol, that we are one in Christ...

With love, in Christ...
Hadassah

[Hadassah]

despite the fact that I disagree with you that Jews are still bound to Torah observance

I should say that I disagree that Jews who have accepted Christ are still bound to some points of Torah observance.

[Athol]

Dear Hadassah,

i am sure you are a great person and really are trying to understand these issues in sincerity. Maybe I have put what I see as the logical outcome of such thinking a bit bluntly- but think about it -it is what you are saying if one holds to your understanding. Yes it is important to discuss these things from the scriptural and church teaching aspects. I also do not think it is simple to understand anything written by Paul or Peter if one doesn't see them in their Jewish context. I would like to ask you a question; What are the Jews without Torah and mitzvot?

Cheers Athol

[Athol]

Just to clarify. I do not think that Jews who have accepted Christ are bound to some Torah observances i believe they are bound to the Torah (as are the Gentile Believers) and observance of the mitzvot will differ depending on ones calling and vocation in the Body and ones level of understanding. Torah and Grace are not opposed to one another they work together and serve together.

[Ariel]

hi Hadassah,

Just out of curiosity, are you Jewish?

Please understand that I uphold the privileged place of Israel in the plan of God and treasure the foundation on which Christianity is built and the origins from which the Church continues to draw.

How would you propose, then, for this "privileged place of Israel in the plan of God" to be expressed if the conversion of the Jews would practically effect to their assimilation with no binding, practical obligation to their special covenant with God (except for maybe a bit of cosmetic folklore that they might retain?)

PS: no worries about the quotes, my comment was mostly directed at Athol who outdid you by far with lengthy quotes.

[Ariel]

How is it, then, that Peter is (in Paul's words) "not living like a Jew"?

I'm not sure what exactly Paul meant, but as Athol says I very much doubt that it means that Peter was sitting down having some pork chops with the gentiles.

Keep in mind the decision of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15):

"19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality,from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

What is James saying here? When he says that Gentiles should not be burdened with commandments that were never intended for them in the first place, is he not assuming a distinction between them and the Jewish believers? James' concessions are explicitly given to the gentiles - and the underlying assumption is that these concessions are not granted for Jewish believers - otherwise James could have just plainly said that the Torah was not binding on anyone anymore! On the contrary, he even affirms that Moses is still "read in the synagogues every Sabbath" - and what is the value of reading without doing?

[Hadassah]

Yes, I do acknowlede that the verdict of the Council is only for the Gentiles and so that's something we have to think about. However, if we are true to the text, we also have to ackowledge that the message that Peter hears is in very personal terms!

(Acts 10:13ff) A voice said to him, "Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat." But Peter said, "Certainly not, sir. For never have I eaten anything profane and unclean." The voice spoke to him again, a second time, "What God has made clean, you are not to call profane."

Peter, you slaughter and you eat. He even objects on the grounds that he has never violated dietary laws! And the response comes back... Three times...

I think it's worth at least thinking about why God put this message in such personal terms for Peter, a Jew who is Torah-observant. Why not something along the lines of, "Peter, let these Gentiles eat as they want to. It's not a problem for them." That's not the way it reads and I don't think we can ignore that.

[Richard]

Hi Hadassah,

I don't think you can learn much about the observance of the commandments Jesus requires of the Jew from Peter's dream.
Peter never communicates this message to the other apostles, and, in all likelihood, for a very good reason: he himself, does not interpret it as permitting forbidden foods, but rather, as permitting a forbidden contact between people: [28] and he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit any one of another nation; but God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean."
In any case, the vision is ambiguous. If Jesus had meant to teach him that forbidden foods are permitted, the vision should have presented him with only those animals which are forbidden to eat. Since they included all kinds of animals, they gave him the option of killing and eating the kosher animals among them.

It is unthinkable that Biblical prohibitions that stand at the very center of Jewish religious life would be abrogated by an ambiguous message communicated in a waking dream. And if Peter had presented his dream as a message from Jesus suspending the laws of kashrut to the Jerusalem community they would have rejected it for good reason, indeed, for the same reason that the Church rejects revelations to individuals: it contradicted the word of G-d in the Bible. The issue of eating forbidden meats was to remain a real one for Christians for a long time. There is even a passage in the Didache which encourages abstinence from unkosher meats: “But concerning meat, bear that which thou art able to do. But keep with care from things sacrificed to idols, for it is the worship of the infernal deities.” [Didache 6:3, ca. 50-120

All the best,
Richard

[Hadassah]

Only have time for some quick commentary right now....

