www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Vatican Says Jews' Wait for Messiah is Validated by O.T.

Quite frankly I find this article very distrubing. It seems to down play the basic Christian belief that the promised Messiah already came to save mankind. Why have we been practicing Christianity for over 2000 years if it isn't because we believe the Messiah has already been sent for our salvation? As a Christian I find it demeaning and distrubing. What say ye all?

New York Times January 18, 2002

Vatican Says Jews' Wait for Messiah Is Validated by the Old Testament

By MELINDA HENNEBERGER

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 Joaqu�n
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."

OrthoMan,

Didn't Jesus refer to one like the Son of Man coming much later? Our Christology has been ontologically oriented since Arius. But in the order of soteriological-christology, the coming of the Son of Man fits right in.

JEWISH SCRIPTURE IS A KEY TO UNDERSTANDING JESUS, DOCUMENT SAY
Pontifical Biblical Commission Publishes a New Text

VATICAN CITY, (Zenit.org).- A new Vatican document says it is not possible to understand Christianity fully, without reflecting on divine revelation as contained in the Jewish Bible.

Moreover, the text, published by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, affirms that it is mistaken "to use as a pretext for anti-Judaism" the "warnings" that the Christian Bible addresses to Jews.

Likewise, the document recognizes that "in the past, errors were committed by unilaterally insisting on the discontinuity" that exists between the Jewish Bible (Old Testament) and the Christian Bible (Old and New Testament).

The 200-page study, entitled "The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible," was published by the Vatican Press. At present, it is not on the Vatican�s Web page.

"This is a total novelty," Chief Rabbi Joseph Levi of Florence told the Italian press. Rabbi Levi is especially pleased with the objective of the document: to manifest officially "the amazing force of the spiritual ties that unite the Church of Christ with the Jewish people."

The Biblical Commission, presided over by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is composed of 20 leading biblicists. The members were appointed by John Paul II at the cardinal�s suggestion.

In introducing the study, which began in 1997, Cardinal Ratzinger invites Christians to recognize "the Jewish reading of the Bible as a possible reading." In other words, such a reading might be of great help in important questions, such as the Messiah.

"The Jewish Messianic Expectation is not vain," the document states. "It can become a strong stimulus for us to maintain the eschatological dimension alive," that is, the Christian expectation of Jesus� return at the end of time, it says.

"Like them, we also live in expectation," the document continues. "The difference is in the fact that for us the One who will come will have traces of that Jesus who has already come and who is present and active among us."

The new publication "hopes to foster love toward the Jews in the Church of Christ," following the "abominable crimes" of which they were object during World War II.

In "light of the Scripture, the rupture between the Church of Christ and the Jewish people should not have happened," the document affirms.

The newly published document is divided into chapters. The first one, which is fundamental, states that the New Testament recognizes the authority of the Old Testament as divine revelation, and cannot be understood without being intimately related to it and with the Jewish tradition that transmitted it.

The second chapter examines more analytically how the writings of the New Testament accept the rich content of the Old Testament, referring to its fundamental topics in light of Jesus Christ.

The third chapter records the extremely varied attitudes on the Jews reflected in the New Testament, something which also occurs in the Old Testament.

I would suggest a comparative reading between the New York Times and Zenith articles. The latter is almost certainly to provide a better understanding of the intent and scope of the new document.

Personally, I see it as a statement that looking at the Scriptures from the Jewish perspective could help us better understand the Jesus Christ we know as Savior. I do not see it in any way as playing down or compromising our understanding and teaching of Jesus Christ.

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."

They're absolutely right about that: God will take their search into account if it is sincere and they have not yet understood Christ when they die. If they understand Christ but reject him, that's a different story.

"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.

WHAT?! I hope this was mistranslated. Same "traits" as "that" Jesus? When did we stop believing that Christ himself is coming back at the end of time?

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.

