Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vatican Says Jews' Wait For Messiah Is Validated by Old Testament
International New York Times ^

Posted on 05/13/2002 7:11:13 PM PDT by 1 spark

VATICAN CITY, Jan. 17 — The Vatican has issued what some Jewish scholars are calling an important document that explicitly says, "The Jewish wait for the Messiah is not in vain."

The scholarly work, effectively a rejection of and apology for the way some Christians have viewed the Old Testament, was signed by the pope's theologian, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

The document says Jews and Christians in fact share the wait for the Messiah, though Jews are waiting for the first coming, and Christians for the second.

"The difference consists in the fact that for us, he who will come will have the same traits of that Jesus who has already come," wrote Cardinal Ratzinger, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

At least one Jewish scholar said the new document is a marked departure from "Dominus Iesus," a study of the redemptive role of Jesus that was released last year in Cardinal Ratzinger's name and that fanned disputes between Catholic and Jewish scholars.

The new document also says Catholics must regard the Old Testament as "retaining all of its value, not just as literature, but its moral value," said Joaquín Navarro-Valls, the pope's spokesman. "You cannot say, `Now that Jesus has come, it becomes a second-rate document.' "

"The expectancy of the Messiah was in the Old Testament," he went on, "and if the Old Testament keeps its value, then it keeps that as a value, too. It says you cannot just say all the Jews are wrong and we are right."

Asked whether that could be taken to mean that the Messiah may or may not have come, Dr. Navarro- Valls said no. "It means it would be wrong for a Catholic to wait for the Messiah, but not for a Jew," he said.

The document, the result of years of work by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, goes on to apologize for the fact that certain New Testament passages that criticize the Pharisees, for example, had been used to justify anti-Semitism.

Everything in the report is now considered part of official church doctrine, Dr. Navarro-Valls said.

The Rev. Albert Vanhoye, a Jesuit scholar who worked on the commission, said the project sees Scripture as a link between Christians and Jews, and the New Testament as a continuation of the Old, though divergent in obvious ways.

A number of Jewish scholars and leaders said they were pleased but stunned and would have to take some time to digest fully the complicated, 210-page study, published in French and Italian.

"This is something altogether new, especially compared with the earlier document from Ratzinger that was so controversial," said Rabbi Alberto Piattelli, a professor and leader of the Jewish community in Rome.

"This latest declaration is a step forward" in closing the wounds opened by that earlier document, Rabbi Piattelli said. "It recognizes the value of the Jewish position regarding the wait for the Messiah, changes the whole exegesis of biblical studies and restores our biblical passages to their original meaning. I was surprised."

Prof. Michael R. Marrus, dean of graduate studies at the University of Toronto, who specializes in the history of the Holocaust, was also complimentary. Professor Marrus was among the Jewish members of a panel studying the Vatican's role in the Holocaust, but the group was disbanded after disputes between Catholic and Jewish scholars.

"This is important," he said, "and all the more so because it comes from Cardinal Ratzinger, who is not considered the most liberal spokesman for the church. It represents real and remarkable progress on the Catholic-Jewish front," even as the dispute over the Catholic Church's wartime history seems to be hardening, he added.

At least initially, the only voices of dissent were on the Catholic side, where some traditionalists said they felt the church under Pope John Paul II had done altogether too much apologizing already.

Vittorio Messori, a Catholic writer and commentator, said he respects the pope but "his apologies leave me perplexed."

"He's inspired and has his reasons," Mr. Messori said, "but what's dangerous in these apologies is that he seems to say the church itself has been wrong in its teaching," rather than just some within the church.

The oddest thing about the document from the Jewish perspective is that it was so quietly released. It has been in bookstores here since November, but as a small book titled "The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible," it drew no notice until the Italian news agency ANSA printed a small report on it Wednesday.

Tullia Zevi, a longtime Jewish community leader and commentator here, said: "The widespread opinion on the document is that it's trying to question the validity of past attitudes of the church, and seems an attempt to move us closer to together. So why was such an important document kept secret?"

One possibility, she said, was that the church was trying to avoid criticism within its own ranks.

Vatican officials, however, say it was not announced because it was seen mainly as a theological study intended for other theologians.

