www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Jews Don't Need Jesus?

Ok, here we go again with the Bishops of the United States. Apparently, the US Bishops are saying,

This is reported by the Boston Globe here: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/225/metro/Catholics_reject_evangelization_of_Jews+.shtml

How can the Bishops all of sudden change 2,000 years of Christian teaching? Does this mean that all of the Bishops before them were wrong? If so does this mean the Church is not Infalliable?

Will someone who is smarter than me (everyone in this forum) please explain this to me before I go off storming away blaming the US Bishops again. I will wait patiently for hopefuly Orthodox Catholic comments.

God Bless!

Hard to say from only a snippet.

It reminds me, vaguely, of some of things I have seen in Carroll's notorious book "Constantine's Sword", but really it's impossible to draw any conclusions about what the bishops may have said on the basis of a small quote from a larger document.

Brendan

I should think the point would be to tell Jews about Jesus not necessarily convert them to Catholicism/Orthodoxy. Their covenant is eternal but apparently not complete. Romans 11 teaches that the Jewish covenant is the trunk of the tree of faith, while we are only a branch grafted on. It seems we are as dependent upon their covenent as they are upon ours.

In practical terms I never shy away from talking about Jesus with my Jewish friends, nor do I avoid talking about Judaism and the Synagogue with them. Talk about Jesus and let God sort out the fine points.

Dan Lauffer

Dear Friend,

The whole idea of "converting" anyone should be truly repugnant to any Christian.

Yes, we Christians converted Jews for 2,000 years, usually at the point of a sword etc.

Was that Christian? Was that what Jesus would do?

Faith is a gift and it doesn't come by force or "converting" people.

People became Christians originally by being inwardly drawn by the Spirit.

With the coming of religious freedom in Russia, there are so many Russian Jews entering Orthodoxy that some non-Jewish Russians are beginning to get upset . . .

The Catholic Bishops only said what should have been obvious to all way before now.

Alex

Dear Ray:

It is understandable how anger and frustration can lead someone in this state to isolate complementary analysis/es for one's own purposes and completely leaving out the entire context in which it was made.

The "snippets" from the Boston Globe does not do justice to the entire news.

Please read the news item as related at:

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=28792

Keep your cool and I pray that you will eventually find peace at the end of your journey.

AmdG

Glory to Jesus Christ!

The statement put out by Cardinal Keeler was wrong as far as I am concerned. At my forum at http://YourCatholic.com I have gone off on this statement. Let me give you a few of the key points of myself & other posters there against it.

John 14:6 "Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me."

CCC 674 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. 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".

Non-Orthodox Jews are like the Protestants of Judaism (cafeteria in their beliefs), so its interesting that these American Roman Catholic Bishops are only conceding to Heterodox Jews.

The first Christians were converted from Judaism. So if its wrong to convert Jews, isn't that saying that Jesus & the apostles were wrong too?

The statement agreed upon by the U.S. Bishops committee and certain Jewish organizations is nothing short of denial of Jesus Christ for salvation and the necessity of his Church as the mediator of salvation.

Anyone who can read the bible and miss the fact that Jesus is the messiah, came for the salvation of the Jews and all mankind is missing the main point of the bible!

There are other arguments there as well, but just an idea of what Catholics are saying at my board. I can only hope that this statement is quickly squashed.

Not all of these arguments are mine, but I think all the above points are valid. But remember this statement was made by only this small group of bishops lead by Cardinal Keeler. Catholics throughout America are reacting to this statement as heard on Catholic Answers, here & at my board & as one can read at Diocese Report as well. God Bless you all.

IC XC NIKA,
-Nik!
"Come visit my website!"

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:

>>>The whole idea of "converting" anyone should be truly repugnant to any Christian.<<<

Depends on what you mean by "convert", doesn't it, Alex? The best form of proselytization is the witness of a truly Christian life, and that remains the norm, self-professed "apologists" and evangelists not withstanding. The position steadfastly taken by the Church in its first four centuries was that true belief cannot be coerced--by which standard, the Vatican II Decree on Religious Freedom marks a welcome return to the patristic roots of the Church.

>>>Yes, we Christians converted Jews for 2,000 years, usually at the point of a sword etc.<<<

I hear this a lot, but as one of Jewish origin and an historian by training, I have to say that I don't find a lot of examples of forced conversions, and I also find that in those few instances, the conversions are ruled by the cognizant hierarchs to be sinful and invalid, and the Jews so baptized not bound by that sacrament.

More common are social, political and economic pressures brought to bear on the Jews so as to make conversion an attractive proposition. It is significant that most Jews resisted such blandishments, and it should be noted that such pressures are not consistent with Church teaching in regard to the integrity of the human conscience.

The state anti-semitism of Russia and Austria in the 19th century was not really a religious movement, though it took religious trappings from time to time, and religious leaders, to their shame, exploited hatred for their own ends. Nineteenth century anti-semitism was actually a racialist and economic movement, and there was very little emphasis placed on converting the Jews to Christianity--indeed, given the racialist ideology of the movement, the stain of Jewish blood would not have been erased by baptism, so why bother?

