Woman Rabbi teaches Relegion at Catholic school

[Era Might]

[quote]Granted, but it was defined by the Law. [/quote]

The law was part of it, yes. And Jews still try to live according to the law, in varying degrees. Just because they may not understand it in the same way the ancients did, or believe God does not require as strict an observance, doesn't mean they are no longer "Jewish".

[quote]There is only one covenant, the New Covenant. The Old Covenants were all fulfilled in Christ.[/quote]

Fulfilled, yes, but not revoked. It's an important distinction. If the Covenant were revoked, it would mean that God no longer calls Israel to the New Covenant, because that was the promise of fulfillment. But God cares for Israel even today, because he will see them through come hell or high water (in a manner of speaking).

[quote]And that faith is erroneous for it denies Christ. It has its roots in the Old, but it is nonetheless false.[/quote]

As the Catechism notes, Judaism is already a "response" to Divine Revelation. It is an unfulfilled response, but it is a response nonetheless. The Jewish faith is a positive reality, even if points of belief do not conform to the fullness of Divien Revelation.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 7 2006, 01:41 AM']100 years ago Baltimore was a catholic city. I remember because it was called baltimore. and if was the first diocese that covered all of america. but i digress. comparative relegion should only be taught in a catholic school to show how to disprove it, and show how it errs and how to convert its members. frankly if i taught a class about catholicisim in a jewish school i would try to convert everyone. it is my vocation we are all called to convert all nations. so i would expect the same of any teacher of another relegion in a catholic school.
[right][snapback]905089[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You cannot convert anyone. You can't make anyone love God. You can only point people in the right direction through your words and deeds. They will decide for themselves whether to follow God or not.

It is true that children need to learn apologetics--the study of refuting false beliefs. But teaching comparative religion in schools is not the same as apologetics. Yes, it is important that Catholic children need to know what to do if they end up in a conversation with a Muslim, or if a Jehovah Witness knocks on their door. But all religions, even if they lack the fullness of truth, must be treated with dignity. You can't just stand there in front of a bunch of kids and say "Today, Class, we're going to learn about Hindus and how they are wrong about everything, and need to convert to Catholicism. Please open your books to page 15." it is important to teach religion for its own sake. That is not to say that Catholic educators should teach a message of religious pluralism or deny that Catholicism is the fullness of truth. But there is a way to magnify the truth of Catholicism through teaching about other religions in a way that is not uncharitable or undermining of their dignity.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 6 2006, 11:52 PM']The law was part of it, yes. And Jews still try to live according to the law, in varying degrees. Just because they may not understand it in the same way the ancients did, or believe God does not require as strict an observance, doesn't mean they are no longer "Jewish".[right][snapback]905093[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Yes but my point is that the Law no longer applies. The Law was an essential part of Judaism, a part that is longer there. That would constitute a substantial change meaning that modern Jews are different from ancient Jews. This is most notable due to the establishment of a New Covenant with God's People.

[quote]Fulfilled, yes, but not revoked. It's an important distinction. If the Covenant were revoked, it would mean that God no longer calls Israel to the New Covenant, because that was the promise of fulfillment. But God cares for Israel even today, because he will see them through come hell or high water (in a manner of speaking).
[/quote]No one is denying that God cares for the Children of Israel as His selected people, what we are saying is that those that still attempt to follow the Old Covenant are indeed in a false position. I am still looking for that document. Paitence please.

[quote]As the Catechism notes, Judaism is already a "response" to Divine Revelation. It is an unfulfilled response, but it is a response nonetheless. The Jewish faith is a positive reality, even if points of belief do not conform to the fullness of Divien Revelation.
[/quote]Protestants have a "response" to Divine Revelation, but that does not mean that they are standing in Truth.

The point is that modern Jews are substantially different from ancient Jews because ancient Jews were following the current fulness of Divine Revelation, they were obeying that Law that was still binding. Modern Jews are denying Christ plain and simple. They come from common roots, but deny the New Covenant in the Blood of Christ by clinging to already fulfilled covenants.

[Era Might]

[quote]Yes but my point is that the Law no longer applies. The Law was an essential part of Judaism, a part that is longer there. That would constitute a substantial change meaning that modern Jews are different from ancient Jews. This is most notable due to the establishment of a New Covenant with God's People. [/quote]

Of course they are "different". I don't think anyone (even Jews) would deny that they are "different".

But that doesn't mean they are no longer truly Jewish. The most important dimension of the Law was not the Mosaic rituals, but the decalogue, which is still an essential element of Judaism, as is the Torah.

I think Jews at the time of Christ were VERY different from the original bearers of the Law. Judaism always had traditions which were not summed up in the Law. As I said, it's not a monolithic belief system. That Jews believe God no longer requires a temple sacrifice is not an amazing development in the context of the Jewish belief system. God was always revealing. The canon itself was an example, where God continued to speak to his people. Jews today just believe that the Talmud was another instance of God speaking, although the Talmud wasn't really a "revelation" I don't think but a collection of commentaries on the Law.

