Posted on 12/16/2015 12:50:41 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o
Trust me, I know that it is hard to write accurate, easy-to-read articles about complicated Vatican theological documents. This is especially true when dealing with materials focusing on very nuanced issues that continue to cause behind-the-scenes debates among Catholics.
It's even harder to write informative, catchy and, yes, accurate headlines for these kinds of stories.
This brings me to a recent New York Times report that ran with this headline: "Vatican Says Catholics Should Not Try to Convert Jews."
The problem with that headline is that it is simplistic to the point of being inaccurate -- that is, if the goal is for readers to understand the document ("The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable") addressed in this story.
Now here is the ironic part. You can tell that the headline is inaccurate by carefully reading the actual Times story, which means reading past the flawed lede on which the headline is based. Let us attend.
ROME -- Catholics should not try to convert Jews, but should work together with them to fight anti-Semitism, the Vatican said on Thursday in a far-reaching document meant to solidify its increasingly positive relations with Jews.
Then, in the third paragraph, there is this:
Addressing an issue that has been a sore point between the two faiths for centuries, the commission wrote that the church was "obliged to view evangelization to Jews, who believe in the one God, in a different manner from that to people of other religions and world views." It specified that "the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews."
Did you catch the subtle, but very important, difference between the lede and the actual quote from the document?
The lede says that it is wrong for Catholics -- which would mean priests, laypeople and other Catholic individuals -- to try to win Jewish individuals to Christian faith. But what does the document say? It says that the Catholic Church, as an institution, "neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews (italics added)."
So evangelism by individual Catholics talking with individual Jews is acceptable, while organized efforts targeting Jews alone -- perhaps a Catholic version of Jews for Jesus -- are considered out of bounds.
Thus, the headline and the lede need to be corrected to reflect the actual content of the story and the document on which it is based.
If you want to know more about this complicated issue, let me point you toward a Q&A piece by the conservative apologist Jimmy Akin, writing in The National Catholic Register. It contains lots of detailed quotes drawn from the Vatican document, which is precisely what the Times piece is lacking.
Akin explains that, beginning with the title, this document was clearly crafted to reject a concept called "supersessionism," which argues that the "Church has completely taken over the promises of God regarding Israel, so that today the Jewish people have no special status whatsoever."
The document also addresses another theological issue linked to this -- the "two paths to salvation" concept that says that Christians find salvation through Jesus Christ and Jews through their own covenant. "Two paths" theory is, of course, an open door to full-out Universalism, which argues that all religious and nonreligious paths lead to the top of the same eternal mountain (so to speak).
The problem: What to do with the statement (John 14:6) in which Jesus -- a Jew -- states, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me."
Akin notes that this Vatican document addresses this issue head on, in material that really needed to be in the Times report:
... 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."
There are other complicated subjects attached to that issue, but for the purpose of this story the Times team -- in order to cover the material accurately -- really needed to address the "two paths" section of "The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable" and another section that focuses on PERSONAL, as opposed to INSTITUTIONAL, evangelism.
Akin underlines this crucial passage:
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).
And the logical implication of this is seen in two other statements:
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).
And:
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]
So what is the point, journalistically speaking?
Clearly, at this point, the Times urgently needs a reporter or two willing to listen carefully to the views of doctrinally traditional Catholics, as well as to progressive Catholics. Once again, the goal is not to AGREE with the Catholic doctrines being discussed, but to understand them well enough to cover them accurately and clearly (which is, as I said up top, often very hard to do in a daily newspaper).
If the Times is not willing to hire such reporters, then it would really help the newspaper's coverage if there were conservative Catholics who were willing to seek out Times people and offer insights (with people on both sides recording the exchanges).
Would the Times people listen?
If the goal is journalism, the answer has to be "yes." Liberal Catholics and conservative Catholics have different takes on these kinds of documents and their debates would be illuminating for readers (including legions of journalists elsewhere who read and heed what is printed in the Times).
Talking to worthy, respected voices on both sides would also help the Times avoid the kinds of errors found in this headline which, as I noted, actually conflicts with information quoted in the story.
Correction, please.
“Every religion has some garbled fragments of truth mixed in with it -— didn’t Paul speak of this at the Areopagus?”