Can't learn much from it? It's Sacred Scripture. This has to be held in tension with all the rest of it. I'm saying that it has to be considered.

Peter never communicates this message to the other apostles

He does, in fact, communicate it word for word in chapter 11.

he himself, does not interpret it as permitting forbidden foods, but rather, as permitting a forbidden contact between people: [28] and he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit any one of another nation; but God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean."

I think you are correct that it is a two-fold message. But he clearly does interpret it as relating it to food at some point, because eventually, it leads to the verdict of the Council which is related to food (albeit for the Gentiles).

Since they included all kinds of animals, they gave him the option of killing and eating the kosher animals among them.

Then Peter should have had no objection to the "Slaughter and eat." command. Why does he react saying, but nothing unclean heas ever touched my lips? He should have just shrugged it off.

And if Peter had presented his dream as a message from Jesus suspending the laws of kashrut to the Jerusalem community they would have rejected it for good reason, indeed, for the same reason that the Church rejects revelations to individuals: it contradicted the word of G-d in the Bible.

I started on this, but will have to come back to it later. If you are Catholic, I would say this. Peter is not a random individual. Just recall, that Christ has given him the keys and the power to bind and loose in these words (Mt. 16:19): "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

[Athol]

Dear Hadassah and all,

Just to let you know I probably won't be around for a couple of weeks as I am going to Ireland early Thursday morning and won't be using the internet until I get to the US.

Cheers Athol

[Hadassah]

Welcome, in advance to the U.S.!!! Your travel will give me some time . Busy weeks ahead. Safe travels.

[Ariel]

Richard just emailed me a link to an interesting article on legalism and anti-nomianism called Law and Unlaw by Ian H. Henderson which I though was relevant to the discussion here.

[Hadassah]

Thanks Richard and Ariel.

Does anyone know whether any of the documents of the very early Church (perhaps the Didache or a similar item) talk about a difference in how to instruct Jewish vs. Gentile/pagan converts to Christianity regarding Torah observance? For example, "ensure that Jewish converts know that they are still bound to observances as they have been laid out for the Jewish people, but remind Gentiles that they are not bound by certain aspects (e.g. circumcision, dietary laws, etc). I can do the research at some point, but I thought if anyone knows of something...

Monica and Augustine, pray for us...

[Hadassah]

The issue of eating forbidden meats was to remain a real one for Christians for a long time. There is even a passage in the Didache which encourages abstinence from unkosher meats: “But concerning meat, bear that which thou art able to do. But keep with care from things sacrificed to idols, for it is the worship of the infernal deities.” [Didache 6:3, ca. 50-120]

Strictly speaking, in the context of the Didiache, is not food sacrificed to idols a different thing from what is unkosher?

[Ariel]

hi Hadassah,

re. your question about early church documents attesting differences in Jewish/Gentile believers and Torah observance - Justin Martyr talks about it somewhat in his dialogue with Trypho. His opinion regarding Torah observance is tolerant but not exactly positive.

The truth is that all Church Fathers were Gentiles, and almost none of them could really appreciate the richness of Torah from experience. They all judged it "from the outside," so to say, as a legalistic burden rather than a joyful consecration to God in every aspect of life.

I personally consider that the growing greater appreciation of Torah is a recent development of doctrine: the seed is there in the NT but it was never really developed in the history of the Church.

Why the common negative view of the Torah? Because Paul devoted much of his energy to drive home two points:

1) Gentiles are not obligated to submit to the Torah
2) Jews are not SAVED by the Torah

Paul's strong rhetoric in addressing the two above points sometimes gives the impression that he intends to discard the Torah as obsolete. But this cannot be true in the light of several NT passages (Mt 5:17-20, Acts 16:1-3; Acts 21:17-26; Rom 3:1-2; 7:12, 16; 9:4-5; 1 Ti 1:8).

Ariel

[Hadassah]

...the seed is there in the NT but it was never really developed in the history of the Church.

Respectfully and honestly... Why do you think that the Holy Spirit would allow this? It is baffling to me that the Church, guided in all truth by the Holy Spirit, regardless of the personal prejudices which might have been present in individuals, has completely missed for so long a time a critical requirement (if you are correct) for Jews who embrace Catholicism. Such an integral part of the covenant for the Jews and the Holy Spirit allows the Church for more of her history than not to simply ignore it? Why would the Holy Spirit allow that to happen?

