What to do with Judaism

[N/A Gone]

In class we are discussing what the church should do with Judaism.

where does the church stand on this?

[Paladin]

What do you mean "do"?

[N/A Gone]

What do we do with them..Im sorry if this isnt clear.

Do we convert them away from their faith? Do we try to bring the faiths together? Do we assume them saved? What do we do

[Paladin]

The Church accepts that Judaism follows the Old Covenent and are still God's chosen people. However, they do lack the knowledge of God's Son, Jesus the Christ. They're still waiting for a Messiah, but we know that He already came. Thus, we as Catholics should be obliged to seek union with them where we agree, provide instruction where they lack knowledge, and seek conversion where we can. Pretty much the same as any other religion, 'cept we tend to have more in common with them than, say, Buddhists.

[Myles Domini]

Rev, try reading[url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0898707536/ref=sib_rdr_dp/002-4811859-6976000?%5Fencoding=UTF8&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&no=283155&st=books&n=283155"]Many Religions, One Covenant: Israel, the Church, and the World by Joseph Ratzinger[/url] (and anything else he's written : ).

[Dave]

So then how does one respond to ultra-traditionalist "Catholics" who claim the Old Covenant was abolished and that the Church has always taught that? For that matter, how do you respond to their persistent claims that the Jews are guilty of deicide?

[Era Might]

Two useful selections from the pre-Papal writings of Pope Benedict XVI:

[quote]That is what we believe. That does not mean that we have to force Christ upon them but that we should share in the patience of God. We also have to try to live our life together in Christ in such a way that it no longer stands in opposition to them or would be unacceptable to them but so that it facilitates their own approach to it. It is in fact still our belief as Christians that Christ is the Messiah of Israel. It is in God’s hands, of course, just in what way, when, and how the reuniting of Jews and Gentiles, the reunification of God’s people, will be achieved.

--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "God and the World", pg. 150
[/quote]

[quote]Does this mean that missionary activity should cease and be replaced by dialogue, where it is not a question of truth but of making one another better Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus or Buddhists? My answer is No. For this would be nothing other than total lack of conviction; under the pretext of affirming one another in our best points, we would in fact be failing to take ourselves (or others) seriously; we would be finally renouncing truth. Rather, the answer must be that mission and dialogue should no longer be opposites but should mutually interpenetrate.

Dialogue is not aimless conversation; it aims at conviction, at finding the truth; otherwise it is worthless. Conversely, missionary activity in the future cannot proceed as if it were simply a case of communicating to someone who has no knowledge at all of God what he has to believe.

There can be this kind of communication, of course, and perhaps it will become more widespread in certain places in a world that is becoming increasingly atheistic. But in the world of religions we meet people who have heard of God through their religion and try to live in relationship with him.

In this way, proclamation of the gospel must be necessarily a dialogical process. We are not telling the other person something that is entirely unknown to him; rather, we are opening up the hidden depth of something with which, in his own religion, he is already in touch.”

--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "Many Religions, One Covenant", pgs. 111-112[/quote]

Edited March 14, 2006 by Era Might

[Paladin]

[quote name='Dave' date='Mar 13 2006, 05:53 PM']So then how does one respond to ultra-traditionalist "Catholics" who claim the Old Covenant was abolished and that the Church has always taught that?  For that matter, how do you respond to their persistent claims that the Jews are guilty of deicide?
[right][snapback]910736[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I believe it was the Council of Trent that stated our sin is what put Christ on the cross, and our sin is far worse than any the Jews may have incurred.

[Peccator]

[quote name='Paladin' date='Mar 13 2006, 12:33 PM'][b]The Church accepts that Judaism follows the Old Covenent and [color=red]are still God's chosen people[/color][/b].  However, they do lack the knowledge of God's Son, Jesus the Christ.  They're still waiting for a Messiah, but we know that He already came.  Thus, we as Catholics should be obliged to seek union with them where we agree, provide instruction where they lack knowledge, and seek conversion where we can.  Pretty much the same as any other religion, 'cept we tend to have more in common with them than, say, Buddhists.
[right][snapback]910434[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I have to disagree...the Church has NEVER been Dispensationalist...that is a Protestant invention. Here's the background:

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism[/url]

The Church has teached that the Church (made of people from every nation), not the jewish people per say are the New Isreal (spoken about in the book of Revelations.)

Here's what Paul says and have said numerous times (Galatians 3:7-29) :

[quote][b]Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham[/b]. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. [b]So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.[/b]

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, the just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: [b]That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith[/b].

Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. [b]Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ[/b]. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, [b]till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator[/b].

Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.[b] For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [color=red]There is neither Jew nor Greek[/color][/b], there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: [color=red][b]for ye are all one in Christ Jesus[/b][/color]. [color=red][b]And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise[/b][/color]. [/quote]

...and as far as I know that has been the Churches believe from the beginning.

[quote]So then how does one respond to ultra-traditionalist "Catholics" who claim the Old Covenant was abolished and that the Church has always taught that? For that matter, how do you respond to their persistent claims that the Jews are guilty of deicide? [/quote]Look at the history of Dispensationlism and you'll see its entirely Protestant in origin...and was only concieved in the early 1800's, so its nonsense that the Church had anything to do with it.

I however do think you raise and excellent point with the issue of Deicide. To be perferctly honest, Jesus died for everyone's sin, which makes us just as guilty as anyone else...jew and non-jew: our sin killed Him:

Isaiah 53:5
[quote]But He was wounded for [b]our [/b][b]transgressions[/b], he was bruised [b]for our iniquities[/b]: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and [b]with his stripes we are healed[/b]. [/quote]

Edited March 14, 2006 by Peccator

[Amator Veritatis]

Whatever the meaning of "ultra-traditionalist", the Church has consistently held that the Old Covenant was fulfilled, that is, abolished in its ceremonial and juridical enactments, though the juridical practices be not forbidden. The moral laws of the Old Covenant, are, of course, binding in the proper manner in the New Covenant, the Church. That the Old Covenant is abolished and absolutely forbidden is established by the Council of Florence, among others. One of its decrees reads as follows:

[The holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Cf., Session XI


That the Jews are guilty of deicide is taught plainly by Saint Paul:

For you, brethren, are become followers of the churches of God which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they have from the Jews, 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men. Cf., St. Paul to Thessalonians ii.14,15

Noteworthy also are the various references from the Acts of the Apostles stating that the Jews are guilty of the Crucifixion. Cf., Acts of the Apostles ii.22,23, ii.36, iii.12-15, iv.10 & x.39.


The same is confessed by the Jews themselves:

And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children. Cf., St. Matthew xxvii.25


Besides, if this were not plain enough, the teaching of the Fathers is clear on the matter. Hence, the words of Saint John Chrysostom on the matter are as follows:

For as though they were afraid lest they should seem to fall short at all in the crime, having killed the prophets with their own hands, but this man with the sentence of a judge, so they do in every deed; and make it the work of their own hands, and condemn and sentence both among themselves and before Pilate, saying: 'His blood be on us and on our children,' and insult Him, and do despite unto Him themselves, binding Him, leading Him away, and render themselves authors of the spiteful acts done by the soldiers, and nail Him to the cross, and revile Him, and spit at Him, and deride Him. For Pilate contributed nothing in this matter, but they themselves did everything, becoming accusers, and judges, and executioners, and all. Cf., [i]On the Gospel of St. Matthew[/i]


Saint Augustine relates similar words, which are found in the [i]Breviarium Romanum[/i] at Matins on Good Friday:

They have whet their tongue like a sword. Let not Jewry say : We did not kill Christ. For they delivered him up to Pilate's tribunal in order that they should themselves seem innocent of his death. Thus when Pilate said to them : Take ye him, and crucify him : they answered : It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. So it was that they sought to cast the guilt of their crime upon a human judge : but by this could they deceive God the Judge? What Pilate did, made him perforce in some sort partaker of their crime. But in comparison with them, he was less guilty. For he did what he could to rescue him out of their hands, and therefore ordered him to be scourged and brought before them. That is to say, not by way of persecution did he scourge the Lord, but as wishing to satisfy their rage, that when they saw him scourged, they might relent, and cease to desire his death. Nevertheless he did do it. But if we hold him to be guilty who did it against his will, shall they be innocent who did force him to do it? By no means. Pilate did pronounce sentence on him, and commanded him to be crucified, and so in some wise it might be said that he did kill him. But O ye, his own Jewish people, ye in full truth did kill him. And how did ye kill him? With the sword of the tongue. For like a sword ye whet your tongue. And when did ye strike the blow, but when ye cried out : Crucify him, crucify him? Cf., Matins of Good Friday, Lesson vi.

N.B., the preceding lesson, also from St. Augustine, is relevant to the matter as well, and the versicle and response betwixt the fifth and sixth lessons are also clear, the response worded as follows:

Now there was darkness over the all the land whilst the Jews did crucify Jesus, &c. Cf., Matins of Good Friday, Response preceding Lesson vi.