Indeed he did, something I remember every time I stand there. These truths, however, are usually far more than mere “garbled fragments of truth.” The Fathers called them the “sporoi tou Theou”, the seeds of God.
I dictated. “excepted” should be “accepted”.
iPhone.
Thank you for posting this. On the original thread a lot of people called the theology and methodology wrong.
You are correct, these are “seeds of God.” I only said “garbled fragments” because they are just that, fragmentary, and garbled when deprived of a Judeo-Christian context. When Paul places these in a Judeo-Christian context, they make total sense. In fact, “In Him we live and move and have our being” is, to me, one of the MOST beautiful and true statements of who we are in God.
This isn’t about the Muslims; it’s about the Jewish faith.....didn’t you get that?
Amen to that, kinsman!
**I know plenty of Jews who have excepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.**
Do you mean accepted?
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.
Part of the problem is with people “thinking” in slogans and not in ordered logical paragraphs which require close attention. There are many truths which go beyond what you can fit on a bumper-sticker.
The times of this ignorance God winked at: BUT NOW COMMANDETH ALL MEN EVERYWHERE TO REPENT: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. Acts 17:30,31 (KJV)
"You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." (Acts 1:18)
:o}
Weird but true, ZC.
I am not Jewish and am slated to rule over no one.
No wonder you trash the New Testament so much, for it says just the opposite. It says there is going to be a millennial reign of Jesus Christ - the true Messiah of the Jews - after his second coming, Rev. 20. A Christian worldwide theocracy, a Christian "end of history," not an antichristian Judaic one.
That's good to know. But the simple fact is, it doesn't matter what the "new testament" says if it isn't from G-d. Quoting the "new testament" to someone who doesn't accept it does no more good than quoting the koran or the "book of mormon" to people who don't believe them.
G-d spoke at Mt. Sinai. That Revelation rules supreme over all claimants of further revelation . . . authentic or otherwise. It sits in judgment on them all . . . including the "new testament."
Do you have a Hebrews 11 robot that searches the innerweb for references to the Book?
LOL
Actually, I was referring to the crown of your illustrious chapter (vvs 39,40)
However, v. 6 is worth repeating (and memorizing):
And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
And it is fitting to repeat because it says a person must believe that the one true God exists, AND that he will reward men's faith in him with forgiveness and righteousness. And that's just what He promises to do.
I love God's Word.
>I am not Jewish and am slated to rule over no one.
That’s right, I forgot, you have said that you are a Noahide. Being Gentile, Judaism has no place for you in their worldwide theocracy? Sounds racist to me.
>Quoting the “new testament” to someone who doesn’t accept it does no more good than quoting the koran or the “book of mormon” to people who don’t believe them.
Key words there “accept” and “believe.” That is, after all, the difference between old and new covenants/testaments. The NT being based on acceptance and belief: acceptance and belief of Jesus Christ the promised Messiah of the Jews.
You mentioned Islam and yourself disbelieving the NT, this puts both of you are in the same boat. Both Islam and Judaism (and Noahides, I suppose) claim to keep the law, yet the NT says you are all sinners: Christ said, when the Holy Spirit is come, he will reprove the world of sin...”Of sin, because they believe not on me,” John 16:7-9.
“Why do so many FReepers truest the New York Times?”
They always trust it when it distorts the Catholic faith.
I contend that Heb.11:6 is the threshold verse of the Bible. The gospel is inherent in it.
Hebrews has been a special blessing for me. God directed me initially, twenty years ago, to 11:6, and I meditated on it for two years. It's been my FR name for 17 years (note that my tagline incorporates it, in an in-your-face manner).
Speaking of memorizing: three years ago the Spirit prompted me to memorize the first half of Chapter 12; then, because that begins with "Therefore," I memorized Ch. 11, the chapter you cited. Finally, six months ago He challenged me to memorize the entire letter, which I did over four months. (By the way, the next time you read Hebrews, take note how often the author uses "Therefore" in building his sequential argument.)
Now, He's challenged me further: I'm about to tackle Romans.
The Book is Paul-like in it style and reminds me of Romans.
It is one of my favorites. Chapter 10 is especially good. Here are verses 11-14
Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy
I love God's Word.
Because you love its Author.
I have a (half-baked) theory: Each believer eventually will memorize all of God's Word. I'm just getting a head-start. I do hope the version one uses is optional--I'd hate to have to start over!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.