Even if the Vatican isn't really making a marked departure, if Jews are already interpreting it as such, it missed the point. Now Jews are going to think they can just sit back and not take Jesus Part I seriously.

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,"

Duh. We are not Marcionists.

"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."

What kind of double speak is that?! The Old Testament had the value of waiting for the Messiah. He came. End of story. No value lost--prohecy fulfilled.

Either Jesus is the Messiah, or he wasn't. You can't be the Messiah of some and not the others.

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.

Subjectively PERHAPS. But objectively, NO. Jesus came. The Jews must accept this to gain salvation. (unless by God's grace they are saved owing to "invincible ignorance.")

"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."

Hmm. Catholic Church states what it has always believed, and it "opens wounds." Don't those Jews think it hurts Catholics to have them keep denying Jesus? But wait, the Jews aren't playing a game like we are, issuing new "reflections" that are actually doublespeak. More credit to them. They probably do feel teased.

How do these documents help to "preach to all the nations" and "baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"? We might end up having the best relationship with the Jews, yet all conversions will effectively stop.

anastasios

The Ratizinger statement is absolutely beautiful.

*************

At age 90, Mrs. Hamilton enrolls in university and takes a course in Hebrew. Her grandchild asks her "Grandma, are you planning on going to Israel?"

Mrs. Hamilton says "Oh, no, dear, I am much too old to take a trip like that."

"Then, grandma" her grandchild asks "Why are you studying Hebrew?" The old woman answers "I'm towards the end of my life, dear. I am getting ready to meet the Lord. When I do so, I would like to address Him in His native language."

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Studying Jewish Studies, having Jewish friends, learning Hebrew? Great!

Making our Jewish friends think that Jesus Christ is "our" messiah while they are free to wait for another is uncharitable.

anastasios

anastasios
,

Please consider in general that in your which which I do not comment on to be thought I find helpful. Let me also ask for some further development of other points:



It wouldn't be an unorthodox presumption to guess that few contemporary Jews reject Christ, in the sense offered here, would it?

Would it be unorthodox to wonder if the Second person of the Trinity was not fully revealed during His incarnation on earth, and that additional revelation may occur at the Second Coming?


Let's pray over the particular choice of words on that.


Is the only purpose of the O.T. the prophacy of the coming Messiah? Can everything interpetation of every verse which does not speak to that be rejected?



God made a convenant with the Jewish people. Does God honor those who follow that covanent today? At what moment did God repeal that convenant?


Is 'denying Jesus' something to be generally attributed to the Jewish people? If so, what evidence of hurt do we have?


Is this a general problem with Cardinal Ratzinger or a unique one?


Ye will know they are Christian by their love?

Kurt,

Please consider in general that in your which which I do not comment on to be thought I find helpful. Let me also ask for some further development of other points:

Please rephrase that: I get what you're saying, but the typo made it difficult. :-)

It wouldn't be an unorthodox presumption to guess that few contemporary Jews reject Christ, in the sense offered here, would it?

True, so we should further define the word reject. Violently renounce/reject/despise/
abjure? No, I only know of a few Jews who think this of Christ. Most Jews I know personally have a respect for Jesus as some sort of moral sage, or great teacher.

What I am getting at is this: Christ revealed himself, and the Holy Spirit acts on all to bring them to the truth. If someone is urged to accept Christ as he himself claimed to be, the "I AM" (John 8), but stops at "great moral sage," isn't that in a way rejecting Christ, albeit in a quantitive measure instead of absolutely? If a Jew is pushed by the Holy Spirit into loving acceptance of Christ (and thus to become part of his body through baptism), yet doesn't grow past "nice guy" imagery of Christ, isn't he rejecting the prompting of the Holy Spirit?

Would it be unorthodox to wonder if the Second person of the Trinity was not fully revealed during His incarnation on earth, and that additional revelation may occur at the Second Coming?