[quote]No one is denying that God cares for the Children of Israel as His selected people, what we are saying is that those that still attempt to follow the Old Covenant are indeed in a false position. I am still looking for that document. Paitence please. [/quote]

First, I would say that all are called to the New and Eternal Covenant in Christ. That goes without saying.

Nevertheless, the attempt of a Jewish believer to be faithful to the God of Israel is not something that can be cast down as "false". The Church recognizes that this is a unique act of faith in Divine Revelation, although it is not fulfilled in Christ. Jewish believers are not so much in negative "unbelief" as they are in "unfulfillment". This is why the Church looks at them differently, because Israel is part of her own mystery.

[quote]Modern Jews are denying Christ plain and simple. They come from common roots, but deny the New Covenant in the Blood of Christ by clinging to already fulfilled covenants.[/quote]

See above. This is a question of fulfillment.

The Holy Father sheds some light on this situation, although in the context of Protestantism:

[quote]Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic.  This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. [/quote]

Everything a Jew believes is not true. But the Church understands their faith not in a negative sense, but as a positive response to Divine Revelation. Israel endures to this day by Divine Providence, as a witness to the Church of her own roots. The Church embraces Israel in a unique way, because she is unlike any other religion. She is part of the mystery of the Church, our "elder brothers".

Edited March 7, 2006 by Era Might

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Mar 7 2006, 12:53 AM']You cannot convert anyone.  You can't make anyone love God.  You can only point people in the right direction through your words and deeds.  They will decide for themselves whether to follow God or not.

It is true that children need to learn apologetics--the study of refuting false beliefs.  But teaching comparative religion in schools is not the same as apologetics.  Yes, it is important that Catholic children need to know what to do if they end up in a conversation with a Muslim, or if a Jehovah Witness knocks on their door.  But all religions, even if they lack the fullness of truth, must be treated with dignity.  You can't just stand there in front of a bunch of kids and say "Today, Class, we're going to learn about Hindus and how they are wrong about everything, and need to convert to Catholicism.  Please open your books to page 15."  it is important to teach religion for its own sake.  That is not to say that Catholic educators should teach a message of religious pluralism or deny that Catholicism is the fullness of truth.  But there is a way to magnify the truth of Catholicism through teaching about other religions in a way that is not uncharitable or undermining of their dignity.
[right][snapback]905095[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


why should we treat an unthruth with dignity?
a false relegion is a lie. it misleads people from the truth.
a false relegion is not dignified nor should we teach "comparative relegion". sounds like indifferntism. its like teaching an alternative relegion in the class room, to children.

Edited March 7, 2006 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 7 2006, 12:24 AM']Of course they are "different". I don't think anyone (even Jews) would deny that they are "different".[/quote]Then what are we discussing? I came aboard to help Sam defend himself that the modern day practice of Judaism is indeed false, albeit from unfulfillment or otherwise. Discussing the people or the race is a different story. One can be of the nation of Israel and not practice Judaism.

Before I comment further, I was wondering if you could give citation for this or context:[quote]Israel endures to this day by Divine Providence, as a witness to the Church of her own roots. [/quote]It would seem to say, at least implicitly, the God has kept some out of the New Covenant (and thus salvation). That is if you are speaking about Judaism here and not the people of Israel. I would agree that the Children of Israel have survived to this day, but to say that a religion that positively denies the salvific action of Christ (the Talmud) has survived by Divine Providence almost speaks to double predestination. Some context would be nice here.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Nostra Aetate #4']As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock.

Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith - are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles. Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.

The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.

As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation, nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading. Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle. In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).

Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. [b]Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.[/b] All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

[b]Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, [u]the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.[/u][/b]

Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.[/quote]
[i]Cf. Gal. 3:7
Cf. Rom. 11:17-24
Cf. Eph. 2:14-16
Cf. Lk. 19:44
Cf. Rom. 11:28
Cf. Rom. 11:28-29; cf. dogmatic Constitution, Lumen Gentium (Light of nations) AAS, 57 (1965) pag. 20
Cf. Is. 66:23; Ps. 65:4; Rom. 11:11-32
Cf. John. 19:6[/i]

To make the statements that are being made here about Judaism being "a false religion" are moving directly against [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html"]Nostra Aetate[/url].