The Vatican is governed by tradition and habit, and is thus quite able to keep silent about even important new policies. In December, for example, word emerged without fanfare of new rules on the treatment of priests accused of pedophilia.

Andrea Riccardi, the founder of the Sant'Egidio Community, a left- leaning Catholic group with a history of mediating international conflicts and promoting religious dialogue, said he was most impressed by the depth of the new document.

"This should be reassuring" to Jews, he said, "especially because these last years have not been easy."

He said the document in no way backtracks from "Dominus Iesus" ("The Lord Jesus"), but does represent a significant shift.

"In the past, we've talked about an ancient, common heritage," he said. "But now, for the first time, we're talking about our future waiting for the Messiah and the end of time."

Waiting together?

"No," Mr. Riccardi said. "But waiting close to each other."


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-270 next last
To: angelo
It repeats rumors about them that were extant during the first centuries of the Christian movement (look up Origen's Contra Celsus).

FWIW: Celsus the Platonist

An interesting dissertation on the subject.

21 posted on 05/14/2002 3:41:29 PM PDT by COBOL2Java
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: angelo
I have HAD IT with "apologies." Has ANY RABBI, in the HISTORY of the WORLD APOLOGISED for the role of some Jews in DEICIDE? I think we Jews have been punished enough by y'all for this, don't you?

You need to re-read what I wrote. "...role of some Jews in Deicide." I am also responsible due to my sins. But, you'll have to try your guilt trip on another as I haven't harmed a Jew in my life and I advocate that the necessity for them to accept Jesus as the Messiah be preached to them, so I don't feel guilty about sins committed by others.

tionally, for it to be "deicide", God would have to die. Jews of course do not accept that Jesus was God in the first place, so from our perspective his death could not be deicide. And the very idea of God dying is fraught with existential difficulties.

There are those who think that death means "cease to exist" rather than "seperation of Body and Soul." I don't know what your thoughts are.

Has ANY RABBI, in the HISTORY of the WORLD APOLOGISED for the HATE LITERATURE ABOUT OUR SAVIOUR AND HIS MOTHER THAT CONSTITUTED PARTS OF THE TALMUD?

l, at least you don't call it "blasphemy".

I am happy to do so. IT IS BLASPHEMY.

Does this surprise you?

No. They lied about Him while He was alive, so lies about Him after death are unsurprising.

Certainly it is no worse in content, and far less in sheer volume, than the anti-Jewish writings of the church, from the gospel of John...

The Gospel of John is TRUTH. That you experience the witness of truth as an attack is judgement about you, isn't it?

It is hysterical fulminations such as yours which lead to popes having to apologize for the behavior of Catholics.

LOL You haven't heard anything, yet. I am part Irish, part Algonquin. BTW, I will alert you a second time to the FACT that I am not moved by such twaddle. Grow-up. You just offered a half-assed defense of BLASPHEMY against Jesus our Saviour in the Talmud but you correct me for being insufficiently Catholic in behavior.

Your arrogance is astounding.

22 posted on 05/14/2002 3:55:07 PM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: angelo
You don't sound very confident that a thorough search of the Vatican archives would turn up clean.

I am very confident both of the FACTS and that the tendentious polemicists will DISTORT THE FACTS. I am also confident that those tendentious polemicists will insist THEY be the final judge of a "guilty" or "innocence" charge in their INSANE and evil campaign against a great man.

As a Christian, I don't think that rational or fair. The archives HAVE been examined. Deal with it. Perhaps you think it wise to let wolves gnaw at sheep to prove the innocence of the sheep - not me

Jesus is not the messiah, BTW

You made your personal rejection of Jesus apparent earlier. Is this a compulsion?

23 posted on 05/14/2002 4:02:55 PM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
We must say that St. Justin doesn't necessarily have the final word, but even if the Law has been, in a sense, superceded, yet HIS people remain HIS people. Do we really want to condemn them for their faithfulness to the Law that God gave them in olden times? From the early days of the Church, many Jews have accepted Christ. In our impatience with the rest, we have often mistreated them and often unjustly. If they sometimes have been our enemies, whose fault is that? They reject not Christ, whom they do not know, but us.
24 posted on 05/14/2002 4:05:07 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: angelo
Angelo, aren't you the gentlemen that was previously a Christian?
25 posted on 05/14/2002 4:09:56 PM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Robby, include me out of the editorial "we." That collective guilt has been rejected by both Christians and Jews in relation to the role of SOME Jews in Deicide so it makes NO sense to use "we" when referring to anti Jewish actions of SOME Christian Catholics.