I would submit that I believe yes, it would be unorthodox: Christ himself said he would send us the Comforter to lead us into *all* truth. And the Saints on earth that have lived deification in this life experience God, yet no new revelation was given to them. I think we will have a "fuller" experience of him, qualatatively, but quantatively, we will gain no new knowledge about him.


Let's pray over the particular choice of words on that.

Amen!


Is the only purpose of the O.T. the prophacy of the coming Messiah? Can everything interpetation of every verse which does not speak to that be rejected?

Heavens no! That was my point of saying we are NOT Marcionists! Marcion chucked the OT. We must value it, study it, live it ourselves! In that part of the document, I agree!

God made a convenant with the Jewish people. Does God honor those who follow that covanent today? At what moment did God repeal that convenant?

God made the covenant with *Israel*. The Church is Israel, the continuation of the nation. In the Church, the 12 tribes are reunited, becuase the 10 that were lost "to the nations" ie the Gentiles, are gathered up again in one body. The Jews that rejected Christ are not fully sharers in this covenant becuase THEY abrogated it, not God. however, God will certainly hold them dear to his heart as they are so close to us and are trying to be faithful to him--BUT he will move them to the Church.

Is 'denying Jesus' something to be generally attributed to the Jewish people? If so, what evidence of hurt do we have?

I was speaking rhetorically; however the thought that someone does not accept Christ's divinity hurts me, because I want them to have that intimacy with the Lord, too.

Is this a general problem with Cardinal Ratzinger or a unique one?

I would submit a general one. His response to the Melkites fits into the same category.

{i] Ye will know they are Christian by their love? [/i]

Very true, Kurt, and definitely the point we must emphasize. But when a Jewish brother or sister asks the ultimate questions, we must not muddy the waters: Jesus is God, and the Messiah. We invite them to communion with him.

anastasios

It's said that in the second coming of Christ, he will be recognized by the jews and he will be their Messiah too, and the mahdi for the muslims.

Friends,

I find nothing disturbing about this document. I think one can assume the document is starting from the view point that those of the Jewish faith are invincibly ignorant. Given this fact, the Second Coming of Christ in Glory will coincide with Jewish expectations for the Messiah's coming in Glory, coming for the first time from their point of view. Yet both Christians and Jews expect the coming of the same Messiah and Savior. We must remember it is ordained by God that a remnant of Israel remain:

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? Of course not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the scripture says about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have torn down your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life." But what is God's response to him? "I have left for myself seven thousand men who have not knelt to Baal." So also at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if by grace, it is no longer because of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. What then? What Israel was seeking it did not attain, but the elect attained it; the rest were hardened, as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of deep sleep, eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear, down to this very day." And David says: "Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; let their eyes grow dim so that they may not see, and keep their backs bent forever." Hence I ask, did they stumble so as to fall? Of course not! But through their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make them jealous. Now if their transgression is enrichment for the world, and if their diminished number is enrichment for the Gentiles, how much more their full number. Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I glory in my ministry in order to make my race jealous and thus save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?" (Romans 11:1-15 NAB)

Though Israel rejected the Savior at his first coming the promises made to them are still valid and they may still reclaim their place at the Second Coming. St. Paul tells us:

I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not become wise (in) your own estimation: a hardening has come upon Israel in part, until the full number of the Gentiles comes in, and thus all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come out of Zion, he will turn away godlessness from Jacob; and this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins." In respect to the gospel, they are enemies on your account; but in respect to election, they are beloved because of the patriarchs. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. Just as you once disobeyed God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience, so they have now disobeyed in order that, by virtue of the mercy shown to you, they too may (now) receive mercy. For God delivered all to disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all. Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How inscrutable are his judgments and how unsearchable his ways! "For who has known the mind of the Lord or who has been his counselor?" "Or who has given him anything that he may be repaid?" For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (Romans 11:25-36 NAB)

And let us not forget Christ's parable of the Workers in the Vineyard:

