Catholics for Israel

First, let me say that I truly am worried about representations made on this website. Not only because it represents itself as being “catholic” which may be misleading people from the truth of the faith and into mortal sin, but from a more foundational premise – many claims here amount to calling God a liar. I present a detailed, open discussion, in good faith with the hopes of eliciting responses to these concerns.

To start, I have surmised that there is a grave confusion regarding covenant theology presented throughout this website, and so I thought I would open up a discussion on the covenant topic.

First, the Church, through Scripture and Tradition, has consistently taught that the Old, Mosaic, Covenant has been superseded and revoked. It has been nailed to the cross.
The book of Hebrews uses some very technical Greek terminology to get the point across. Hebrews 7:18 says: “On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness, for the law made nothing perfect.” The phrase “set aside” is from the Greek “aphetesis,” which also means “to annul” or “to remove.” When something is annulled it means it does not exist as a legal and binding entity any longer.

Similarly, Hebrew 8:13 says: “In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete.”

Hebrews 10:8-9 says: “...these are offered according to the law, then he added, ‘Lo, I have come to do thy will.’ He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.” The word “abolish” is from the Greek “anaireo,” which also means “to abrogate,” or even “to kill.”

The contexts of these passages are referring exclusively to the Mosaic law, and thus it was that covenant which was abrogated, abolished, annulled. The practices under the Mosaic law have ceased according to God. Now, what about continuing the “culture” of these practices?

Importantly, to which I see directly contrary statements in your mission statements, The Council of Florence made it crystal clear that the Mosaic covenant practices must cease:

It firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. (Denzinger 712)


So, we see that the Mosaic covenant has been superseded, as Pope John Paul II said “the period marked by the promise made to Abraham and by the Law mediated by Moses has now reached its climax, in the sense that Christ fulfils the divine promise and supersedes the old law.” Redemptoris Mater, ft. 2.
This distinction between covenants is very important: Abrahamic fulfilment and Mosaic supersession. Pope John Paul II elaborated in Dives in Misericordia, ft. 52:
This covenant was, on God’s part, a gift and a grace for Israel. Nevertheless, since, in harmony with the covenant entered into, God had made a commitment to respect it, hesed also acquired in a certain sense a legal content. The juridical commitment on God’s part ceased to oblige whenever Israel broke the covenant and did not respect its conditions. But precisely at this point, hesed, in ceasing to be a juridical obligation, revealed its deeper aspect: it showed itself as what it was at the beginning, that is, as love that gives, love more powerful than betrayal, grace stronger than sin.
. . .
Therefore Israel, although burdened with guilt for having broken the covenant, cannot lay claim to God’s hesed on the basis of (legal) justice; yet it can and must go on hoping and trusting to obtain it, since the God of the covenant is really “responsible for his love.” The fruits of this love are forgiveness and restoration to grace, the reestablishment of the interior covenant.

This interior covenant is, of Course, the system of Grace through Jesus Christ. Some on this website seem to be arguing that there is still another eternal covenant in existence, made with a specific racial group, a covenant that relates spiritually and temporally related to the physical world. That just isn’t the case.

Yes, the Abrahamic covenant transitions into and becomes the New Covenant. But how is this possible given the old law usurpation we just documented? Because the Abrahamic covenant was not initiated when Abraham was a Jew, but a Gentile. One way of looking at this is to think of the Christian Covenant as the first and final covenant. This is St. Paul’s main argument against the Jews who claim Abraham as their sole and exclusive father. Paul writes in Romans 4:10-11:

10 How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them...”

The above event is recorded for us in Genesis 15:6 in the famous words: “And he believed the Lord; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness.” In other words, Abraham was credited with righteousness when he was a Gentile, for only when circumcision was instituted did the Jewish nation begin to exist, and that did not occur until Genesis 17. St. Paul reiterates this same truth in Galatians 3:6-8:

6 Thus Abraham ‘believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’ 7 So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘In you shall all the nations [Gentiles] be blessed.’

CONTINUED-

CONTINUATION:

Although the Gentile component of the Abraham covenant continues into the salvation of the New Covenant, the Jewish element of the Abrahamic covenant (e.g., circumcision) was abolished, forever. It’s annulment began when the curtain of the Temple was torn in two by God Himself (Mt 27:51), which annulment was ratified at the first Christian council when St. Peter declared that circumcision would no longer be regarded as a requirement for God’s favor (Acts 15:1-12). All that remains now is the spiritual element of the Abrahamic covenant, and the difference between the spiritual promises and the physical promises introduces another crucial distinction.

God gave two kinds of promises to Abraham. For lack of better terminology, we will call them: (a) physical promises made to the circumcised (the Jews); and (b) spiritual promises made to all of mankind. As we noted earlier, the first physical promises concerned the acquisition of earthly borders for Abraham’s Jewish descendants, as we note, for example, in Genesis 15:18-21:

On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.’

But Abraham himself never received any of these physical promises. Hebrews 11:39 says: “And all these, though well attested by their faith, did not receive what was promised.” This is the same reason that Genesis 15:18 does not say says “to you and your descendants,” but “to your descendants,” a very crucial distinction. Abraham’s descendants were given their divine promises, for this is recorded quite definitively over one thousand years of Israel’s history.

In Joshua 21:43-45, 1 Kings 8:56 and Nehemiah 9:7-8, we can see that God fulfilled all the physical promises concerning the giving of land to the Jews. There is no remaining covenant to be fulfilled temporally with physical land. He owes no specific race anything beyond what is given to all men. And what a better Kingdom! Thus, any claims that Jewish people of today, or any people for that matter, are entitled to any land by divine right are totally erroneous. Those who do so are making God a liar, for God has clearly stated that He already fulfilled those promises by a divine oath.

The spiritual promises to Abraham regarding salvation, however, have not been completely fulfilled, and thus they are prefaced by the clause: “to you and your descendants.” Among these are the promises in Genesis 13:15; 17:7-8; 22:17-18. These passages indicate Abraham and his descendants will eventually receive the promise of dwelling place, but it is not a piece of land on this sin-cursed earth. Rather, as St. Paul tells us in various places, Abraham’s inheritance will be a heavenly city that he will receive after he is raised from the dead:

By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go... For he looked forward to the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God. (Hebrews 11:8,10)

If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city. (Hebrews 11:15-16)

And all these, though well attested by their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had foreseen something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect. (Hebrew 11:39-40)


Teaching otherwise dangerously sets a distinction between races, a distinction which God has eliminated with the system of Grace. The New Israel, the New People, the New Chosen are past racial distinctions, for partialities are eliminated. There truly is no more Jew or Greek, for all are one in Christ Jesus, thanks be to God!

Our entire website is dedicated to answering the very problematic positions exposed in the last two posts. "TruthSeeker," you claim that the points we make on our website

amount to calling God a liar

but actually you are the one calling God a liar by espousing classical, obsolete and disastrous supersessionism, the same theology that been the fuel of anti-semitism throughout the ages in threatening the very fabric of Jewish identity as a people, and thereby completely closing the doors of the Church to Jews who may otherwise be drawn to their Messiah.

Since our website constantly and repeatedly addresses your claims, there is not point in rehashing all of them here. So just a few points:

the Church, through Scripture and Tradition, has consistently taught that the Old, Mosaic, Covenant has been superseded and revoked

"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Mt 5:17)

The passages from the Epistle to the Hebrews you quote use strong rhetorical language to underline the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old, in face of the problem of some Hebrew-Christians who wanted to leave Christianity and return to Judaism. Yes, the New Covenant has superseded some aspects of the old (most notably the sacrificial system). But this doesn't mean that it has abolished God's election, gifts and calling to the Jewish people, or the customs by which they still celebrate the great works that God accomplished in their history.

the Mosaic law... was abrogated, abolished, annulled.

"You see, brother [Paul], how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed; they are all zealous for the law, and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs.... We have four men who are under a vow; take these men and purify yourself along with them...Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law." (Acts 21:20-24)

As for quoting the disciplinary decisions of the medieval Council of Florence as if they had any authority today: notice that only ultra-traditionalists, usually of an anti-semitic bent, are the ones who refer to these antiquated decrees today. When was the last time you hear the Pope or the Holy See refer to them as authoritative? I reprint here what I wrote elsewhere in response to similar anti-semitic replacement theology espoused by Robert Sungenis:

The decisions of the Council of Florence (1438-45) concerning the Jews were ecclesiastical disciplinary decisions that were conditioned by their time. They do not pertain to Catholic doctrine and are not binding today, much less infallible. If Sungenis insists on the validity of the decrees of this council, then he must also advocate that Jews be compelled to listen to Christian sermons under pain of severe penalties. He must forbid Jews to employ Christians and prohibit Christians from eating with Jews or even having extended conversation with them. Sungenis should also insist that Jews not be given any public offices or admitted to any academic degrees. He should underline that they are to be "compelled, under severe penalties, to wear some garment whereby they can be clearly distinguished from Christians." Moreover, Sungenis should insist that Jews be "made to dwell in areas, in the cities and towns, which are apart from the dwellings of Christians and as far distant as possible from churches." These embarrassing examples suffice to show that to appeal today to the (non-infallible) disciplinary decrees of the Council of Florence is ludicrous. If anything, Catholics today should adopt an attitude of humble repentance in regard to these discriminating and humiliating practices that Christians inflicted upon Jews in the past

There truly is no more Jew or Greek, for all are one in Christ Jesus, thanks be to God!

As written elsewhere:

The New Testament goal of the divine economy is indeed the "One New Man" - Jew and Gentile united in faith and Sacraments in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. But if "the distinction of Jew and Gentile no longer exists"[34] because the scriptures say that there is "neither Jew nor Greek," then it follows that the New Covenant has somehow also rendered man and woman androgynous, since the same verse states that there is "neither male nor female" (Gal. 3:27-28). In reality, just as male and female are indeed one before Christ but retain their distinct roles, so are Jews and Gentiles now equal before God while yet retaining their distinctiveness within the plan of salvation. The restoration of Israel, then, is not an end in itself that would place the Jews in a somehow privileged position versus the Gentiles. But neither can it be a mere transitional phase preceding her dissolution into the Church since, as we have seen, their very survival and existence was to remain a witness to all nations until the end of time (Jer. 31:35-37). God's preservation of Israel, then, is for His own honor and cause in the world.

Dear Ariel:
Thank you for your reply, I know this is such a sensitive topic and I’m glad you are open to discussing it in good faith and love. Let me address a few of your replies.
First some general comments. There is no Catholic Church if there isn’t “classical” teaching. So, I submit that to arrive at your positions you first must deviate from infallible Church teaching and destroy all Church authority. The covenant subject matter is not one which can be taught infallibly, and then changed. These teachings are dogmatic and just like teaching on the Real Presence, the Immaculate Conception, etc. they cannot become “obsolete”.
“Disastrous” human thought or action based on a Church teaching does not condemn the teaching, only the false thought or actions. The same could be argued about indulgences. Therefore, it is imperative to condemn the actions, not the teaching. Unless, it is the teaching itself that you claim is problematic-which appears to be the case. The truth is that you can’t be Christian and practice any other religion. You have to leave everything behind, spiritually. Just like St. Paul, St. Peter, St. Stephen, etc.
Much of your reply hits the heart of the problem. But let’s focus on the major one that you raise: has the New Covenant abolished God’s election, gifts and calling to the Jewish people?
The short answer is “yes!”, as to the Jewish people as a people, but “no” to gifts and calling to Jews as members of mankind. That is what is meant by “there is no more Jew or Greek”, not that ethnicity or cultural differences disappear, but spiritual or reasoning relations with God or Logos disappear. There is no racial or genetic component to election. You are arguing against John Paul II, and the entirety of Church history, when you deny his words “Christ fulfils the divine promise [to Abraham] and supersedes the old law [Mosaic Law]” and “Israel . . .having broken the covenant, cannot lay claim to God’s hesed on the basis of (legal) justice”. See my original post for full quotes. This could not be more clear. The covenant was broken and the law no longer honors God. Law assumed into the New Covenant is not Mosaic law.
St. Peter also could not be more clear when speaking to the Church, including to racial Jews of course: 9But you are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may announce the praises" of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10Once you were "no people" but now you are God's people; you "had not received mercy" but now you have received mercy. 1 Peter 2:9-10
But these arguments have been the same for two thousand years, and I know you have heard them all before. Justin Martyr made these arguments in the middle of the second century, and the Church has never faltered. The gifts and callings of Romans 11 are irrevocable, not the old covenant. Those gifts and callings are from the Gospel, as God is faithful and continues to offer His gifts and callings to the group that already broke a covenant with Him. Now that is true Mercy. Yes, God loves the Jews, but not as Jews – as men made in the Imago Dei, with the potential to become united with Him as adopted sons. Teaching otherwise gives men an excuse to reject Christ, outside of whom there is no other salvation.
To summarize, it would be theologically honest to have a disclaimer on your website stating: “the following is traditional, Magisterial teaching, but we present arguments on this website why these teachings may be problematic.
1. The Sinai/Mosaic Covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant in Christ.
2. The salvific dimension of the Abrahmic Covenant is eternal and is both founded and fulfilled in Christ.
3. As superseeded and abrogated, the Mosaic Law and other Covenants are not Salvific.
4. The salvific dimension of the Abrahmic Covenant and the New Covenant in Christ are one in the same.
5. Christ fulfills the divine promise to Abraham and supersedes the old Mosaic Law.
6. The temporal Covenant promising the land of Canaan has been completely fulfilled.
”
Readers then would not be misled.