[Athol]

The Holy Spirit blows where he wills. There is a time for every season- the last 2000 years have been the special time of mercy for the Gentiles- this is drawing to a close- and so a new stage in salvation history is beginning which will see the ingrafting of the Jews as prophecied by Paul.

Cheers from the Ring of Kerry

[Gerat Tzedek]

Yes, I would generally tend to agree with Athol, though I might formulate it a bit differently. I do believe that one of the main reasons for the 'failure' of the Church to bring Christ to the Jewish people was that this would have caused their assimilation and practical dissolution of their Jewish identity.

The argument that Jews have avoided conversion because conversion meant leaving their community and full assimilation into another seems reasonable. However, it is not true, and I will give you two proofs why it is not the case.

The first proof is the massive assimilation of Jews into the secular world. So Jews are obviously not immune to giving up their beliefs or assimilating. It's specifically YOUR religion that is unattractive to us.

The second proof is that Protestant Christianity came to this same conclusion decades ago and has already marketed Messianic Judaism as a result. The results are in and are not at all what Protestants hoped. The number of Jewish converts to Christianity is as dismal as ever. On the other hand, the Messianic movement has attracted GENTILES like flies. The movement is literally bursting at the seems with gentiles -- it should change its name to Messianic Gentilism. The problem is that many of these gentiles have a true afinity for Judaism, but soon find what many Jews notice -- that Messianic Judaism really is NOT a Judaism. They leave and many of them end up having valid halachic conversions to Judaism.

My guess is that if you truly get your Hebrew-Catholic movement going, you will similarly find gentile Catholics expressing interest, and then leaving for Judaism. And indeed when I was in the Yahoo group for Hebrew Catholics, before my conversion to Judaism, the overwhelming number of people there were NOT NOT NOT halachically Jewish, but were gentiles.

[Athol]

Dear Tzedek,

Some of what you say is true especially with certain types of Messianic Jews. However some groups that were more "Jewish" liturgically and in practice had more Jews and less Gentiles in their Messianic synagogue in my experience. As for the Hebrew Catholics in the yahoo group they are the ones that are more comfortable with discussing their Jewish and Catholic identity on the internet (which of course interests many people non- Jewish Catholics)- many other Jews in the Catholic church are more hidden and secretive as they may have hurts from the past or not wanting family and others to learn of their identity. Of course there are many thousands of Catholics who are halakically Jewish according to Orthodox Judaism but these people have ceased to identify as Jewish as they have been Catholic for 3 or 4 generations. Some of them are becoming interested in their Jewish heritage. For me it is the spirituality of being a Jewish Catholic that most appeals to me- I would not feel fulfilled with just a Gentile Catholic spirituality and identity nor a purely Orthodox Jewish one (though Breslov is the most appealing to me). I love Rebbe Nachman and I love St John of the Cross. Each person must choose their own spiritual path and journey and I respect that but feel there is a real gap for those such as myself and our aim is to create our own community for those drawn to this way not in order to actively missionise Jews especially by pushy agressive means, which seems to be the purpose of many of these Messianic groups. The personal encounter and relationship with the eucharistic Jesus and his mother is worth all the struggle and misunderstanding from both Catholics and Jews. I also have a love for Torah and mitzvot which in fact enables me to love the Torah observant Mary, Jesus and Joseph even more. Others see it differently and I certainly respect their search to live out the truth as they believe it to be. I hope they pray for me as I pray for them in our unique journeys to the Ultimate Truth.

[Ariel]

It's specifically YOUR religion that is unattractive to us.

Out of curiosity Gerat Tsedek, what is the main point that you are trying to make here? I may be wrong, but I have the impression that you have a bone to pick, with some amount of frustration in the tone of your posts.

You state that you converted to Judaism. Perhaps you could tell us more about that conversion. I'm just wondering what you hope to receive and/or contribute on our forum. You are more than welcome to continue with the discussions of course, I'm just wondering where you're coming from...

Ariel

[Gerat Tzedek]

I first met Orthodox Jews when I was thirty, and subsequently began studying Judaism in depth. It began a 15 year long push-me pull-you that was very difficult for me. After all, one does not really need to become a Jew, and I couldn't articulate what it was that kept bringing me back, even though I was basically making the effort to be happy away from it. But I knew from that time that if I ever found out that I had Jewish ancestry, I would immediately become observant and do what it took to clear up issues of status.

That became fact. I found out my maternal great-great grandmother was a Jew. It was nothing that would stand up before a Beis Din -- I was not halachically Jewish. But it was way more than enough to tip the scales. So I went through Orthodox conversion.