>>>Was that Christian? Was that what Jesus would do?<<<

I seem to remember that Jesus was a Jew, as was Paul, as was Peter, and all the lads.

>>>Faith is a gift and it doesn't come by force or "converting" people.<<<

Here it is good to remember the exhortation of Francis of Assisi: Preach the Gospel at all times. Speak if you must.

>>>People became Christians originally by being inwardly drawn by the Spirit.<<<

To do that, they must hear the Evangelion proclaimed. That is our role in "conversion"--to preach the Gospel, speaking if we must. Frankly, I find most "apologists" boring (and also ill-mannered and ignorant), and they had very little to do with my own conversion, which was the result of a growing inner awareness of the presence of God in the world, and of the fundamental truth of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As for why I am a Byzantine Christian, I frankly admit that it has to do with the Divne Liturgy, where "I did not know if I was in heaven or on earth, for on earth there is no such beauty".

>>>With the coming of religious freedom in Russia, there are so many Russian Jews entering Orthodoxy that some non-Jewish Russians are beginning to get upset . . .<<<

Very upset. Let us all here pause to remember our holy Father Alexander Men, Son of Israel, martyr of the Church, killed by men who claimed to profess Christ.

>>>The Catholic Bishops only said what should have been obvious to all way before now.<<<

It's just that they're all such self-conscious and illiterate clods when it comes to expressing themselves. They write like bureaucrats, possibly because they are.

Dear Friends:

First, the "statement" was made by a SUBCOMMITTE of the Office of Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Affairs (a Committee level). It is in the form of a "consulta" i.e., not (yet) an official statment of the USCCB.

Second, it is not that the "Jews no longer need evangelization" but rather that "campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church."

Third, the "statement" does not preclude "passive" or "voluntary" conversion as opposed to "active" conversion.


AmdG


P.S. How can it be heretical?

Dear Stuart,

Yes, it does depend on what "conversion" means.

Surely you don't deny this word has a pejorative connotation today?

It certainly does in Eastern Europe where the Orthodox have been sought out for conversion for years. Bl. Basil Velichkovsky often taught his hearers never to use the term "convert" when applied to the Orthodox.

But "converting" in our common usage implies someone trying to verbally convince another of the error of his or her ways, something that happens from the outside.

True conversion to Christ is always something that happens inside.

As for forced Jewish conversions, historians are, alas, mere interpreters of history, as are all social scientists.

Yes, as a social scientist too, I include social, economic and political pressures.

In Russia, Jews were baptised into Orthodoxy to prevent discrimination against them on religious grounds. Once in the Church, they had no further problems in this regard.

Whatever bishops said against forced conversions, it was often never implemented, just as what the Popes said against antisemitism was never implemented either.

So I don't understand how what you said contrasts with what I said, except that you present more paragraphs.

I agree with you that Jesus was Jewish, along with Peter, Paul etc. How does that address what I implied about Jesus not engaging in forced conversion?

St Francis of Assisi, if my esteemed historian will recall, was noted for his OPPOSITION to the way in which Muslims and others were approached by the Christians of his day. He made friends with people first and loved them. People were converted to Jesus through experiencing Him in the person of Francis. This was language that everyone understood.

Your paragraph on hearing the Word and the Liturgy is great insight AND a seeming contradiction.

The insight is to be found in the method of preaching the Gospel by the Eastern Churches and how it contrasts with those of the West.

In the East, as you know better than I, missionaries went out and began to celebrate the Divine Liturgy among those who were most sympathetic to them. The Liturgy drew others and these received the Word of God that was communicated to them through it.

Western missionaries often had the strong arm of colonial and imperial government behind them. Mass baptisms and conversions in the Latin countries did not allow the Christian faith to take deep root. The faith was not normally allowed to inculturate itself in the local ways etc. and we know the rest of the story.

We of the East embrace God first in the Liturgy and then we think about Him by way of theology. The West seemed to do it the other way around. That is why I say you appear to be making a contradiction where, as a Byzantine Christian, none should exist for you. If I've misinterpreted you, forgive me.

O.K. they're very upset about all the Jews in Orthodoxy

I think that Jewish converts to Orthodoxy have served to bring a great hearkening back to our common Jewish roots in the faith of Abraham and the heritage of Moses and the Prophets. We no longer expect people to become Jews before they become Christians. I personally think that some familiarity with Judaism is a necessary component for a rounded out Christian life.

I agree that the Catholic Bishops sometimes state what is so painfully obvious, or should be.

But they are not illiterate, Mentor in Christ, as they DO know how to read and write .

And you yourself have fallen prey to your own criticism.

Bishops are bureaucrats? POSSIBLY?

I know you're not naive. Are you having an off day perhaps?

Alex

Dear Nik,

O.K., let me put this question to you.

An Orthodox Jew who lives his life in love for and service to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - when he dies, can he go to Heaven?

Alex

I would really like to see the whole statement, but it appears to me that Jews are very much in need of evangelization, as much as they were at the time that Christ Himself evangelized them. The statements made in the Gospel and quoted in Nik's post were made by Christ to Jews -- He seemed clearly to be saying that the exclusive way to the Father is through Him.