As to the collective and perpetual guilt of the Jews, St. Thomas Aquinas offers the following:

Pilate took water in accordance with that, 'I will wash my hands in innocency', in a manner testifying and saying, I indeed have sought to deliver this innocent man, but since a tumult is rising, and the charge of treason to Caesar is urged against me, I am innocent of the blood of this just man .... Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us and on our children. This imprecation rests at the present day upon the Jews: the Lord's blood is not removed from them. Cf., [i]Catena Aurea[/i]


That holy Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori, renowned for his charity and prudence was not exempt from those who held that the Jews incurred a perpetual debt for the Crucifixion of Our Lord:

Poor Jews! You invoked a dreadful curse upon your own heads in saying: 'His blood be on us and our children'; and that curse, miserable race, you carry upon you to this day, and to the end of time you shall endure the chastisement of that innocent blood. Cf., [i]The Passion and Death of Jesus Christ[/i]


Of note, also, are the oft-quoted words of St. John Chrysostom regarding the Jews and the necessity to avoid intercourse with them:

How dare Christians have the slightest doings with Jews, those most miserable of all men! They are lustful, rapacious, greedy, perfidious bandits, pests of the universe. Indeed, an entire day would not suffice to tell of all their rapine, their avarice, their deception of the poor, their thievery, and their huckstering. Are they not inveterate murderers, destroyers, men possessed by the devil? Jews are impure and impious, and their synagogue is a house of prostitution, a lair of beasts, a place of shame and ridicule, the domicile of the devil, as is also the soul of the Jew. As a matter of fact, Jews worship the devil: their rites are criminal and unchaste; their religion a disease; their synagogue an assembly of crooks, a den of thieves, a cavern of devils, an abyss of perdition! Why are the Jews degenerate? Because of their hateful assassination of Christ. This supreme crime lies at the root of their degradation and woes. The rejection and the dispersion of the Jews was the work of God and because of His absolute abandonment of the Jews. Thus, the Jew will live under the yoke of slavery without end. God hates the Jews, and on Judgement Day He will say to those who sympathise with them: “Depart from me, for you have had doings with My murderers!” Flee, then, from their assemblies, fly from their houses, and, far from venerating the synagogue, hold it in hatred and aversion. Cf., [i]Six Sermons Against the Jews[/i]


These quotations do not even begin to reach the extent of the teaching of the Fathers on the matter. While it is true that these teachings must be presented in a charitable and civilised manner--and with proper citation, as I have given--there can be no doubt that they are the constant and universal teaching of the Fathers, thus an expression of the [i]mens ecclesiae[/i] and a matter of Tradition from which the faithful are not permitted to deviate, in accord with the decrees of the First Vatican Council in which is stated:

In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers. Cf., Chapter II, On Revelation, Canon IX

[Amator Veritatis]

In refutation of a point made by Sinner, we ought recognise that the reason for Our Lord's Crucifixion does not necessarily indicate its cause. Our Lord died to expiate the sins of the world that those might be saved who are baptised, hold the Catholic Faith and die having final perseverance free from mortal sin. Now, this fact does not indicate that all are the cause of the Crucifixion properly speaking. While all excluding the Blessed Virgin are, in some manner, guilty of the Death of Our Lord insofar as His Passion and Death were undergone in order that the sins of all might be forgiven, this does not mean that the entire human race actually participated in effecting Our Lord's Death. This principle can be illustrated by analogy. If a man incurs a debt as a result of some wrongdoing or misuse of funds committed by his wife, though he be guilty of the debt, he is not the cause of it. To illustrate a theologically analogous situation, the guilt of Original Sin committed by Adam is incurred by all men throughout the history of the world, excepting the Blessed Virgin. Though all men are guilty of Original Sin, no one other than Adam is the cause of it. By Adam's sin alone, and not by any sin of others afterwards, did Original Sin come into this world. In the same manner, while the human race is collectively guilty of the Death of Our Lord, not all men are the cause of it. The Crucifixion was effected by those who were involved in the unjust trial--if it can be called such--which Our Lord underwent and by the Jews corporately, as the teaching of the Holy Writ and the Fathers indicates. This corporate guilt is primarily a result of the Jews special honour of being, previously, the chosen people of God with whom He enacted the Old Law and to whom were revealed first the means of salvation through the preaching of Our Lord during his three years of public teaching. As the entire human race has justly incurred the sin of our first parents so too have the Jews inherited the ignominious deicide of their parents, and just as all are cleansed of Original Sin in Baptism so also are the Jews cleansed of their guilt along with Original Sin through so holy a Sacrament.

Edited March 14, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[Era Might]

[quote]That the Old Covenant is abolished [/quote]

The Old Covenent was neither abolished nor revoked, as Our Lord and Pope John Paul II teach:

[quote]Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.

