... There are not two paths to salvation according to the expression "Jews hold to the Torah, Christians hold to Christ." Christian faith proclaims that Christ's work of salvation is universal and involves all mankind. God's word is one single and undivided reality which takes concrete form in each respective historical context.
Since God has never revoked his covenant with his people Israel, there cannot be different paths or approaches to God's salvation. The theory that there may be two different paths to salvation, the Jewish path without Christ and the path with the Christ, whom Christians believe is Jesus of Nazareth, would in fact endanger the foundations of Christian faith.
Confessing the universal and therefore also exclusive mediation of salvation through Jesus Christ belongs to the core of Christian faith. . . . [T]he Church and Judaism cannot be represented as "two parallel ways to salvation."
Christians are nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ also to Jews, although they should do so in a humble and sensitive manner, acknowledging that Jews are bearers of God's Word, and particularly in view of the great tragedy of the Shoah [i.e., the Holocaust] (GCGI 40).
Jesus ... calls his Church from both Jews and Gentiles (cf. Eph 2:11-22) on the basis of faith in Christ and by means of baptism, through which there is incorporation into his Body which is the Church (GCGI 41).
It is and remains a qualitative definition of the Church of the New Covenant that it consists of Jews and Gentiles, even if the quantitative proportions of Jewish and Gentile Christians may initially give a different impression [GCGI 43]
The realy mystery is:
Why do so many FReepers truest the New York Times?
Seriously, I’d never follow any religion that puts a stamp of approval on the Muslims and puts Islam in first place.
“841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.â€330”
Class, discuss.
Freedom of speech, Christians can talk to Jews about Jesus and Jews can either choose to ignore or listen to them.
Just like how I deal with Jehovah Witlesses.
Of course “Socialist McPope-ington “ is a freaking hack even bringing this up.
Another issue: while it's true that Catholicism's refusal to proselytize among Jews is preferable to the sincere but very wrong attempts of Fundamentalist Protestants, no one is pointing out the danger of engaging in ecumenical activities with the Vatican. Voices are constantly warning against Judaeophilic Fundamentalists and their attempts to combine Judaism and chrstianity. But what about liberal ecumenism such as that sought by the Vatican and the United Religions Initiative?
The Catholics work just like the Clintons, say one thing, then wait a day and say something else. Everyone hears and believes what they want. It’s call triangulation.
Mrs. D-o, this article is nearly as ridiculous as the original Times article and at least as disrespectful to Judaism.
Best advice, leave the Jews alone. They are the original Chosen People. Western Christians would do well to remember that.
Also, I’d like to add: I know plenty of Jews who have excepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. They are Christians! They are Jewish!
Thank you for posting this. On the original thread a lot of people called the theology and methodology wrong.
I lurk on a number of different forums to see what's happening on them. I do not believe (or want to believe) them all equally.
One of these forums aligns with a fundamentalist (I do not use the term "fundamentalist" as a pejorative) Christian perspective. (This is not my current or former position, and it will probably not be my future one. My main reasons are more substantial than the observations mentioned later in this post, but neither do these observations encourage me to join this forum.)
It has a thread linked to an article that seems to share sources with that New York Times one. Since the mainstream position on that forum is that The Pope Is Eeeeeevil, naturally no one there has openly questioned the article at all. (To be fair, I should mention having seen the occasional "The Pope Is Eeeeeevil" thread in which someone posts something about not believing everything in a news article, but so far nothing like that has appeared in the most recent thread.) There's even a post about how that thread has confirmed one poster's suspicions about Pope Francis.
Elsewhere on the same forum, though, I've seen warnings about trusting the media (they may even use "mainstream media" or "MSM") on other matters.
(There is even at least one 9/11 truther, who has more than once embedded Youtube videos supporting that position. Maybe this position would be examined more critically there if this member had ever started a thread on the matter or posted at length defending the position, but even so the relevant posts are allowed to remain and even get a few positive reactions from other members.)
On a different but similar forum, I've even seen hoaxes from fake news sites posted as actual news. Although multiple possibilities occur to me, such as trolling, it's most likely in my mind that the poster genuinely believes that the "stories" are true.
I should also note that even on this very forum, people don't always check satire or hoaxes before posting them as fact. For example, one of those hoaxes mentioned in the last paragraph (it involved Pope Francis--surprise!) spawned at least two threads here. Here, though, the threads have been removed.
“Why do so many FReepers truest the New York Times?”
They always trust it when it distorts the Catholic faith.
Oh wait these explanations are coming from Jimmy Akin..post Vatican II apologist extraordinaire. That explains a lot. If Francis said Christ was not God he could explain it away. Any serious Catholic needs to ignore him and seek out pre-Vatican II Catholic teaching...
You tellin’ me the Noo Yawk Times lied? Again?
Do they manage to get anything right?
17. On the part of many of the Church Fathers the so-called replacement theory or supersessionism steadily gained favour until in the Middle Ages it represented the standard theological foundation of the relationship with Judaism: the promises and commitments of God would no longer apply to Israel because it had not recognised Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God, but had been transferred to the Church of Jesus Christ which was now the true ‘new Israel’, the new chosen people of God. Arising from the same soil, Judaism and Christianity in the centuries after their separation became involved in a theological antagonism which was only to be defused at the Second Vatican Council. With its Declaration "Nostra aetate" (No.4) the Church unequivocally professes, within a new theological framework, the Jewish roots of Christianity. While affirming salvation through an explicit or even implicit faith in Christ, the Church does not question the continued love of God for the chosen people of Israel. A replacement or supersession theology which sets against one another two separate entities, a Church of the Gentiles and the rejected Synagogue whose place it takes, is deprived of its foundations. From an originally close relationship between Judaism and Christianity a long-term state of tension had developed, which has been gradually transformed after the Second Vatican Council into a constructive dialogue relationship.
Good thing we had Vatican II and this document to clear up the errors in the Church for hundreds of years since Christ! /s