I came into this forum because I do believe Israel is in danger. I believe we are headed for another holocaust -- anti-Semitism is on the rise worldwide, we have a madman at the helm in Iran, and the charter of Hamas calls for the killing of all Jews EVERYWHERE. WE need allies, and we need them NOW. Not after the shower doors have shut.

And yes, you do sense frustration. The whole "Hebrew-Catholic" thing drove me absolutely nuts before my conversion. Probably more than any other single factor. I saw a few genuinely sincere Jews seeking to live their covenant. But mostly I saw a lot of goyim with distant distant connections to Jews who lived hundreds of years ago who didn't know what the heck they were talking about, spewing ignorance, disrespecting Israel, who really had no intention of identifying as Jews or living a covenantal life. They were just into sentimental pseudo-Jewish nonsense and sometimes I got so angry I just didn't know what to do with myself. There is nothing more insulting to Israel than wannabe-Jews who feel perfectly free to fool around with what is sacred to us.

The second thing that is a frustration, both then and now, is that despite there being exceptions to the rule here in this forum, THE RULE STILL EXISTS that Jews baptised into the church are lost to Israel. They become indistingishable from any other gentile Catholic. They lose touch with the Jewish community. They are basically stolen. It's wrong. I'm not going to tell you HOW to fix it. There are a number of different ways, some more to my liking, some more to your liking. My ideas...I'll keep to myself, as I am a guest here. But I think that you Catholics can look the problem sqarely in the face, and try to solve it: How can you, as Catholics, ASSIST the Jews in your midst to remain faithful to Covenant, rather than enable them to break Covenant as has been the norm?

The third frustration is basically this: most of the ignorance of Catholics about Jews is not the simple ignorance that can be corrected with education. Rather, it is the arrogant ignorance that DOESN'T WANT to be taught. The problem is sytemic. I remember a priest who taught in his homily that Jews don't understand that G-d is our Father. This was not an ignorant parishioner, but one of your finest, eductated in your seminaries. Individual Catholics here and there may care, but the Church as a whole? The Church does not care about enough about Jews to try to understand them. It regulates the topic to a committee and forgets about them. And THAT is not only frustrating, but very demoralizing and bitter for a person who once hoped for progress between Catholics and Jews.

[Hadassah]

Hello Gerat Tzedek:

The second thing that is a frustration, both then and now, is that despite there being exceptions to the rule here in this forum, THE RULE STILL EXISTS that Jews baptised into the church are lost to Israel. They become indistingishable from any other gentile Catholic. They lose touch with the Jewish community. They are basically stolen. It's wrong. I'm not going to tell you HOW to fix it.

Just wanting to clarify what you are saying here... Are you telling us that if a Jew were baptized, accepting Jesus Christ as the divine Son of G-d and embracing the idea of a New Convenant AND he remained observant, he would not be lost to Israel and there would be no cause for strain on his relationship with his observant Jewish community?

Many Blessings,
Hadassah

[Ariel]

Gerat Tsedek,

wow this is quite the journey. Thanks for sharing your point of view so clearly. I can totally empathize with your frustrations.

You are right that Israel needs allies, and its about time that Catholics wake up to that fact, and realize that it is a biblical imperative to stand up with the people of the Covenant.

I understand your frustration with the Hebrew-Catholic movement. You are not alone in this. There are actually a number of Catholic Jews who are distressed that the whole movement really seems to retain only an outer varnish of Jewish practices. As you can see from our website, we definitely support the development and establishment of a genuine Jewish-Catholic spirituality.

THE RULE STILL EXISTS that Jews baptized into the church are lost to Israel. They become indistingishable from any other gentile Catholic. They lose touch with the Jewish community. They are basically stolen.

I think the biggest problem here is that most baptized Jews come from a secular background with little to no understanding of orthodox Judaism. So it's not exactly that entering the Church makes them lose their Judaism, perhaps it's more like they never knew it in the first place.

How can you, as Catholics, ASSIST the Jews in your midst to remain faithful to Covenant, rather than enable them to break Covenant as has been the norm?