It IS noteworthy that Jews CONTINUE to charge collective guilt against all Christians, but I see no reason to join them in their error

26 posted on 05/14/2002 4:13:37 PM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
They reject not Christ, whom they do not know, but us.

So, it is MY fault when some Jew rejects the Messiah? Sheesh, I guess that the collective innocence of the Jews is just the obverse of the Christian collective guilt coin.

Bless me, Father, for we have sinned?

27 posted on 05/14/2002 4:16:58 PM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Who is blaming all Christians today? It's an absurd charge you are making. Some people blame some other people for some things. Not much anyone can do about all that.

But, since the Catholic Church is a "top down" organization, and since the Pope is considered "infallable", it is not inappropriate for Jews and others to appeal to his wisdom to update a doctrine created years before. If the Pope, in his wisdom, sees things in a new light then it must be right... right?

On the other hand, no Jew alive is responsible for writing the Talmud, and no Jew has the authority to revoke it, alter it, or update it. They are free, however, to ignore it and many Jews digress from the consensus opinions of the Talmud... and it doesn't make them any less Jewish. In fact, the debates around the Talmud are encouraged as a form of scholarship, and indeed the Talmud itself is a debate -- some of the opinions written in the Talmud are deliberately hoisted in order for them to be refuted. The Talmud is a dialectic.

It's an entirely different circumstance and standard to ask for an apology from the Jews, because there is nobody with the authority to apologize. But there is an authority for the Catholics.

28 posted on 05/14/2002 4:34:19 PM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
We and the Jews have been at war for a long time, and like all civil wars it has gotten especially ugly. For most of the time we have been the ones in power and therefore able to dish out the punishment. Therefore the lion's share of guilt belongs to us.
29 posted on 05/14/2002 4:52:16 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: angelo
Additionally, for it to be "deicide", God would have to die. Jews of course do not accept that Jesus was God in the first place, so from our perspective his death could not be deicide. And the very idea of God dying is fraught with existential difficulties.

Oh come on now, He was resting on the Sabbath! :-)

30 posted on 05/14/2002 5:06:13 PM PDT by Thinkin' Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine
Who is blaming all Christians today?

That would be angelo; " I think we Jews have been punished enough by y'all for this, don't you? "

31 posted on 05/14/2002 5:23:35 PM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine
But, since the Catholic Church is a "top down" rganization, and since the Pope is considered "infallable", it is not inappropriate for Jews and others to appeal to his wisdom to update a doctrine created years before. If the Pope, in his wisdom, sees things in a new light then it must be right... right?

"appeal to his wisdom?" Their harranguing (SOME of them) is incessant and the public apology by the Pope was rejected by many. It is NEVER enough. Besides, it is the Duty of the Pope to Defend the Deposit of Faith.

Some think it his job to make eveyone who is not Catholic accept us. Truth divides. I am fine with the truth lovingly taught. I am decidedly against collective guilt and the use of "we" when speaking about sins committed by others.

32 posted on 05/14/2002 5:31:55 PM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
We and the Jews have been at war for a long time, and like all civil wars it has gotten especially ugly. For most of the time we have been the ones in power and therefore able to dish out the punishment. Therefore the lion's share of guilt belongs to us.

Civil war has to do with two or more factions struggling over who will control the country. BTW, that is why the War for Southern Independence is correct and not "Civil War" as the South had NO intention of ruling the North.

This is a "war" about the Messiah. We have no choice but to proclaim the Good news to ALL men and suggesting, if this document does, there is no need to Teach and Preach the Good News to Jews, then, I don't see how that is defensible.

Look, we just celebrated the Feast of the Ascension. Acts:1,8 "But you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Sumaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth."

Matthew 28:19,20 Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations; baptising in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world

Finally, imputing guilt to those not responsible for it is irrational. You can use "we" all you want. I want no part of it. You, personally, can apologise for something you didn't do. I won't join you in that. I think that past insane.

