Posted on 06/17/2017 7:00:29 AM PDT by piusv
"And neither of us attempted to convert the other" - Francis
They have a path to salvation. St JP 2, popes John 23 and Benedict all agree as well as pope Francis. ( I understand the contrary view and why but it failed, imho, to give fair weight to the bulk of holy scripture). There are millions of pagans lacking a covenant with God — best, fhc -—
http://protectthepope.com/?p=2679
That is impossible.
Only Orthodox Judaism is Judaism. It isn't politically correct to say, but it's true.
I actually agree with you, but they are Jews to most of the world. Regardless, popes should not be teaching Catholics that it is a good thing not to convert others to the Catholic Faith. But that is what the post Vatican II ‘popes’ teach.
Actually since several of God’s covenants with His Jewish people are unconditional, yes the Church fathers who taught otherwise were mistaken. ( it’s either that or God is a liar. I refuse to accept or pray to a lying god. Therefore, the last 4 popes or so are correct on this point, imho. ). Respectfully, fhc. Ps: I respect the fact that some people reject all of Vatican 2 or most of it. Nevertheless, Nostra aetate won the support of 2221 bishops , to only 88 against, and thus clearly represents a teaching worth considering and prayer, imho, especially insofar as there is clear Holy Scriptural basis for at least it’s discussion of God’s “chosen” people. All popes then and since have gone out of their way to reinforce this one aspect of the teaching, too That’s about the best I can do — blessings, Genesis 12:3
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/judaism-church-after-vatican-ii-1342
Yes, many prelates went along with the heresy. Very similar to the Arian Crisis with the exception that with this Crisis we have the putative visible head of the Church promulgating it to the rest of the Church.
Well then we simply do not agree on this one point. Thanks for chatting ! Much appreciated, fhc.
“Actually since several of God’s covenants with His Jewish people are unconditional, yes the Church fathers who taught otherwise were mistaken...”
What?!
Did Jesus Christ our Lord not convert twelve Jews, (including one who later became an apostate) from Judaism to Christianity?
Are you not familiar at all with this part of Catholicism?
Please stop now before I read you like “Francis” lecturing Jesus and Mary on how to be a good Catholic!
Jesus Christ was himself a Jew, as were at least 11 (and in my understanding) all 12 of his followers.
Jesus was born a Jew, lived a Jew, prayed as a Jew praying Jewish prayers to the Jewish God, and taught his followers to pray Jewish prayers to the Jewish God (and not to pray to Jesus himself). Jesus also was executed by the Roman occupiers of the Jewish homeland, as a Jew.
Jesus was not a Christian, Jesus was a Jew. A Christian is someone who follows what became the Christian church’s teachings, including obviously its teachings about Jesus.
Jesus did not follow himself, he followed the one true God of his, Jesus’ own Jewish people.
The later falling apart, I will leave to history. Regrettably, I have mundane secular work to attend to today.
Sorry but must sign off now.
Thanks for your note.
Keep faith (and we do not have to agree on all doctrinal issues, obviously)
fhc
Actually, as Catholics, we are to agree on all doctrinal issues. The problem is that the post Vatican II doctrine doesn't agree with Traditional Catholic doctrine. You seem to think that the last 50 years of heresy trumps the previous 1960 years of Truth.
if the Church cannot learn better understandings of The Truth or even correct past errors or misunderstandings, then why does the Church have/need/bother with a Magesterium (which is, after all, the Teaching Office of the Church), inluding popes and bishops?
I’d respectfully commend that you pray, of course I realize you must pray often, and faithfully consider that five holy popes in row, as well as over 2200 bishops (to a mere 83+/- as I recall) have been teaching as I have attempted to quote, provide for you. Read their teachings, epistles, etc.
I’ll gladly send you more if you like.
The point being, they can express and explain a whole lot better than mere me. As for mere me, some of these matters are crystal clear, others appear to be complicated because they are dealing with areas of long=standing debate or confusion or even apparently=inconsistent scriptural verses (if you will). You did not invent these things. I did not invent these things. The last 5 holy fathers did not invent these things. But as they have, are teaching ... along with the bishops of the Church, we CAN read and consider what they all have to say.
Best I can do now, I have to go earn some filthy lucre.
Blessings to you,
fhc
ps: and once again, I am NOT even thinking of trying to defend all the many changes or modernizations that are commonly associated with “Vatican II”...
I was only attempting to respond to the one limited area of the Church’s relationship with her profoundly Jewish origins, foundations and “elder brothers in faith” the Jewish people.
There are fascinating and complex theological arguments true, but since the Church Magesterium and, I would respectfully submit, a fair and careful reading of holy scripture are mostly in accord on them....this is all I was trying to respond to. I believe, and let’s just say this is my humble opinion, is that any continuation of anti-Semitism would only have rotted out the Church even further, for Church history proved it was a terrible, terrible cancer at the very heart of Catholic theology. Causing tremendous distortion of even Jesus’ teachings, message if you will, and of course horrible human suffering. Again, just my reading of things, including the Magesterium’s many teachings on the matter.
The rest of Vatican 2? I leave all that in your capable hands! Blessings, fhc
FHC..the issue is not anti-semitism. What individual Catholics do (even those in the clergy) has nothing do with Church teaching.
None of the Church teachings were “anti-semitic”. The Church has never taught to hate Jews. However, it never taught to respect the Jewish religion which REJECTS our Lord and Savior either (and with Vatican II it most certainly does). The Jews can not be saved without accepting Jesus Christ in his Catholic Church. Don’t you see the difference here? They do not have a path to salvation unless that path is conversion to the Catholic Faith.
thanks. but the issue for many of the last 2000 years has been anti-semitism, so often at least as mis-guided or poorly informed Christians have, most regrettably, confused ‘sharing the gospel’ with torture, mass-murder, and unspeakable crimes against God and man alike.