I doubt that there are very many targeted evangelization campaigns of any significant stripe these days (well, there's always the Russians, they're fairer game than Jews are, I guess, but that's the subject for another thread :-)), but my real worry is that this reflects the currency, in a certain segment of the Roman Catholic clerical establishment (Amado, your caveats are duly noted) of the notion that the traditional Christian perspective -- ie, that the Church is the "new covenant", completing the "old covenant", and not merely running alongside the "old covenant -- is outmoded and needs to be replaced with a sort of Christianity that is freed from the anti-Jewish polemic one finds in much of the Gospel and other NT writings, a Christianity that denies its own unicity, and specifically repudiates the notion that it is somehow a "completion" of what Christians have commonly called the "old covenant" (a term now considered offensive by many Jews, I gather). That's pretty similar to the garbage written by James Carroll in "Constantine's Sword", and it is rather shocking to see a group of Roman Catholic bishops come close to endorsing some of the views contained in that fundamentally confused, guilt-written, and deeply anti-Christian work.

In the very early church, the apostles were very much preaching and evangelizing Jews, and, as we know, the dispute between the Jerusalemite church and the Gentile churches founded by Paul provided much of the grist for the mill that eventually became the NT canon. Significantly, noone at the time said that the Jews didn't need to be evangelized. The concept of conversion was not appropriate, because the apostles saw the church as the continuation of Judaism, as its completion or fufillment. But it wasnm't viewed as "optional" or "unnecessary", and not just for non-Jews, but for Jews as well. Christ is just as necessary for the salvation of the Jews as he is for the salvation of non-Jews -- isn't that one of the key messages of NT canon?

I'm just really surprised that a group of Catholic bishops would suggest that Jews are not in need of conversion, are not in need of evangelization -- how can that be reconciled with NT christianity?

???


Brendan

Dear Brendan,

I really do think this has more to do with the "method of conversion" than with the idea of calling everyone to faith in Jesus.

May I ask you a question?

If you befriended someone who is Jewish, how would you try to bring across the message of Jesus to that person?

Have you ever faced such a situation?

I have many Jewish friends, including an agnostic Jewish uncle.

I regularly give them icons of Old Testament Saints.

They know what I think of their Messiah .

The thought would NEVER cross my mind to tell them their status before God is defective because they are not baptised Christians.

Does God not love them and accept them in their faith?

And if God should call them to faith in Jesus, as He has two of them, they know exactly who to come to for further references.

I go with Stuart, my favourite "Orthodox Jew" .

Our witness of life is what communicates the question to the hearts of those around us: "Who is Jesus of Nazareth?"

Alex

The problem is that sometimes the virtue of charity becomes a religious indifferentism.

By this I understand that they believe that all religions are the same including those religions who deny the divinity of Christ (muslims, jews) and even those who deny the existence of the true God (budhists, hindus).

Dear Remie,

I think that works both ways, too.

The New Testament scene where a town asks Jesus to leave is perhaps germane here.

Some disciples ask Jesus to rain down fire and brimstone on the people for rejecting Him.

Jesus simply tells them that they don't know what they are saying.

There are many positive values in Judaism and other religions.

Again, it is a matter of METHODOLOGY here that nees to be adapted, as Mentor Stuart said, to the praxis of the Early Church and Fathers.

It's not enough to tell people that our religion is better than theirs.

The proof is always in the pudding. Or in the fruit of the tree, as Someone said.

Alex

I don�t see anything really surprising or new in the portion of this document that has been quoted. We would really need to examine the entire document before we can comment intelligently and it is much too soon to start drawing conclusions.

Nothing in the pieces of the document quoted rejects the need for Jews to accept Christ. All this subcommittee appears to be doing is to acknowledge that the Jews are different because they already are the keepers of a covenant with God.

Looking at the excerpts in a more logical order we find that:

1. God's covenant with the Jews has never been revoked [They are "partners in a covenant of eternal love which was never revoked."]

2. "[W]hile the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God."

3. �The work of evangelization fulfills the Christian �task of bearing witness to the gifts of salvation that the Church receives through her 'new covenant' in Jesus Christ.�" That is, Jews are the only people with an old covenant that is made new in Christ.

This cannot and does not mean that this subcommittee is teaching that all religions are equal or that Jews are not in need of the salvation won by Christ. It most probably means that Jews, unlike pagans, are already people of a covenant with the God we know as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Their covenant is not a false covenant that has been done away with by the coming of the Savior but rather it is one that is fulfilled by Christ, who gives us a new covenant. There is nothing in this statement that reflects this or that somehow teaches that the old covenant is running alongside the new [although I note that we should respect that the Jews believe that the old covenant is still in effect since they do not accept the new].

Regarding the �statement saying that campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church" I would suspect that this is a condemnation of specific campaigns to convert Jews solely on the basis that they are Jews. The Church calls all people to embrace Christ because He is �the Way and the Truth and the Life�. The Church does not call people to Christ merely because they are Jews or pagans. This is certainly not the sin of religious indifferentism.

If anyone finds a link to the entire text, please post it.