[quote name='CCC #438']Jesus' messianic consecration reveals his divine mission, "for the name 'Christ' implies 'he who anointed', 'he who was anointed' and 'the very anointing with which he was anointed'. The one who anointed is the Father, the one who was anointed is the Son, and he was anointed with the Spirit who is the anointing.'" His eternal messianic consecration was revealed during the time of his earthly life at the moment of his baptism by John, when "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power", "that he might be revealed to Israel" as its Messiah. His works and words will manifest him as "the Holy One of God".[/quote]
[i]St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3,18,3:PG 7/1,934.
Acts 10:38; Jn 1:31.
Mk 1:24; Jn 6:69; Acts 3:14.[/i]

Before we all get bent out of shape about "the keeping of the Law." Even the Jews of Jesus' time didn't do this perfectly. This is acknowledged by the Catechism:

[quote name='CCC #578']Jesus, Israel's Messiah and therefore the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, was to fulfill the Law by keeping it in its all embracing detail - according to his own words, down to "the least of these commandments". He is in fact the only one who could keep it perfectly. On their own admission the Jews were never able to observe the Law in its entirety without violating the least of its precepts. This is why every year on the Day of Atonement the children of Israel ask God's forgiveness for their transgressions of the Law. The Law indeed makes up one inseparable whole, and St. James recalls, "Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."[/quote]

I would suggest reading and understanding the various accepted [url="http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/mysite.html?q=Jews&sufs=0&order=r&n=0"]Catechetical positions[/url].

[Paphnutius]

Cam who here is speaking about hatred of Jews? No one but those claiming others to be antisemitic. We are speaking about the beliefs of Judaism, not the people the Jews. No one here has even mentioned the Jews holding responsibility for the death of Christ. No one has eximplified hatred towards the people, but rather said that their beliefs about the messiah are indeed false. Ancient Jews believed in the coming of the Messiah and therefore, at least implicitly, in Christ. Modern Jews deny Christ and continue to look for another Messiah. That is a false belief.

I did not read in Nostra Aetate that modern Judaism is a true religion. I read that we share common roots with modern Jews and they hold a special place with God. Who here has denied that?

To claim that modern day Judaism is not false in some sense is a direct assault on Holy Mother Church who possesses all Truth. I would recommend reading Dominus Jesus on this matter. Modern Judaism (again the belief not the people) denies the salvific act of Christ and thus at least in that point, is false. It is correct only as far as it accepts Divine Revelation, and it fails on a rather important part: the Incarnation and the Paschal Mystery. The only way to the Father is through the Son.

Thank you for pointing out those CCC paragraphs especially this one:[quote]674 [i]The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by "all Israel", for "a hardening has come upon part of Israel" in their "unbelief" toward Jesus. [/i]St. Peter says to the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: "Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old." St. Paul echoes him: "For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?" The "full inclusion" of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles", will enable the People of God to achieve "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ", in which "God may be all in all".
[/quote]

And to restate my point again: Speaking the truth about something being false (here espcially their denial of Christ) does not equate hatred.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 7 2006, 07:10 AM']why should we treat an unthruth with dignity?
a false relegion is a lie. it misleads people from the truth.
a false relegion is not dignified nor should we teach "comparative relegion". sounds like indifferntism. its like teaching an alternative relegion in the class room, to children.
[right][snapback]905127[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I think calling all of Judaism a "false religion" would go against what the Church teaches.

[kateri05]

i think the problem here is that this teacher, while very knowledgeable im sure of her jewish faith, is incapable of teaching the proper Christian understanding of the Old Testament. The Old is revealed in the New, but if you don't have the New to point to, how far can you go in your Old Testament studies?

really the ideal teacher for an Old Testament course would be a Jewish Convert, preferable rabbinical. cuz then you have the best of both :

[rkwright]

I pointed it out earlier... but isn't the teacher supposed to be objective?? Just because she is jewish do we automatically assume shes not aware of the New Testament? Can she not teach that this is the old testament, then the next semester when the kids take new testament (as it is in many Catholic High Schools) they can draw on the background to see how it is fulfilled?

Can a captialist economics teacher teach marxism effectively? Can a Catholic Phil prof teach atheistic arguments properly? Can a non-catholic Historian teach Church History?

If the teachers own view points are getting in the way of how she teaches then there is a problem, and that goes for any teacher.

Edited March 7, 2006 by rkwright

[Myles Domini]

I'm with Paphnutius 100%

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Mar 7 2006, 02:03 PM']I think calling all of Judaism a "false religion" would go against what the Church teaches.
[right][snapback]905455[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

well then you are wrong the church teaches that all relegegions other than Catholicism are false.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 7 2006, 05:48 PM']well then you are wrong the church teaches that all relegegions other than Catholicism are false.
[right][snapback]905655[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
no, it teaches that they don't have the fullness of truth.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='kateri05' date='Mar 7 2006, 03:17 PM']i think the problem here is that this teacher, while very knowledgeable im sure of her jewish faith, is incapable of teaching the proper Christian understanding of the Old Testament.  The Old is revealed in the New, but if you don't have the New to point to, how far can you go in your Old Testament studies?

really the ideal teacher for an Old Testament course would be a Jewish Convert, preferable rabbinical.  cuz then you have the best of both :
[right][snapback]905471[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
i agree!!! a Hebrew Catholic would be the best choice.