I have enough problem with my own personal sins. I don't accept culpability for sins I didn't committ.

Robby, you seem to think colective guilt is only fairly applied to Christians. Odd standard...

SIN

33 posted on 05/14/2002 5:57:03 PM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
But, you'll have to try your guilt trip on another as I haven't harmed a Jew in my life

You'll need to reread what I wrote. I did not specifically accuse you personally of anything. Do you deny that Catholics have targeted Jews in the past for retribution for "deicide"?

I am happy to do so. IT IS BLASPHEMY.

Yawn. "Blasphemy", by definition, is something said against God. Since Jesus isn't God, it can hardly be blasphemy.

No. They lied about Him while He was alive

Sez you. Your remarks are grounded in the assumption that Jesus was who he was claimed to be. I don't buy that.

The Gospel of John is TRUTH.

the gospel of John is not inspired. It is a mix of some actual history and much pious hagiography.

That you experience the witness of truth as an attack is judgement about you, isn't it?

If it were truth, it might be.

BTW, I will alert you a second time to the FACT that I am not moved by such twaddle.

You sure do like CAPITAL LETTERS, don't you? Let me REMIND you that it was YOUR HYSTERICAL RANT that PROVOKED ME to reply to you IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Grow-up.

Physician, heal thyself.

You just offered a half-assed defense

Please: NO profanity...

of BLASPHEMY against Jesus our Saviour

Its not blasphemy. Jesus isn't God. He isn't "our Saviour". He was a man. That is the "TRUTH". If you are going to try to push your beliefs on me, don't expect to hold back from saying what I believe. If you find it blasphemous, tough.

Your arrogance is astounding

LOL! The irony of such a statement coming from you is truly amusing.

34 posted on 05/14/2002 6:24:57 PM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
the tendentious polemicists will DISTORT THE FACTS... in their INSANE and evil campaign

Are you foaming at the mouth? Better wipe the spittle off your monitor. Your ranting is beginning to make me question your sanity.

35 posted on 05/14/2002 6:29:38 PM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS; Catholicguy
Robby, you and I have had our differences in the past, but you are the height of rationality compared to Catholicguy.
36 posted on 05/14/2002 6:30:31 PM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Angelo, aren't you the gentlemen that was previously a Christian?

Yes, that is correct. My father is Catholic, and my mother is Jewish. I was raised Catholic, and became Jewish as an adult as a result of my study of the Hebrew scriptures.

37 posted on 05/14/2002 6:31:45 PM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
"The difference consists in the fact that for us, he who will come will have the same traits of that Jesus who has already come," wrote Cardinal Ratzinger, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Frankly, this shocks me coming from the Vatican. He will have the same traits of that Jesus who has already come??? HUH? Didn't they used to teach that it would be Jesus himself, not someone with the same traits? First Mary, and now this.

I can't help but think that the Vatican has been hiding somethings for a very, very long time. The truth will set us free.

38 posted on 05/14/2002 6:33:54 PM PDT by 1 spark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy; monkeyshine
That would be angelo; " I think we Jews have been punished enough by y'all for this, don't you? "

Catholicguy, are you unfamiliar with the expression "y'all"? It is a general plural "you" meaning, in this context, Catholics in general. Not you or any other Catholic in particular. It is a colloquial expression. I think my point was clear to anyone who was not looking for offense.

39 posted on 05/14/2002 6:36:17 PM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
I am very familiar with Christian interpretation of scripture. Recently, i have come across interpretations quite different from what i was taught in Sunday school. Torah of Messiah is a website supporting the belief that Jesus was the messiah, but he is not part of a trinity or equal to God. It is quite extensive and well researched. Check out interpretation of specific scriptures HERE if you care to.

Besides that, there are sites which reject Jesus as messiah and God. They too, are extensive and very well researched. If you are interested, i will post the links to those also. Interesting to note, the Jews never claimed the messiah would be God. I'd guess that would be blasphemy (or apostatacy?)considering the first commandment in Mark 12:28-30 and 32.

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is Hear, O Israel: the Lord our G-d is ONE Lord: and thou shalt love the Lord thy G-d with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment ... And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one G-d; and there is none other but He.

40 posted on 05/14/2002 7:39:31 PM PDT by 1 spark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-270 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson