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.
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
Yes yes yes. And the koran says. And the book of mormon says. And the rig veda says. And the upanishads say. Etc., etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum.
The thing is G-d had already spoken and that revelation sits in judgment on all later claims of revelation.
In other words, until you can first prove the "new testament," quoting it means absolutely nothing.
I have no idea in the world why chrstians believe quoting the "new testament" or the claims of chrstianity constitute proof.
The basic delusion, which has reigned in the Catholic Church for fifty years, is that what is most important is meetings between LEADERS—Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist CLERGY flying all over the world, having meetings, and issuing documents.
Robert Spencer was barred from speaking at a Catholic church by the bishop of Manchester, N.H., on the grounds that it would damage “interfaith dialogue.”
Meanwhile, INDIVIDUAL Lutherans, Anglicans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus become Catholics—which is the ONLY “interfaith dialogue” that means ANYTHING.
No offense intended at all, but appears that’s you’ve missed the obvious clear text there. Roman Catholicism believes and teaches that the plan of salvation includes the Muslims who (Rome claims) worships the same god as Rome does.
Now, that may be true, that both parties worship the same god. However, the True God of Abraham is NOT the god that the Muslims worship.
So that leaves you to decide if Islam and Roman Catholicism are what you ought to be betting your soul and eternal destiny on. Rome says that Islam worships the same god they do.
Better make sure which god that means to you. If you are with the Muslim god that Rome says you “worship together” you are on the wrong side my friend.
If you’re thinking that you worship the same god as Muslims then that’s some stinking thinking. No offenses of course.
But Why would you even get involved with a religion that claims to worship the same god as Muslims?
I’d rather be dead that worship that demon.
>I don’t know why a premillenialist such as yourself is so hostile to Jews and Judaism when most are so supportive.
Without writing a book on this, trying to put this in a few words: I am a Historic Premillennialist - as opposed to Dispensationalist Premillennialist. It appears you may have me confused with the latter.
“Historic,” meaning the eschatological beliefs represented in ancient writers such as Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Victorinus - before the rise of Roman Catholicism and their Amillennial system. Justin, etc., were post-trib and premillennialist. Pretrib Dispensationalism did not arise until the early 19th century.
The Dispensationalist variety interprets the church and Israel very differently from Historic Premill.
This is the correct answer, "teacher" Don-o. This article doesn't change a darn thing.
Yep, it's Francis.
Gods grace, which is the grace of Jesus Christ according to our faith, is available to all. Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to Gods irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.
" 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."It literally says Judaism is not a parallel way to salvation. That's pretty on-your-nose for a product of the Vatican document-factory.
The question is, do you agree with what Rome teaches and declares that Catholics must believe: that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God.
No, that is not the question. The question is. "Do you agree with everything Jesus said, or do you but profess to believe ?" He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee. And he must needs go through Samaria. Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour. There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.) Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
John, Catholic chapter four, Protestant verses three to twenty six, as authorized, but not authored, by King James,
mine
You just delivered exactness, succinctly.
Wish it were YOU who occupied a position of guidance to the pope in developing both examples of speaking.
THIS is how teaching the faith is well done. With clarity.
I don't know why a premillenialist such as yourself is so hostile to Jews and Judaism when most are so supportive.
Without writing a book on this, trying to put this in a few words: I am a Historic Premillennialist--as opposed to Dispensationalist Premillennialist. It appears you may have me confused with the latter.
"Historic," meaning the eschatological beliefs represented in ancient writers such as Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Victorinus - before the rise of Roman Catholicism and their Amillennial system. Justin, etc., were post-trib and premillennialist. Pretrib Dispensationalism did not arise until the early 19th century.
The Dispensationalist variety interprets the church and Israel very differently from Historic Premill.
This is both interesting and informative. Thank you.
Let me guess, bad report the first time?
Haven’t had time to dig in.
From the Christian confession that there can be only one path to salvation, however, it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God.....That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery.
Heresy.
Interesting that the article left those parts out. Are you sure it's trustworthy?
Let's see what Pope Pius IX has to say about the Jews:
the Catholic Church has always been accustomed to pray for the Jewish people, who were the depository of divine promises up until the arrival of Jesus Christ, notwithstanding their subsequent blindness, or rather, because of this very blindness. Moved by that charity, the Apostolic See has protected the same people from unjust ill-treatment, and just as it censures all hatred and enmity among people, so it altogether condemns in the highest degree possible hatred against the people once chosen by God, viz., the hatred that now is what is usually meant in common parlance by the term known generally as “anti-Semitism.â€
This is to be distinguished from willful blindness and culpably negligent ignorance.
Invincible ignorance is NOT what that quote was referring to.
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...
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.