"...Jews do not have to convert in order to be saved,..." Card. Kasper

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- In their relations with Jews, Christians cannot conceal the strong missionary dimension of their faith, but also must recognize that Jews do not have to convert in order to be saved, a top Vatican official said.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Vatican's Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, said Nov. 6 that Christians take a different missionary approach toward Jews than toward followers of other non-Christian religions.

That's because Christians and Jews share a long biblical and religious tradition, a belief in the same God and a conviction that God will complete human history, he said.

The main difference between the two faiths -- the salvific role of Jesus Christ -- must also be acknowledged, he said.

"The universality of Christ's redemption for Jews and gentiles is so fundamental throughout the entire New Testament ... that it cannot be ignored or passed over in silence," Cardinal Kasper said.

"This does not mean that Jews in order to be saved have to become Christians; if they follow their own conscience and believe in God's promises as they understand them in their religious tradition, they are in line with God's plan, which for us comes to historical completion in Jesus Christ," he said.

Cardinal Kasper spoke at the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College. His text was made available to Catholic News Service by his office at the Vatican.

The cardinal's comments came amid increasing debate in the United States over the church's missionary attitude toward Jews. Last summer, Catholic and Jewish participants in a national dialogue issued a document that repudiated campaigns that target Jews for conversion, prompting criticism by some Christian leaders.

Cardinal Kasper said he wanted to "take the bull by the horns" and discuss the sensitive issue of mission -- in part, he said, because Christian-Jewish dialogue must look honestly at the hardest questions.

He said he recognized that the topic of mission evokes bitter memories among Jews because of forced conversions in the past.

"We sincerely reject and regret this today," he said. He noted that the Catholic Church now condemns all means of coercion in matters of faith.

But mission must be discussed, because it is a key concept for the Christian faith and part of the Christian identity, he said.

"We cannot cancel it, and if we should try to do so, it would not help the Jewish-Christian dialogue at all. Rather, it would make the dialogue dishonest and ultimately distort it," he said.

"If Jews want to speak to Christians, they cannot demand that Christians no longer be Christians," he said.

He said substituting the historically loaded word "mission" with another term like "evangelization" or "witness" may be helpful to Jewish-Christian dialogue, but will not by itself resolve the problem, which touches upon the very identities of both religions.

Cardinal Kasper pointed out that Christians and Jews share the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament; the common figures of Abraham, Moses, patriarchs and prophets; the covenant and promises of a unique God; and a messianic hope.

Because of all that, "mission understood as a call to conversion from idolatry to the living and true God does not apply and cannot be applied to Jews," he said.

That has tangible consequences, including the fact that there is "no Catholic missionary activity toward Jews as there is for all other non-Christian religions," he said.

Both religions open toward the future and the hope of fulfillment that God alone can bring, he said. But while Jews still expect the coming of the Messiah, Christians believe he has come as Jesus and will be revealed at the end of time as the Messiah for Jews and for all nations, he said.

While it may be painful for Jews to listen to such professions of Christian faith, it is inevitable in honest dialogue, the cardinal said.

"Our Jewish friends may say, as they do: 'You look on us with your Christian eyes.' Yes, we do, and how could we do otherwise? Jews, too, look on us with their eyes and out of the perspective of their faith," he said.

"We must endure and withstand this difference, because it constitutes our respective identities," he said.

Cardinal Kasper said that while Christians cannot "remain silent on our hope in Jesus" it is not a question of "targeting" Jews or others for conversion. For modern Christians, evangelization is accomplished primarily by living the faith and "giving testimony of Jesus Christ to all and in all places," he said.

That cannot be renounced by Christians, even though this testimony is undertaken differently in relations with Jews, he said.

Cardinal Kasper said the question of mission will ultimately be resolved in the context of a Christian theology of Judaism. The church is only at the beginning of this process, which began with the Second Vatican Council, he said.

"The long period of anti-Judaistic theology cannot be overcome in only 40 years," he said.

There is nothing in the Hebrew scriptures which prophecies a second coming of the messiah.

I think this is a New Testament idea. I'll have to look it up for sure.

The primary ones are: world peace, ingathering of Israel, the building of the third temple, and universal knowledge of God. None of these was fulfilled within the lifetime of Jesus, which is why they were either spiritualized or put off for some future 'second coming'.

Hmmm...well, does the Jewish teaching take into consideration (I know a lot of the traditions, but not necessarily teachings) that God gives us what we need, not necessarily what we want or what we're looking for? That His will and Kingdom may not be what we expect?

From the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person:
(1) Has been validly baptized;
(2) Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and
(3) Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

Wouldn't that cover every religion on earth? If a Buddhist firmly believes his religion is the true religion will he be saved? What about the Islamist? What about the Hindu? The Satanist?

Hmmm...well, does the Jewish teaching take into consideration (I know a lot of the traditions, but not necessarily teachings) that God gives us what we need, not necessarily what we want or what we're looking for?

I don't see the relevence of the question. If (for example) scripture prophecies that the temple will be rebuilt, and provided a very detailed, physical description of how it will appear, on what basis would we assume that this refers to something spiritual? Is a spiritual reading of Ezekiel 40-48 really the most straightforward one?

I don't see the relevence of the question.

The question is completely relevent. At the time, and even now, the Jews were looking for a literal fulfillment of the prophecies. You are as well, as the Ezekiel chapters are very detailed, but what if God's temple, wasn't a literal building? And what if the one He sent to redeem us, was really just one us, although divine, not a great monarch with all the trappings. What if God looks at His people in their lowliness and sees good. And sees what He desires His people to be? That may not be what the people want, but that's what God wants.

Let me try and take a stab at this and tell me what you think:

I am going to propose a theory based on the preface that God is eternal and as a result, for Him, linear time does not have the same meaning as it does for those of us who are temporal beings. Because we are temporal beings and He is not, we cannot fully understand how He perceives time.

I would also propose that the God of the Hebrews is the same God of Christianity. I believe that this is also theologically correct.

I am fairly certain you will all agree with these statements above. If not, don't read further.

First, since in the instances of Christians and Jews we are speaking of the same, God, the argument about other religions immediately becomes moot.

Now, several thousand years ago God made a covenant with the Jewish people. There is a sign for this covenant (it is less pleasant than the rainbow of Christianity, but nevertheless it is there). There are laws God gave his people to follow and there are promises he made to them.

Many, many years later, God made a new covenant with the rest of humanity. Sacrificing His son for all. This meant everyone, including Jews.

However, since God is not a being that exists in linear time as we understand it, we certainly cannot assume that a new, unversial convenant rendered the first covenant null and void. In fact, we should assume that a being for whom time is not necessarily linear, would have difficulty undertanding why temporal beings put so much emphasis on it.

To put it succinctly, God does not break his word

Jews, as the people with whom He made the origianl covenant, are still bound by it unless they choose to embrace the new covenant.

This only works for Jews, not for other religions.

That's how I see things. It does not contradict the teachings of the Bible because it cannot be understood as a linear progression. The original covenant is as valid as the new.

Jews, as the people with whom He made the origianl covenant, are still bound by it unless they choose to embrace the new covenant.

I don't think this is incorrect in any way. I'm more curious as to why Christ was rejected as the Messiah and why a Catholic (or Christian) would chose Judiasm. Why must the prophesies be fulfilled to the letter for the Messiah to be accepted?

I believe that God gives us what we need, not what we want. We needed a savior who was humble, meek (sort of), poor, a working man, not a monarch. God's people didn't know that that was what they needed. Even now, they don't accept that. I just want to know why.

I'll be honest with you. I really can't figure out why Jews would not embrace Christ.

Judaism is much more difficult and rigorous and the promised rewards not nearly as great. This is not to mention the opportunity to eat pork and lobster.

I suppose Judaism is somewhat more mystical. Plus, you do what your parents do. But, why a Christian would choose to become a Jew your guess is as good as mine.

Why don't the Jews know what they need? Good question, but it might be part of God's plan. Some have said that the Jews are the people who have been "chosen" to suffer through history. Aside from the Chinese, they are the only other "people" with such a long time-line. They may be there to "teach" the world something.

Here is a theory on which I would like your opinion. Let's say it was God's plan that Christianity spread to the part of the earth that produced the culture that eventually became the basis for the dominant world culture. God knows that for people to live together peacefully they must learn to live with diversity.

The Jews were an "alien" presence in the "Christian World" for the entirety of the religion's existance. There were even times during which there were attempts made to expel and/or exterminate them. But, they survived and have lived to tell the world that intolerance leads to incomprehensible acts and that we must create a culture and a world that never allows that type of thing to ever happen again. If this is true, than God sacrificed 6 million of His people to teach the world that lesson. It is a pretty brutal lesson. The only reconciliation is to say His ways are not our ways.

God may still have further plans for the Jews. But, it has been a very, very short time since the last time God interfered with Jewish history (Think about WWII. It had nothing to do with the Jews. The Holocaust was completely separate and had no affect on the war's outcome. It was merely an event that could only occur during the "fog of war").

This is the closest I can come to an explanation.

I am starting to ramble.

The question is completely relevent. At the time, and even now, the Jews were looking for a literal fulfillment of the prophecies.

Yes, because that is the most straightforward reading of the scripture. Shall we apply the same standard of spiritualizing to the Christian scriptures? Catholics don't particularly care for Protestant spiritualization of John 6 and Matthew 16:18. In fact, you think they are wrong because they don't interpret these passages literally. Likewise, liberal Christians have 'spiritualized' such Christian doctrines as the incarnation and the resurrection. Matthew Fox and John Shelby Spong do the same thing to the Christian scriptures as orthodox Christianity does to the Hebrew scriptures. Is is right in one case, and wrong in the other? And who makes that determination?

However, since God is not a being that exists in linear time as we understand it, we certainly cannot assume that a new, unversial convenant rendered the first covenant null and void. In fact, we should assume that a being for whom time is not necessarily linear, would have difficulty undertanding why temporal beings put so much emphasis on it. To put it succinctly, God does not break his word Jews, as the people with whom He made the origianl covenant, are still bound by it unless they choose to embrace the new covenant. This only works for Jews, not for other religions. That's how I see things. It does not contradict the teachings of the Bible because it cannot be understood as a linear progression. The original covenant is as valid as the new.

A very interesting way of looking at it. And it does take into account the repeated statements in the Hebrew scriptures that God's covenant with Israel is everlasting.

I'm more curious as to why Christ was rejected as the Messiah and why a Catholic (or Christian) would chose Judiasm.

If I can point to one passage in scripture that encompasses it entirely from a Jewish perspective, it is:

If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder,
and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, `Let us go after other gods,' which you have not known, `and let us serve them,'
you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear him, and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and cleave to him. (Deuteronomy 13:1-4)

For a Jew, this is black and white. God expects us to obey His commandments. We are to keep them and cleave to Him, no matter what.

Yes, because that is the most straightforward reading of the scripture. Shall we apply the same standard of spiritualizing to the Christian scriptures? Catholics don't particularly care for Protestant spiritualization of John 6 and Matthew 16:18. In fact, you think they are wrong because they don't interpret these passages literally.

Well, Matthew 16:18 is generally taken out of context by protestants. With the verses before and after it, the sentence changes in meaning.

When Jesus speaks, not in terms of a parable, we're not supposed to take it literally?

In case you haven't noticed, I am not a liberal Christian. Most people interested in power (which most liberals are) will change meanings to suit their purposes. That goes for everybody.

I believe that God gives us what we need, not what we want. We needed a savior who was humble, meek (sort of), poor, a working man, not a monarch. God's people didn't know that that was what they needed. Even now, they don't accept that. I just want to know why.

Likewise, I could say that YOU want a humble, meek, poor, working man savior. Whereas what God wants us to do, and what we need as Jews, is to obey His commandments.

I'll be honest with you. I really can't figure out why Jews would not embrace Christ.

Very simply, it is because we do not think Jesus was who people claim him to be.

Judaism is much more difficult and rigorous

It really isn't. To use one example. God commands us not to commit adultery. It is not that difficult to obey this commandment. Christians are likewise expected not to commit adultery. This is no more difficult for a Jew to do than for a Christian. And if we sin, if we fail to obey a commandment, what then? We repent, ask forgiveness, and strive to avoid such sin in the future. Basically the same thing that a Christian does.

and the promised rewards not nearly as great.

Jews believe in a bodily resurrection, and that the righteous of all nations will be in God's presence in Heaven. What more does Christianity have to offer in terms of rewards?

But, why a Christian would choose to become a Jew your guess is as good as mine.

In my case, my father is Catholic and my mother is Jewish. I was raised Christian. But according to Jewish law I am Jewish. I began studying Judaism as an adult, when my doubts about the truth of Christian doctrine grew stronger. A Christian converts to Judaism because he rejects the teaching of Christianity and believes Judaism to be true (or closer to truth). No more complicated than that.

Well, my own theory as to why such awful things always happen to the Jews is not one I generally publish

Uh huh.

But, other than the letter of the prophesies, why reject Jesus and His teachings?

Other than that? Isn't that sufficient? Why do you accept Jesus and the teachings about him?

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.