Right now it's hard to say because there is no serious Jewish-Catholic spirituality in place in the Church. My suggestion at this point would be: If a Jew is baptized and becomes Catholic, he/she should also study Judaism and join a living Jewish community, pray in the Synagogue, celebrate the feasts, and live according to the halakhah. I am aware that this will not be easy, and that he/she may face rejection as much on the Jewish as on the Catholic side. But I don't see any other solution right now. To bridge a 2,000 year gap between Church and Synagogue will not happen in a day. In addition, it seems to me that this is the way it went in the early Church: Jewish-Christians continued to attend the Temple and synagogue in communion with Israel, while also attending the home churches of the first (Jewish) Christians.

There are a number of different ways, some more to my liking, some more to your liking. My ideas...I'll keep to myself, as I am a guest here.

Actually I would be interested in your ideas if you wouldn't mind sharing them with us.

most of the ignorance of Catholics about Jews is not the simple ignorance that can be corrected with education. Rather, it is the arrogant ignorance that DOESN'T WANT to be taught.

I'm not sure this applies to MOST serious Catholics, but yes with this I think you are right too. When the ignorance is willful and stubborn, I think the main thing we can do is to pray for such people, because such attitudes reveal above all a need for conversion before there can be true change, unfortunately.

[Gerat Tzedek]

Just wanting to clarify what you are saying here... Are you telling us that if a Jew were baptized, accepting Jesus Christ as the divine Son of G-d and embracing the idea of a New Convenant AND he remained observant, he would not be lost to Israel and there would be no cause for strain on his relationship with his observant Jewish community?

Many Blessings,
Hadassah

I'm not sure that such a thing is possible, even if it is attempted.

I suspect that some of the commandments, such as kashrut, were put into place for the purpose of seperating Israel from the nations. I just really don't say how a Jew can keep completely kosher and be in close community with gentiles. Aquaintences, yes. Friends, no. Why? Because when you stop to think about it, community is constantly sharing food, and in the end what kashrut comes down to is that Jews cannot share food with gentiles.

Being observant is HARD. We manage because we support each other as a community. There is a reason why Jewish men gather in a minyan to pray at least once a day. A reason we gather on Shabbat and feast days. For a Jew to be outside of Jewish community, to be alone and within Catholic community, they do not have this support, they do not have their Jewish family to help hold them up.

However, instructing them that this is their birthright and responsibility is really the only right thing for you to do. I really don't see how you can get around it. The only question is how BEST for them to keep their covenant?

[Hadassah]

Hello,

"However, instructing them that this is their birthright and responsibility is really the only right thing for you to do. I really don't see how you can get around it. The only question is how BEST for them to keep their covenant?

The question of how baptized observant Jews could best keep covenant obligations outside of an observant Jewish community is an interesting one to think about, of course. How would observant baptized Jews know how to proceed, those who require halachic consultation? In your vision, who would decide or legislate such issues? Is it left to the individual?

Many Blessings,
Hadassah

[Ariel]

I don't think that would be possible Hadassah. Judaism is by its nature very communitarian, and keeping halakhah is centered around the community.

[Hadassah]

Hi Ariel,

Yes, I understand. But Gerat Tzedak put forth the vision that the Church should encourage (observant) baptized Jews in the keeping the law in the best way possible, given that they would be outside the community already. I'd like to hear more about what she might envision for the Church in terms of positive action. How might that all work? What might be acceptable?

Many Blessings,
Hadassah

[mikemac]

Hi. I find this thread fascinating.

After catching up by reading all the posts I went to the Association of Hebrew Catholics web site. They link to your web site Ariel.

From their web site under Studies I went to "Themes of Salvation History" and listened to Lecture number 8 from Nov. 7, 2007 by Dr. Lawrence Feingold titled "The Law of Moses and Its Fulfillment in Christ". Here's the link,
http://www.hebrewcatholic.org/Studies/M ... vatio.html

This is what I learned from this Lecture.

Dr. Lawrence Feingold asks the question if the Judicial Law (part of the Mosaic Law) should be binding for all time. He refers to the sermon on the mount and Acts 10 and Acts 15. Jesus tells His apostles to go and teach all nations but Dr. Feingold asks how could they do that with parts of the Law of Moses. He says in the Gospel of Mark, Mark tells us that Jesus already abrogated this part of the Law. He says the Natural Law of God (the 10 commandments) are binding for all time but about the Judicial Law (part of the Mosaic Law) it depends on circumstances so it is fitting that they change as circumstance change. He relates it to a 3 year old having different orders to follow from their parents than a 16 year old would. He also relates to the part of the Mosaic Law that says "Whoever strikes their mother or father will be put to death", the death penalty being abolished in a lot of jurisdictions. He says the Ceremonial Law of the Old Testament commemorates the Exodus and points to the salvation of Christ on the cross so it had to change after Jesus' death and resurrection. So he says the Ceremonial Law should change. In Christ's Passion we find the perfect accomplishment of the Law. Jesus also fulfills the Law in us with the Grace of the seven Sacraments. Jesus is the true Holocaust, the sacrificial first born. He finishes by saying we should be thankful that we received the 10 Commandments as well as the Grace of the Holy Spirit through the Sacraments to put it into practice. This is all taken from Dr. Feingold's lecture so please don't ban me for posting it.