In order to try to draw a proper distinction, perhaps these words form the Pontifical Biblical Commission may help?
and then I have to sign off a few days due to travel schedule, but thanks and i hope to be back with you, thanks for your chat and consideartion.
Blessings,
fhc.
““according to the apostle (Paul), the Jews, because of their ancestors, still remain very dear to God, whose gifts and calling are irrevocable (Rm 11:29)”. 349
Through his teaching, John Paul II has, on many occasions, taken the initiative in developing this Declaration. During a visit to the synagogue of Mainz (1980) he said: “The encounter between the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been abrogated by God (cf. Rm 11:29), and that of the New Covenant is also an internal dialogue in our Church, similar to that between the first and second part of its Bible”. 350 Later, addressing the Jewish communities of Italy during a visit to the synagogue of Rome (1986), he declared: “The Church of Christ discovers its ‘links’ with Judaism ‘by pondering its own mystery’ (cf. Nostra Aetate). The Jewish religion is not ‘extrinsic’ to us, but in a certain manner, it is ‘intrinsic’ to our religion. We have therefore a relationship with it which we do not have with any other religion. You are our favoured brothers and, in a certain sense, one can say our elder brothers”. 351 Finally, in the course of a meeting on the roots of anti-Jewish feeling among Christians (1997) he said: “This people has been called and led by God, Creator of heaven and earth. Their existence then is not a mere natural or cultural happening,... It is a supernatural one. This people continues in spite of everything to be the people of the covenant and, despite human infidelity, the Lord is faithful to his covenant”. 352 This teaching was given the stamp of approval by John Paul II’s visit to Israel, in the course of which he addressed Israel’s Chief Rabbis in these terms: “We (Jews and Christians) must work together to build a future in which there will be no more anti-Jewish feeling among Christians, or any anti-Christian feeling among Jews. We have many things in common. We can do much for the sake of peace, for a more human and more fraternal world”. 353
On the part of Christians, the main condition for progress along these lines lies in avoiding a one-sided reading of biblical texts, both from the Old Testament and the New Testament, and making instead a better effort to appreciate the whole dynamism that animates them, which is precisely a dynamism of love. In the Old Testament,
BOLD: the plan of God is a union of love with his people, a paternal love, a spousal love and, notwithstanding Israel’s infidelities, God will never renounce it, but affirms it in perpetuity (Is 54:8; Jr 31:3). End Bold.
In the New Testament, God’s love overcomes the worst obstacles; even if they do not believe in his Son whom he sent as their Messiah Saviour, Israelites are still “loved” (Rm 11:29). Whoever wishes to be united to God, must also love them.
87. The partial reading of texts frequently gives rise to difficulties affecting relations with the Jews. The Old Testament, as we have seen, is not sparing in its reproaches against Israelites, or even in its condemnations. It is very demanding towards them. Rather than casting stones at the Jews, it is better to see them as illustrating the saying of the Lord Jesus: “To whom much is given, from him much is expected” (Lk 12:48), and this saying applies to us Christians as well. Certain biblical narratives present aspects of disloyalty or cruelty which today would be morally inadmissable, but they must be understood in their historical and literary contexts. The slow historical progress of revelation must be recognised: the divine pedagogy has taken a group of people where it found them and led them patiently in the direction of an ideal union with God and towards a moral integrity which our modern society is still far from attaining. This education must avoid two opposite dangers, on the one hand, of attributing to ancient prescriptions an ongoing validity for Christians (for example, refusing blood transfusions on biblical grounds) and, on the other hand, of rejecting the whole Bible on the pretext of its cruelties. As regards ritual precepts, such as the rules for pure and impure, one has to be conscious of their symbolic and anthropological import, and be aware of their sociological and religious functions.
In the New Testament, the reproaches addressed to Jews are not as frequent or as virulent as the accusations against Jews in the Law and the Prophets. Therefore, they no longer serve as a basis for anti-Jewish sentiment. To use them for this purpose is contrary to the whole tenor of the New Testament. Real anti-Jewish feeling, that is, an attitude of contempt, hostility and persecution of the Jews as Jews, is not found in any New Testament text and is incompatible with its teaching. What is found are reproaches addressed to certain categories of Jews for religious reasons, as well as polemical texts to defend the Christian apostolate against Jews who oppose it.
But it must be admitted that many of these passages are capable of providing a pretext for anti-Jewish sentiment and have in fact been used in this way. To avoid mistakes of this kind, it must be kept in mind that the New Testament polemical texts, even those expressed in general terms, have to do with concrete historical contexts and are never meant to be applied to Jews of all times and places merely because they are Jews. The tendency to speak in general terms, to accentuate the adversaries’ negative side, and to pass over the positive in silence, failure to consider their motivations and their ultimate good faith, these are characteristics of all polemical language throughout antiquity, and are no less evident in Judaism and primitive Christianity against all kinds of dissidents.”
Masorti/Conservative rabbis are typically some flavor of Orthodox presiding over Reform congregations within a Masort/Conservative affiliated synagogue.
Because we can’t go back to how it was, with just rabbis and no movement labels... or sages... or priests/prophets/scribes... that would mean the end of the world...
Honestly. It's really that simple. With respect to the Jewish faith, the false faith that rejects Christ, theology has changed. Truth doesn't change. So the Vatican II theology is also false.
I will continue to pray for you and all the post Vatican II Catholics who have been bamboozled.
This is beautiful. Thanks for posting it.
::sigh::
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.