When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.' When those who had started about five o'clock came, each received the usual daily wage. So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner,
saying, 'These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day's burden and the heat.' He said to one of them in reply, 'My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? (Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?' Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last." (Matthew 20:8-16 NAB)

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Anastasios,
I am with you 100% on this double speak from the Vatican. Such intellectual jargon is meant to confuse & deceive innocent souls. Here we have Kurt and I quote him
"Would it be unorthodox to wonder if the Second person of the Trinity was not fully revealed during His incarnation on earth, and that additional revelation may occur at the Second Coming?"
belittling the fullness of Christ Jesus. If Kurt were right he would revamp our Divine Liturgies and denigrate the Church! That is what I personally believe Rome has done to herself. I wonder how many Kurts are running around advocating such heresy?! Why isn't Kurt a Muslim or a Mormon yet since these heretics received "fuller" revelations?!
If the Jews don't want to accept Christ that's their problem like anybody else. I tend to sense that Rome has such a guilt-trip regarding Jews that she is willing to compromise the mission of the Church. To many Roman semantic games are being played. If people do not speak the truth in all charity then discussions between the Vatican and the Jews are in vain.
I think if Rome continues to speak from the two sides of her mouth her Church will be ship-wrecked in its fullness.

Here I quote from the New York Times article another form of double talk:
"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."

Something is definitely wrong with the mindset of Dr. Navarro. There are no exceptions in what we believe about the Messiah and His Coming as Orthodox Christians but for the Vatican it grants a dispensation for the Jews. Why not for every heretical religion even the Muslims? The Muslims believe in the Messiah as the only Son of Mary. Their understanding of the Messiah is skewed and distorted. The expected Jewish Messiah was one of an earthly political nature not that of Jesus, the only Begotten Son of the Father. Dr. Navarro has not told us nothing new but said this is officially part of the new doctrine "Everything in the report is now considered part of official
church doctrine."
Adding more foreign doctrines to Rome's library of collectibles!

The article from the New York Times does not present any new revelation between Catholics & Jews. It is just matter of twisting words and phrases as to not offend Jews and to foster a stronger relationship with the Vatican.

Also the honesty of some Catholics I appreciate is read in the following:
"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.

Anyways, I look forward to some "strong" feedback.

Lance,
We as Orthodox Christians do not believe in this nonsense that there are remnants of Israel. The New Israel is the Church. If your salvation is outside the Church then you should be attending the Synagogues. We are the children of Israel who have safeguarded the revelations handed down to us by the Holy Apostles and the Saints.

I did not appreciate what you said here:
"Though Israel rejected the Savior at his first coming the promises made to them are still valid and they may still reclaim their place at the Second Coming."
By the time of the Second Coming its to late for anyone to reclaim their places. The Jews who reject and deny Christ and His role in salvation are left at the mercy of God. Conjectures at the disbelief of our Savior does not entitle anyone a reservation in the heavenly Mansions. There is no purgatory or a second chance in the grave for repentance.

I have one question for everyone who has posted on this topic so far. Have any of you actually read the document to which the New York Times and Zenith articles refer? I have found from past experience that the media is often WAY off about the content of Vatican documents. Many times, I have been pleasantly suprised when I've actually taken the time to read a Vatican document instead of just articles about the document. Furthermore, is it really possible to summarize a 200 page document about the relationship between the Old and New Testaments into a few paragraphs?
I am not going to respond to the actual debate going on here since I have not read the article myself, but please, let's base any criticism of the Vatican and Catholic Church on a reading of the actual document and not on hearsay from the liberal, secular media. We are not going to come to a greater understanding of anything by arguing about a document which no one has read.--Agape

"The One who will come will have traces of that Jesus who has already come" ? The One who will come will be Jesus completely. The same complete Jesus who died on the cross and rose again. The same complete One I will receive at Liturgy tommorrow. Jesus is completely Jesus no matter how many.When he comes again he will be exactly the same one who left. The word traces is really scary. Heretics could take the one phrase and really run with it.


Nicky's Baba