This should not mean giving up your Jewish identity. I am not asked to give up my Canadian identity or my Highland Scot heritage by being a Catholic. The 144 thousand that administer to God when the new Jerusalem comes down from Heaven are from the twelve tribes, hence God keeps His promise for the land (Revelation Chapters 3, 7 & 21).

By the way I don't believe it is part of Catholic dogma (I may be wrong) but I do realize that in Malichi Chapter 4 it states "5 Behold I will send you Elias (Elijah) the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers: lest I come, and strike the earth with anathema." In the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, Chapters 9, 10 and 11 while Paul is lamenting for his brethren the spirit of Elias is also mentioned. And in Revelation Chapter 11 we see what will happen when the two witnesses, Henoch and Elias come to the holy city Jerusalem to prophesy clothed in sackcloth for 42 months.

God bless
Mike

[Ariel]

hi Mike,

If I would ban anyone with an opinion contrary to mine here I would probably end up alone in the forum Just kidding.

Dr. Feingold's opinion is pretty much the standard one of traditional Catholic theology. In my opinion it sounds convincing mostly because that it is familiar and we are not used to thinking outside this box. But where do the Scriptures ever make a distinction between the natural law/10 commandments and the judicial law? The fact is they don't. That is a scholastic, Thomistic distinction (unless I'm mistaken) that is understandable given its original context, but I'm not sure this artificial split of the Torah is really rooted in divine revelation, especially for Jews who feel that Torah observance is a real means of communion with God and not only a signpost that pointed to Christ that can now be discarded.

Ariel

[mikemac]

But Malachi does state Elias shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers. I guess maybe not quite yet. 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2 has to happen first before the 42 months start.

[Athol]

Dr. Feingold's opinion is pretty much the standard one of traditional Catholic theology. In my opinion it sounds convincing mostly because that it is familiar and we are not used to thinking outside this box. But where do the Scriptures ever make a distinction between the natural law/10 commandments and the judicial law? The fact is they don't. That is a scholastic, Thomistic distinction (unless I'm mistaken) that is understandable given its original context, but I'm not sure this artificial split of the Torah is really rooted in divine revelation, especially for Jews who feel that Torah observance is a real means of communion with God and not only a signpost that pointed to Christ that can now be discarded.

Ariel

Yes Dr Feingold is a thomistic theologian and is a wonderful man and teacher but I disagree with him on a number of points and on this point Cardinal Lustiger and the Pope (writing as Cardinal Ratzinger) also seems to disagree. See Cardinal Lustiger's Book "The Promise" and Cardinal Ratzinger's comments on "Torah and the Gospel". St thomas has since proved to be wrong on a few issues such as the Immaculate Conception eventhough his philosophical approach to theology is an important treasure of the church but it is not the only way of approaching the truths of Scripture and the Faith.

[Glory71]

If you don't mind...this is my opinion...

I really think that the answer to all our questions is the love of God above everything else. If I look at the cross, I see PURE LOVE. A Loving sacrifies. If we look at the 10 commandments and the judicial law, I think this is meant only for one purpose...our perfection. Our Lord Jesus Christ has shown the way...obedient to the Father in a loving way. So now if I take kashrut for example...I see it as a loving sacrifies. A denial of oneself. I think, no man can really be condemned based on what he eats but rather what comes out of his mouth. I also think attempts to explain these dietary laws can really be explained better by simply looking at the cross.

Moreover, I also do not think there is a difference between between the old and the new. The old exposes what sin is and the punishment for it while our Lord Jesus Christ, victorious over sin, has shown us how to achieve perfect obedience...by loving God above all.

[mikemac]

But where do the Scriptures ever make a distinction between the natural law/10 commandments and the judicial law? The fact is they don't.

Ariel

Actually they do Ariel. In the New Testament in Romans 13, Luke 18 and Matthew 19 Jesus repeats the ten commandments. I'm sure there are other spots in the New Testament as well. I've been meaning to post this for a while.

Mike