--Matthew 5:17[/quote]

[quote]The first dimension of our [Jewish and Christian] dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God, and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and the second part of her Bible.

--1980 Address to the Jews of Mainz, Germany[/quote]

The distinction between abolishment and fulfillment is essential.

[quote]That the Jews are guilty of deicide is taught plainly by Saint Paul[/quote]

"The Jews" are not guilty of anything. There were Jews involved in the death of Christ, and there were Gentiles involved in the death of Christ. But they, and they alone, are guilty of deicide, as the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council taught:

[quote]True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, [b]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. 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.

--Declaration "Nostra Aetate", #4[/quote]

The Catechism of Trent also notes that Christians are more culpable for the death of Christ than even those Jews and Gentiles who pressed for his death, because we profess to know him.

[quote]The same is confessed by the Jews themselves:

And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.[/quote]

The blood of Christ is indeed on their children. Not as a curse, nor as a mark of guilty, but as a laver of redemption welling up to eternal life. That some Jews were willing to call their children as witness to their sin does not mean God would accept their call.

[quote]These quotations do not even begin to reach the extent of the teaching of the Fathers on the matter. While it is true that these teachings must be presented in a charitable and civilised manner--and with proper citation, as I have given--there can be no doubt that they are the constant and universal teaching of the Fathers, thus an expression of the mens ecclesiae and a matter of Tradition from which the faithful are not permitted to deviate, in accord with the decrees of the First Vatican Council in which is stated[/quote]

As Mark Shea likes to say, "old sin is not Tradition". Putting it plainly, St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus were wrong. The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council has put to rest any claim that the Jewish people are guilty for the death of Christ, except in a general sense by which we ALL are guilty. Being obedient Catholics, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and any other Saint or Father, would lay aside their own opinions and submit to the judgement of the Church.

[Era Might]

Also an imporant point in the Catholic understanding of Jews and Judaism:

[quote]There is no putting the Jews who knew Jesus and did not believe in him, or those who opposed the preaching of the apostles, on the same plane with Jews who came after or those of today. If the responsibility of the former remains a mystery hidden with God (cf. Rom 11:25), the latter are in an entirely different situation. Vatican II in the declaration on Religious Liberty teaches that "all men are to be immune from coercion" in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs. Nor "restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs" (n. 2). This is one of the bases - proclaimed by the Council - on which Judeao-Christian dialogue rests.

--The Holy See's "Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church"

[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_jews-judaism_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontific...judaism_en.html[/url]
[/quote]

Edited March 14, 2006 by Era Might

[Amator Veritatis]

To answer the pertinent question regarding what ought be done with the Jews, I shall restrain my quotations of the actions taken by the Popes for now, but suffice it to say that they maintained that Catholics may have no intercourse with those who are obstinant in rejecting the Faith. As Saint Pius V ordered by his Papal Bull [i]Haebrorum gens[/i], all Jews not accepting the Catholic Faith ought be expelled. The ghetto system for Jews unwilling to convert also prevailed, as is well documented. As far as theological considerations, if it be not obvious already, the Faith ought be presented to the Jews. They ought be told that their religion is no longer salvific, that they have rejected God Himself and crucified Him and that they must accept the Catholic Faith to save their souls. This is the constant and perennial practice of the Church. [i]Oremus et pro perfidis Judaeis: ut Deus et Dominus noster auferat velamen de cordibus eorum; ut et ipsi agnoscant Jesus Christum Dominum nostrum[/i].

[Era Might]

Regarding the citation from the Council of Florence, note that it is addressing CHRISTIANS:

[quote]Therefore it strictly orders [b]all who glory in the name of Christian[/b], not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.[/quote]

It was not a treatment of Israel after the coming of Christ, as such, but a treatment of those CATHOLICS who submitted to the law, and held it as necessary.

Shawn McIlhenny provides some historical background:

[quote]I would argue that the Copts being Alexandria based were probably in close contact with the Alexandrian Jews. The Alexandrian Jews were among the most cultured peoples in the world and probably because of this the Copts were to some extent seduced to a degree into involving themselves in their ceremonies to the point where their observance was viewed as a necessity. That is what the text seems to allude to if we look at the broader context.

--[url="http://lidless-eye.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_lidless-eye_archive.html#114168194983708757"]Source (Link)[/url] [/quote]

The Second Vatican Council was really the first time the Church undertook a formal treatment of Israel qua Israel, as it exists in the centuries after Christ. Since the Council, the Church has continued to develop her theology on the matter.