You falsely assume that your own supersessionist interpretation of salvation history is equivalent to “infallible Church teaching” – but this is far from the truth. The fact that you refer to obsolete disciplinary decrees from the medieval Council of Florence and ignore everything the Magisterium has said about Jews and Judaism in the last 50 years already says a lot.

What do you say about the fact that Cardinal Schoenborn, the editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, holds the view that the return of the Jews to the Land of Israel represents the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy? Oh... but you probably have a better understanding of Catholic doctrine than he does.

I do not reject anything John Paul II has said: yes, the Mosaic Law is not enough and Jews need Christ to be justified. We can well accept that the New Covenant supersedes the Old, of course, in the sense that it "fulfills" it without "abolishing" it (as Jesus said).

On the other hand, when you say:

has the New Covenant abolished God’s election, gifts and calling to the Jewish people?
The short answer is “yes!”, as to the Jewish people as a people, but “no” to gifts and calling to Jews as members of mankind.

This statement could not be a clearer proof that you are the one who rejects the clear teaching of Scripture and of the Church (most notably expressed in Nostra Aetate) about the enduring nature of God's covenant with the Jewish people.

It is precisely people like you who in your arrogant rejection of the beauty and richness of Jewish tradition and culture close the door shut to the Jews' potential encounter with grace and entrance in the Church.

How would you like it if someone told you that yes, you can be saved, but in order to be saved you must renounce everything you hold dear that is part of your American identity, traditions and customs. Moreover, you must renounce your American passport and citizenship, and you no longer have a right to your own nation. It seems to me that this is exactly what you are advocating in your arrogant rejection of Judaism - no, in fact it is worse because the traditions and homeland that they hold dear are not just part of their history and heritage, but were given to them by God Himself.

The fact that such arrogance and contempt for the Jews and rejection of their election have been around for 2,000 years does not make them right. This has nothing to do with "traditional, magisterial teaching" but rather with sin.

You would do well to do a prayerful study of Romans 11, and especially Paul's analogy of the olive tree and his warning to Gentile Christians who arrogantly boast their superiority over the natural branches that have been cut off, the unbelieving Jews, having forgotten that

it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. (Rom 11:18)

End of discussion.

Ariel, I am sorry you ended the discussion. Please accept one last response to your latest comments. You obviously do not like the Council of Florence, so let’s try this amalgamation:
“The Church is the new people of God, yet the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or cursed” (Nostra Aetate, 4) for “Christ instituted this new covenant, the new testament, that is to say, in His Blood, calling together a people made up of Jew and Gentile, making them one, not according to the flesh but in the Spirit. This was to be the new People of God.” (Lumen Gentium 9) “The Apostles were the first budding forth of the New Israel, and at the same time the beginning of the sacred hierarchy.” (Ad Gentes, 1,5) “From the moment of Christ’s coming, the expectation of the People of God has to be directed to the eschatological Kingdom which is coming and to which he must lead ‘the new Israel’.” (Mulieris Dignitatem, VI, 20, John Paul II)

Christians simply are the new spiritual Israel. There is no other spiritual Israel, meaning there is no Divine aspect to the nation of Israel (beyond the Divine Providence associated with any nation.) Unless you accept the Old Law as being completely fulfilled in Christ, then you will always be hanging on to the shadows of old and miss the light of the New. All converts at some point in history have forgone the aspects of their culture that were contrary to the Faith. That is what conversion, turning, is. I understand your sentimentalities, but we are all called to leave those aspects of our culture behind. For example, you must leave behind the spiritual ties to ceremonies which simply existed as types. You refuse to accept that the Mosaic Covenant was abolished, yet the Church has always held so. Take Pope Benedict XIV in his Encyclical Ex Quo:

"The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel. . . . “Similarly, we profess that the legalities of the Old Testament, the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law, the rites, sacrifices, and sacraments have ceased at the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ; they cannot be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.”

The preceding words are from the Profession of Orthodox Faith which Pope Urban VIII required of Orientals, as published in 1642 by the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. They are in harmony with the teaching of Saint Thomas (Summa 1, 2, quest. 103, art. 4, to 3rd). Moreover this teaching is confirmed by ancient documents.

63. The second consideration is that although the ceremonial precepts of the old Law have come to an end with the promulgation of the Gospel, and the new Law does not contain any precept which distinguishes between clean and unclean foods, nevertheless the Church of Christ has the power of renewing the obligation to observe some of the old precepts for just and serious reasons, despite their abrogation by the new Law. However, precepts whose main function was to foreshadow the coming Messiah should not be restored, for example, circumcision and the sacrifice of animals, as Vasquez aptly remarks in 1, 2, Divi Thomae, vol. 2, disp. 182, chap. 9, sect. ex quibus omnibus. "


St. Thomas, quoting St. Augustine, elaborates on the problematic nature of celebrating these abrogated (that means abolished) ceremonies:

“Consequently, just as it would be a mortal sin now for anyone, in making a profession of faith, to say that Christ is yet to be born, which the fathers of old said devoutly and truthfully; so too it would be a mortal sin now to observe those ceremonies which the fathers of old fulfilled with devotion and fidelity. Such is the teaching Augustine (Contra Faust. xix, 16), who says: "It is no longer promised that He shall be born, shall suffer and rise again, truths of which their sacraments were a kind of image: but it is declared that He is already born, has suffered and risen again; of which our sacraments, in which Christians share, are the actual representation." Summa Theologica, I II Q 103, 4.

The fulfillment is the abrogation, because practicing the old denies that very fulfillment. That is why advocating that one can hold a belief contrary to the faith, whatever the heresy, while seeking their conversion is very problematic. Specifically to the Mosaic shadows, holding to those ceremonies effectively denies Christ, and there is salvation in no one else. Acts 4:12. As the Council of Constantinople III stated:

"These things, therefore, having been determined by us with all caution and diligence, we declare that no one is permitted to introduce, or to describe, or to compare, or to study, or otherwise to teach another faith. But whoever presumes to compare or to introduce or to teach or to pass on another creed to those wishing to turn from the belief of the Gentiles or of the Jews or from any heresy whatsoever to the acknowledgement of truth, or who (presumes) to introduce a novel doctrine or an invention of discourse to the subversion of those things which now have been determined by us, (we declare) these, whether they are bishops or clerics, to be excommunicated, bishops indeed from the bishopric, but priests from the priesthood; but if they are monks or laymen, to be anathematized. ( Denz. 293)

Proclaim the Truth and the Spirit will work with you Ariel, not to placate a racial divide, but to bring these lost sheep to the fold.

May God bless you greatly.

yes, proclaim the truth indeed. You seem to be more interested in obscure medieval disciplinary decrees which at their worst are good illustrations of medieval Christian antisemitism, or at best were conditioned by their time in an atmosphere of Jewish-Christian polemics, hostility, and haughty triumphalistic Christian supersessionism.

You are free to remain in the Middle Ages with Benedict XIV, I prefer to follow the path set by Benedict XVI. With all respect for the sources you quoted, when was the last time a modern pontiff referred to them as authoritative? Please do not waste more of our time here on this forum and go cut yourself off from your own roots in some other setting.

Firstly the Old Covenant has never been revoked according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (see 121). If it has never been revoked then we must ask what the term translated as abrogation means in these old documents. What abrogation does it refer to? This should be obvious but people seem to be blinded by their own anti Jewish prejudices. The only abrogations that Scripture speaks about (in Acts) is the abrogation of the Gentiles needing to become Jews and observe the Torah as Jews do. This has nothing to do with Jewish observance of the Torah which in Acts 21 confirms the Gentile abrogation but the continued Jewish observance of circumcision and the Jewish customs. Of course Jews who embrace the New Covenant now observe not with the old intention as if Jesus hadn't come, died and resurrected but they observe Torah with the new heart intention that Jesus proclaimed in the Beatitudes. One group of the Pharisees (from the House of Shammai) saw Torah observance in the light of salvation (that only a Torah observant Jew could be saved and enter the World to Come) whereas the House of Hillel (of which orthodox Judaism is a descendant) saw salvation in the light of the coming Messiah and the observance of Torah as a means to sanctification (holiness). The other abrogation that is alluded to in Acts and Paul is the 18 gezerot enacted by the Shammaites to enforce a stricter than the Torah separation of Jews and Gentiles- these are the decrees which Christ nailed to his cross breaking down the barriers between Jews and Gentiles. Orthodox Judaism also abrogated or annulled them in a Jewish Rabbinic gathering after 70 AD in which a voice from heaven spoke and told the Rabbis that where the teachings of Beth Shammai clashed with those of Beth Hillel then Hillel must take authority.

With the first coming of the Messiah as suffering priest and victim the priestly and sacrificial ceremonial laws reached a fulfilment which meant they were transformed (not revoked or abolished) into the priestly and sacrificial ceremonies of the New Sacrifice of the New Covenant.

When we read past documents of the Church we must always read them with the idea of the development of doctrine and in humble obedience to the Magisterium. If one listens to the interview with Cardinal Burke who is the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura (and thus the highest judicial authority under the Pope in the Church) we see he has no problem with Hebrew Catholic observances of the Torah when done in the light of Christ.

It is without doubt that the Church has always sought to protect the infallible teaching that we are saved by faith in Messiah not by Torah observances. In order to protect that infallible teaching there have been fallible disciplinary policies and even theological opinions of what that means. That this question is still open for discussion is demonstrated by these comments of Cardinal Dulles: "The Second Vatican Council, while providing a solid and traditional framework for discussing Jewish-Christian relations, did not attempt to settle all questions. In particular, it left open the question whether the Old Covenant remains in force today. Are there two covenants, one for Jews and one for Christians? If so, are the two related as phases of a single developing covenant, a single saving plan of God? May Jews who embrace Christianity continue to adhere to Jewish covenantal practices?" A theological opinion by a Pope does not make it infallible as Pope Benedict XVI has clearly demonstrated. For example Pope Sixtus IV was a great believer in the theological opinion that Mary was immaculately conceived. However in his time this was not an infallible teaching but a theological opinion (even if the Pope of the time held to it) so all Catholics were still able to discuss or disagree with it until it was formerly declared infallible in 1854.

Dear Athol: I think you will find that the section 121 on page 131 of the Catechism was removed because it was flat-out wrong. The US Bishops voted it out because the Old Covenant was revoked. They replaced that sentence with: "To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear his word, 'belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ.'" (Rom 9:4-5; cf. CCC, No. 839)

Which is historically correct, but does not pull those blessings of old into the new. Christ tore the curtain, eliminating all racial divide among men. Remember not all those of the seed of Abraham are of Abraham? The gifts and callings of the Gospel are now available to all, including those in the group who rejected God repeatedly under the Old Covenant.

As Augustine said: "It is no longer promised that He shall be born, shall suffer and rise again, truths of which their sacraments were a kind of image: but it is declared that He is already born, has suffered and risen again; of which our sacraments, in which Christians share, are the actual representation."

I find it ironic that Ariel continues to profer that my support is antiquated, yet it all comes after the establishment of your rudiments and laws which were implemented because of transgressions.

Thank you for responding, and may God be with you.

You are confusing the Catechism of the Catholic Church with the American Catechism. It is article 121 in CCC. The one you are referring to in the American Catechism which said that the mosaic covenant was eternally valid for jews was removed not because it was wrong but because some people were misunderstanding it and following a dual covenant theology. The bishops spokesmen at the time of the removal stressed that it was not being removed because it was untrue just that it needed to be explained in more detail which wasn't appropriate for the nature of the Catechism. The problem is that the average Catholic doesn't understand the difference between sanctification and salvation which led some to see this statement as affirming dual covenant theology. see http://timglass.wordpress.com/2008/08/1 ... -with-god/

i should also think that the statement in the American Catechism could also be wrongly read that the Torah was only valid for the jews and not the Gentiles. This would be a wrong inference as the Torah is eternally valid for both Jew and Gentile. They relate to it differently as the Gentiles have been abrogated or dispensed from observing in the manner that is appropriate for a Jew while at the same time sharing with the Jews in the Torah inheritance of Israel. You might like to read Cardinal lustiger on this. http://www.catholicsforisrael.com/de/ar ... ish-church

Athol - yes, I was intermixing the American and CCC. But the issue is interrelated. I believe you are overstepping your interpreation by concluding the 121 of the CCC means the Mosaic Covenant was not revoked. It doesn't say that. Read it again, and then read the numerous other sections in the CCC that identify what we would call the Old Testament by the term "Old Covenant". It is clear elsewhere of the Mosaic Covenant was revoked - Para 1963, 66 Also, Read 122 and 123 and you will see that it is focusing on the value derived from the inspired text of the Old Testament. It definately is ambiguous, but it is clear it is teaching against Marcionism. The Old Testament has value, not that the Mosaic Covenat is still valid.

This comment about the Old covenant never being revoked was put in the Catechism to confirm that the statement of JPII on this topic was not just his personal opinion but the authentic teaching of the Church's magisterium. The details of what this means is open to theological discussion and speculation. John paul II stated this permanent reality of the Jewish people in a remarkable theological formula, in his allocution to the Jewish community of Germany at Mainz, on November 17, 1980: "... the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked." Both JPII and BXVI have taught that the Judaism has a continuing role to play in God's plan of salvation during the time of the Gentiles as well as its crucial role in the end times when the whole economy of salvation awaits the ingrafting of the Jews and Judaism into the Church which will lead to a spiritual resurrection of the dead (romans 11).

Dear Athol: Thank you for that reply. It may have been put in because of that statement, but because the term "Old Covenant" has referred to the Mosaic Covenant at times, it caused tremendous confusion. We know JPII could not have meant that the Mosaic Covenant was not revoked, because he already stated it was superseded in his encyclical Redemptoris Mater. Also, it would have gone against the tremendous body of teaching of the Church. Again, if you hold the "not revoked" applies to any covenant other than the Abrahamic, which was made with Abraham prior to becoming a Jew and intended for all people, you are reading too much into that statement. JPII clarified what he meant in his Sydney speech of November 26, 1986, in which he said:

"It will continue to be an explicit and very important part of my mission to repeat and emphasize that our attitude to the Jewish religion should be one of the greatest respect, since the Catholic faith is rooted in the eternal truths contained in the Hebrew Scriptures, and in the irrevocable covenant made with Abraham…for it is the teaching of both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures that the Jews are beloved of God, who has called them with an irrevocable calling."

The irrevocable calling is what we have through Christ. Christ from the beginning and through to the end.

The term Old Covenant almost always refers to the Mosaic Covenant not the Abrahamic Covenant. That the Pope says that the Abrahamic covenant is irrevocable in one place doesn't mean that he is thus saying that the Mosaic Covenant or Old Covenant (which is the Covenant of Sinai) is thus revocable. None of God's covenant are revocable. Certainly one can break the conditions of the covenant (and Israel did this again and again) and come under certain punishments and one can then repent and keep the covenant and thus come under its blessings (which also happened in history). That all the covenants find their fulfilment in the New Covenant does not make the older covenants redundant or revoked. The term new means renewal not novelty in this regard. Before Vatican II it may have been permissible for a Catholic to follow a theological opinion such as you articulate but with Vatican II and the clarifications of the Magisterium since then make such an opinion more and more untenable. Such an interpretation has led to great anti-Jewish and anti-semitic attitudes which the Church has repented for and desires to cleanse. This is the opinion of the present Pope writing when he was head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

"...Down through the history of Christianity, already-strained relations deteriorated further, even giving birth in many cases to anti-Jewish attitudes, which throughout history have led to deplorable acts of violence. Even if the most recent, loathsome experience of the Shoah was perpetrated in the name of an anti-Christian ideology, which tried to strike the Christian faith at its Abrahamic roots in the people of Israel it cannot be denied that a certain insufficient resistance to its atrocity on the part of Christians can be explained by an inherited anti-Judaism present in the hearts of not a few Christians. Perhaps it is precisely because of this latest tragedy that a new vision of the relationship between the Church and Israel has been born: a sincere willingness to overcome every kind of anti-Judaism, and to initiate a constructive dialogue based on knowledge of each other, and on reconciliation. If such a dialogue is to be fruitful, it must begin with a prayer to our God, first of all that he might grant to us Christians a greater esteem and love for that people – the people of Israel – to whom belong the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; theirs are the patriarchs, and from them comes Christ according to the flesh, he who is over all, God, blessed forever. Amen. And this not only in the past, but still today, for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. In the same way, let us pray that he may grant also to the children of Israel a deeper knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth, who is their son, and the gift they have made to us. Since we are both awaiting the final redemption, let us pray that the paths we follow may converge. It is evident that, as Christians, our dialogue with the Jews is situated on a different level than that in which we engage with other religions. The faith witnessed to by the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament for Christians) is not merely another religion to us, but is the foundation of our own faith..."

You will note that Ratzinger is not just referring to the Jews before the church was established but the Jews today.

Athol:

I'm sorry, but that position simply isn't Catholic teaching. Hence the Covenant Confusion.
Cardinal Ratzinger, speaking as a theologian, can make many propositions, but the Church has already spoken, clearly and repeatedly. See for example the words of the Church below:

Roman Catechism, Part II "On the Sacraments." - "Thus much will suffice in explanation of the word Sacrament: and indeed, what we have said applies equally to the Sacraments of the old law: but superseded, as they have been, by the gospel law and grace, instruction regarding them were superfluous."
Part III On the Decalogue: "The point of difference is evident: the other commandments of the Decalogue are precepts of the natural law, obligatory at all times and unalterable, and hence, after the abrogation of the Law of Moses, all the commandments contained in the two tables are observed by Christians, ... The Sabbath was kept holy form the time of the liberation of the people of Israel form the bondage of Pharaoh: the obligation was to cease with the abrogation of the Jewish worship, of which it formed a part . . .Having been, as it were, images which shadowed the light and the truth, these ceremonies were to disappear at the coming of that light and truth, which is Christ Jesus. "

Pope Pius XII Mystici Corporis Christi:
And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel [30] - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers;


One could go on and on, which is not my desire. It simply cannot be a constructive diaologue unless the truth is placed on the table. Only then can one decide whether he accepts it or rejects it. Yes, the gifts and calls still exhisit, through the promises to Abraham. You simply reject the statements, in an encyclical no less, by John Paul II: Abrahamic fulfilled, Mosaic superseded. You obviously can hold a different belief, just don't call it Catholic teaching.

Our purpose is not to alter or water-down the truth to accomodate sensibilities, but to proclaim it.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to be heard, I truly wish you all peace in Christ.

Once again you are reading these statements according to a theological opinion that carries little value today in the light of the development of doctrine in which the Holy Spirit is leading the Church into a deeper penetration of the Mystery of Israel.

Once again you quote a document that mentions the abrogation (which is the Gentile Catholic dispensation of becoming Jews and observing the torah in a Jewish manner). The church is teaching that this abrogation does not include the ten words (commandments) and teachings on morality and immorality. when the church uses the terms old law and new law it is not talking about the Torah (as there is only one Torah) as confirmed by Cardinal Lustiger but it refers to the old way of outward observance and legalism as opposed to the way jesus taught in the beatitudes and elsewhere of the new or renewed way of heart observance in the Spirit.

We also need to know what the Church means by the Old Law and the New Law- with this Cardinal Lustiger helps us stating that there is only One Law of God but the newess is the deeper penetration of the Law in the Messiah. Thus the Old Law ( a term commonly used in Church documents) refers to the intention of observing the Law before the coming of the Messiah as Promise and the new Law refers to the deeper messianic interpretation and intention of observing the Law as reality of the Promise. Thus the old intention based on Promise alone passes away and is subsumed into its mystical fulfilment and reality. How one does this in the practical differs depending on whether one is a Jew or Gentile, male of female, child or adult, Roman or Byzantine,priest or lay. However in the realm of salvation there are no distinctions- we are all one in the Messiah and all saved by Grace working through Faith and manifesting in good works. Even Judaism teaches of the coming of a New Torah with the revelation of the Messiah. By this they do not mean a new novelty but a new way of understanding and relating to Torah that is revealed by the Messiah.

Benedict XIV states: "...the ceremonial rites of the old Law could be observed under the new Law if only they were not done as obligations of the old Law, which was abrogated, but as a custom, or lawful tradition, or as a new precept issued by one enjoying the recognized and competent authority to make laws and to enforce them..." What does the word 'abrogate' refer to here. It is not the abrogation of the Law but the abrogation of the need for Gentiles who enter the Church to be obligated to observe the Law as Jews. This is the abrogation for Gentiles discussed in Acts 15. We can be assured that Pope Benedict XIV was not speaking of the abrogation of the Sinai Covenant but of the need for Gentiles to be obligated to the specifically Jewish observances by the words of Benedict XVI when he was the Cardinal in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He wrote: “With regard to the issue of the nature of the covenant, it is important to note that the Last Supper sees itself as making a covenant: it is the prolongation of the Sinai covenant, which is not abrogated, but renewed” (Many Religions, One Covenant, p. 62). Even for the Jewish Catholic one is not obligated to the old way but observes the customs and ceremonies in the light of the New Covenant with a Messianic, Eucharistic and Marian intention. We do this to more fully adhere to the Will of God and to grow in intimacy with God according to our Election and calling as physical Israelites in the Mystical Body of Christ. Many Hebrew Catholics are drawn to observe as Our Lady and the Apostles and all the first Jewish Catholics of Jerusalem did after Penecost with zealousness for the Torah (see Acts 21) which we wish to pass to our children and grandchildren.

There is some theological discussion about exactly what the term used in the Church of Old Law refers to. Some say it means the Law or Covenant of Moses others the Covenant with Abraham and others that includes all the covenants made with Israel. It would seem the term is usually not actually referring to the Torah as such but the terms Old Law and New Law may be the equivalent to the terms Old Covenant and New Covenant according to others. Once again some believe the term Old Covenant refers to the one made at Sinai and others that it refers to all the covenants made with Abraham and the Patriarchs. Pope John Paul II taught that the Old Covenant is irrevocable so the question of what exactly the term Old Covenant refers to becomes a question of debate. Eventhough most in the past assumed the Old Covenant referred to the one made at Sinai, now some try to see it as the Covenant with Abraham that is irrevocable. This is because many Catholics have assumed that the Covenant at Sinai was revoked or abolished but now a Pope was saying that it is irrevocable. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (121) also teaches this: "The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked."

According to St Thomas Aquinas it would also seem that the use of the terms Old Law and New Law are referring to St Paul's references to those who live at the level of the letter of the law and those who live at the level of the spirit of the law and is not really directly referring to the Old and New Covenants as such. In the Summa he writes: "Nevertheless there were some in the state of the Old Testament who, having charity and the grace of the Holy Ghost, looked chiefly to spiritual and eternal promises: and in this respect they belonged to the New Law. In like manner in the New Testament there are some carnal men who have not yet attained to the perfection of the New Law; and these it was necessary, even under the New Testament, to lead to virtuous action by the fear of punishment and by temporal promises."

The level of Old Law which is based on fear, reward and punishment can be appropriate for preparation and children but those who move on to the deeper way of love are those of the level of New Law revealed by Jesus in the Beatitudes and in his Life and Passion. Thus those such as Abraham and Moses who lived at the level of love in their obedience to God's Will can be said, in a mystical sense, to have lived the New Law. Just as many Catholics who respond to God out of fear of punishment live in the Old Law, so many Jews live at the level of doing the Will of God out of love. They are thus mystically living in the New Law in the Messiah.

St Thomas opposes those who see the levels of Old Law and the New Law as two totally separate entities. He writes: "Now things may be distinguished in two ways. First, as those things that are altogether specifically different, e.g., a horse and an ox. Secondly, as perfect and imperfect in the same species, e.g., a boy and a man: and in this way the Divine law is divided into Old and New. Hence the Apostle (Gal. 3:24,25) compares the state of man under the Old Law to that of a child "under a pedagogue"; but the state under the New Law, to that of a full grown man, who is "no longer under a pedagogue."..." Thomas associates Old Law with the literal observance of the Ten Commandments for a earthly reward whereas the New Law is the the law of the Gospel which is the inner heart response to the Divine Law (Torah). The level of Old Law is thus essential (not something that is abrogated)and the level of New Law in a sense encompasses the Old Law just as the adult encompasses the child.

For example the Torah forbids Adultery- at the level of Old Law this means that one cannot have intercourse with anothers wife and there are physical penalties for such an action and one must take care of his wife financially. At the level of New Law one is forbidden to even think of his neigbour's wife in a lustful manner and he must not only care for his wife but love her as the Messiah loves his bride the Church. One does this out of love for the Messiah. The level of Old Law is not abolished but the one who lives at the level of the New Law will already be obedient to the demands of the outward level of the Old Law. One can keep the level of the Old Law with his own effort and will power, whereas the level of the new Law can only be achieved and received as a grace of God.

i also wonder why you don't use the Douay -Rheims Bible for your quotation of Hebrews 8:13 "Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old is near its end". Other translations that use the word Covenant and obsolete are an interpretation of this verse not a translation. This like all of Hebrews is talking of the prieshood ministry and sacrifices not the Old Covenant or the Torah-by the renewal of the Covenant as proclaimed to jeremiah in 31:31 will lead to the old and wearing out priesthood of Levi and Aaron to disappear and be transformed into the priesthood and sacrifice of the renewed covenant. there has been changes in the priesthood before. the original priesthood is associated as the priesthood of Abel, then Melchizedek instituted another form with Abraham and then with the levites and then at sinai the Aronite priesthood and finally with the fulfilment and renewal of all these forms of the priesthhod in Jesus and his sacrifice. this is why Ratzinger says “With regard to the issue of the nature of the covenant, it is important to note that the Last Supper sees itself as making a covenant: it is the prolongation of the Sinai covenant, which is not abrogated, but renewed” (Many Religions, One Covenant, p. 62).

According to you Cardinals Dulles, Lustiger and Burke have all got it wrong about what is Catholic teaching as well as Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

“the period marked by the promise made to Abraham and by the Law mediated by Moses has now reached its climax, in the sense that Christ fulfils the divine promise and supersedes the old law.” Redemptoris Mater, ft. 2.

Firstly this is only a footnote in Redemptoris Mater not part of the main text. As you can see if you have read what I wrote above, this footnote is not talking about the mosaic covenant or Torah but the old law (the old outward level of observing Torah).

this is the full footnote: The expression "fullness of time" (pleroma tou chronou) is parallel with similar expressions of Judaism, both Biblical (cf. Gen. 29:21; 1 Sam. 7:12; Tob. 14:5) and extra-Biblical, and especially of the New Testament (cf. Mk. 1:15; Lk. 21:24; Jn. 7:8; Eph. 1:10). From the point of view of form, it means not only the conclusion of a chronological process but also and especially the coming to maturity or completion of a particularly important period, one directed towards the fulfillment of an expectation, a coming to completion which thus takes on an eschatological dimension. According to Gal. 4:4 and its context, it is the coming of the Son of God that reveals that time has, so to speak, reached its limit. That is to say, the period marked by the promise made to Abraham and by the Law mediated by Moses has now reached its climax, in the sense that Christ fulfills the divine promise and supersedes the old law.

We see that we are dealing with deep mystical or eshchatological mysteries in which the word supersedes is refering to the ascending to the level of "spirit of the law" which doesn't break the outward boundaries of the Torah but goes beyond the outward law by going deeper into its internal messianic mystery. This level had been hidden but is now unveiled with the Incarnation and life etc of the Messiah Jesus.

One must be careful to not confuse the meaning of a word such as supersedes as it means one thing in ordinary ontological theology and another in mystical theology- this is common in that certain people see a term used by a mystic and they interpret it with its ordinary meaning rather than its mystical and fall into great errors. This is very much the case with the writings of Paul who was a great mystic

Athol: I believe we are at an impasse, but as I thank you for your thoughts, i will contemplate them. I am trying to take the Church at her word, as well as Scripture.

When she uses terms like superseded, abolished, abrogated or even “died”(See, Redemptoris Mater, Roman Catechism Part III discussing the Third Commandement, Pope Bendict XIV’s Encyclical Ex Quo 63 and Mystici Corporis Christi 30),  which words the Church has used in discussing the annulment of the entirety of the Mosaic Covenant, I simply can't find the lingering aspect that you pull forward. If the Old Law is dead and abolished, we should not allude to any remaining continuity.  The continuity has nothing to do with the law through Moses.   I think clear statements such as the below from Old Testament theologians Dr. Paul Heinisch and Rev.  William Heidt are most helpful:

“When the Gospel began to be preached to all peoples, this “shadow of things to come” Col 2:17 had to pass away.  With Christ’s death the Law was abrogated.  No one insisted upon this truth more resolutely or stated it more clearly than St. Paul. Acts 9:15.  “Christ is the consummation of the Law unto justice for everyone who believes.” Rm 10:4  The “taskmaster” no longer has any right or power.

 Israel resembled a fig tree with much foliage but no fruit.  Lk 13:6-9.  When toward the end of His mission Jesus found no fruit upon this fig tree, He cursed it and it withered forever, withered to its very roots.  Mt 21:18-20; Mk 11:13-20.  This was the last miracle He worked, the only miracle which was not directed toward gaining souls or alleviating human suffering.  He wept over impenitent Jerusalem, Lk 19:41, and prophesized ruin to the city and its temple.  Mt 24:2, 25:22; Lk 19:42-44.  The Jews believed it sufficient to have Abraham as father; Mt 3:9  they forgot that God’s choice of Abraham was an act of pure grace and that Abraham’s children were obliged to fulfill the divine will even as their forefather did.  Jn 8:39; Mt 3:9 When Israel rejected Him on whose account she had been chosen, she spelt her own rejection;  she became stale salt, “The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and will be given to a people yielding its fruits.”  Mt 21:43

Through the centuries a good and merciful God struggled, so to speak, for the love of that people, Mt 16:4, punishing them only to shower greater blessings upon them. Mt 46:5  Yet despite all warnings and admonitions Israel “had a face harder than stone and refused to amend.” Jer 5:3; Ez 2:4-5  “Give up!  We want to follow our own evil plans, each one of us wishes to act according to his own stubborn, evil notions.” Jer 18:12  God did not need Israel to realize His work.  He willed to retain the imperishable religious intent of the OT for His new kingdom, but first He detached His new foundation from ancient moorings lest Israel continue to impede His plan.  Membership in the new kingdom of God is not dependent upon physical descent form Abraham, Lk 19:9 but upon faith in Jesus and obedience to His words.  We become God’s children through the grace conferred upon the world through our Lord Jesus Christ.”


We should preach that detachment from ancient moorings,

Thank you for your time, and God bless you, and I will leave you with my gratitude.
 

Well that's where I think we disagree. God has never given up hope for Israel and the Catholic Church has never given up hope for Israel trusting in God's faithfulness to his covenants even if man is not. This is why the church has always taught that the Jewish people (who didn't accept Jesus at his first coming)will be fully grafted into the mystical Olive Tree which is Israel.

"The glorious advent of Christ, the hope of Israel

673 Since the Ascension Christ's coming in glory has been imminent, even though "it is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority." This eschatological coming could be accomplished at any moment, even if both it and the final trial that will precede it are "delayed".

674 The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by "all Israel", for "a hardening has come upon part of Israel" in their "unbelief" toward Jesus. St. Peter says to the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: "Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old." St. Paul echoes him: "For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?" The "full inclusion" of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles", will enable the People of God to achieve "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ", in which "God may be all in all"." CCC

This is the time and event which I and many other Catholics both Jews and Gentiles are praying and working towards under the inspiration of Our Lady, Mother of Israel's Hope. Even you should be able to see that when the Church refers to Israel here it is speaking of the physical Israel-the Jewish people of our time and the future-and not the Church as the new Israel who has superseded any claim of the Jews to the name Israel.

You are clinging to old formulations and theological opinions rather than moving with the Church in its journey to go deeper in its understanding of the deposit of the faith through the development of doctrine in the Church. Just as after 1854 we must leave behind the theological opinions of St Thomas Aquinas and others on whether Mary was immaculately conceived so in the light of further magisterial teaching and in light of the Shoah we leave behind all those theological opinions of even saints and fathers that were based on anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish polemics.

Dear Truth seeker keep seeking the Truth. St Peter warns us that St Paul is not easy to understand and that many even in his time got him wrong. To read him without understanding that he is a Jewish rabbi and a Jewish mystic has caused great misunderstandings. Paul thinks in Jewish ways and categories which is very different to the Greek and Roman based thinking of later writers who seek to understand his writings. There are many new writers and theologians who are discovering Paul in his Jewish context which is an exciting development in theological circles. There are many people who think or have thought along your lines so it is good to thrash these things out with someone who holds a different understanding. I think there is some confusion with the terminology of old law and new law but it is clear from the St Thomas quote above that new law is not the same as New Testament (or Covenant) just as Old law and Old Testament are not the same. The same is found when studying Paul as his use of the word law does not always refer to the Torah (Law). All the best in your further search for truth.

Just found this excellent article on this topic on the National Catholic Register website.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/on ... e-and-god/

cheers Athol

Athol wrote:Just found this excellent article on this topic on the National Catholic Register website.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/on ... e-and-god/

cheers Athol

Very enlightening article indeed... Although im not sure about the facts they show there, with
all the respect to the vatican, most of the religions would say that they have the true
Religion...

With that i think that there are a lot of familiar traditions in both of the religions, take a look
at the Jewish traditions and tell me if they ring the bell...

http://www.jpeopleworld.com/index.php?d ... ry&cs=3015

Thanks Chaim what a nice website on Jewish traditions around the world.

Both Israel and the Catholic Church are under attack at the moment from many quarters so it is good that we become closer.

cheers Br. Gilbert (Athol)

Dear Athol -
I just noticed your linking to the article at NCR. I debated whether to respond, but feel I must given that I believe there are significant problems with that article, and other articles by David Palm and Michael Forrest. They go far beyond what the Church teaches and represent their musings as magisterial. For starters, their implication that there is an existing “chosen” status outside of the Church is specious. Although they maintain that it is not salvific, their claim of a Godly “special relationship” because of racial identity is incorrect and misleading.

When addressing this very issue, St. Augustine clearly stated the truth –“ For are those enemies who perished in their enmity and those of the same people who still perish in their opposition to Christ—are those chosen and beloved? Away with the thought! Who is so utterly foolish as to say this? But both expressions, although contrary to one another— that is, enemies and beloved— are appropriate, though not to the same men, yet to the same Jewish people, and to the same carnal seed of lsrael, of whom some belonged to the falling away, and some to the blessing of Israel himself.” On the Predestination of Saints, Book I, para. 33

The love and mercy God shows the Jews for the sake of the Patriarchs is the continuing offer of salvation through Christ Jesus. Any other embellishment creates a racial pride inapposite of the humility of Christianity.

May God be with you.

Dear Truthseeker,

I think I will go with David Palm and Michael Forrest rather than you. They are thinking with the mind of the Church as it has been developing a deeper understanding of the Jews in God's plan of salvation. That the only person you quoted lived such a long time ago says alot. Of course St Augustine was a great saint and his opinions are understandable in the context of his time but it doesn't make them correct or magisterial. I am sure if Augustine would speak on this now with 1700 more years of the development of doctrine and the guidance of the Holy Spirit he would speak very differently. Tradition is not static but alive and living and growing in depth.

cheers Brother Gilbert