Talk:Christian–Jewish reconciliation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

---

RK, the official statements of the Roman Catholic Church come short of the conclusion that you have drawn. No theological statement on one issue can be taken in isolation from statements made on another issue, because Catholic doctrine is more or less systematic. The repudiation of "proselytism" like the affirmation that Jews are in a "saving relationship", has to be taken as double-talk: it cannot mean the same thing to both parties represented in the dialogue — that is, to the Catholic believers and to the Jewish people — because you do not have the benefit of believing the rest of what the Church teaches, and therefore you believe only part of what the Church says.

As many broad ecumenists also admit, there are elements of orthodox Christian doctrine which are inherently incompatible with the pluralist enterprise. The transformation of the Roman Catholic Church will not be complete until, along the lines of Protestant liberalism, it openly and unequivocally denies that anyone needs to be "saved". As a church, this has so far not happened. Until it does, Catholicism is still an implicitly proselytizing faith, even if the Church will not explicitly seek the conversion of Jews to Catholicism (or Evangelicals, or Muslims either, for that matter). Its challenge to Jews is built into the mere proclamation of its own identity, and it cannot be fully surrendered until that identity is surrendered. This is an ordinary exercise in logic. In order to affirm unequivocally that Jews do not need salvation, the Church must deny that anyone needs salvation: because "salvation" in the Christian sense is only part of the program of Judaism in a hidden way, and what is hidden — to the extent that it has any Christian salvific meaning at all — is nothing other than Jesus Christ.

The transformation of Catholicism into a truly non-proselytizing faith cannot happen piece-meal. The idea of salvation in the Christian sense is systematic in Catholicism, and therefore to eliminate it entirely requires radical and explicit repudiation of the Catholic faith. Until that process is completed, it will remain unclear what the Catholic Church means by its repudiation of proselytism. The Church evidently means this in some specially adapted sense. It's certainly not meant in the sense that you mean, as a non-Christian, or what I would mean as a conservative Protestant: it is a "POV", in wiki terms. It is simply not enough, to take as definitive a few liberal sentences constructed for the narrow purpose of better relations with Jews. These sentences must be interpreted in the context not of their occasional deliverances, but in the context of the abiding doctrine of the Church; for example, in the context of such statements as these:

III. CHRIST JESUS -- "MEDIATOR AND FULLNESS OF ALL REVELATION" ...

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behaviour but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.

God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth": that is, of Christ Jesus. Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:

God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.

SECTION ONE

ARTICLE 3 - SACRED SCRIPTURE

IV. The Canon of Scripture

The New Testament

'The Word of God, which is the power of God for SALVATION to everyone who has faith, is set forth and displays its power in a most wonderful way in the writings of the New Testament'[DV 17; cf. Rom 1:16 .] which hand on the ultimate truth of God's Revelation. Their central object is Jesus Christ, God's incarnate Son: his acts, teachings, Passion and glorification, and his Church's beginnings under the Spirit's guidance.

I acknowledge that, the Magisterium of the Church has been redefined by Vatican II, to consist not in the documents of the Church but in the intepretation of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, the question is legitimately raised whether there is any such thing as a "clear Catholic pronouncement" on this present issue, if the above sentences are "clear", and your bishop Fisher is also "clear". If they are both "clear", how can you claim to understand what that position is, since the combination of the two statements defies ordinary reason? When Catholics repudiate, as the liberal Protestants have done, all notions of "salvation" through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, deny that Jesus is the Messiah, the son and heir of David's throne, the Son of God, judge and only savior of all mankind, and deny the Trinity: then you can be sure of what they mean. Until then, it is not at all clear to mere mortals that the Roman Catholic Church does not seek the salvation of Jews through Jesus Christ, regardless of what a few bishops here and there might say. As even your bishop says, immediately above this reply, that kind of clarity is still "future" for the Catholic Church. Mkmcconn 10:36, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

You still think that there are only two possibilites: (A) Reject all of Christianity, or (B) Damn everyone in the world to eternally burn in Hell, unless they and convert to Christianity. This is incorrect. Catholics and many liberal Protestants have not repudiated the idea of salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, they do believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the son and heir of David's throne, the Son of God. However, they also now say that Jews are not damned to Hell, and that the Jews' covenant with God still stands, obliviating any need for them to worship Jesus. The words of these statements, as well as the many documents on the websites I listed, seem pretty clear. I agree that these documents contain some contradictory statements, but the leadership of these groups has been pretty clear on what they mean. Also, their actions speak louder than words: these Christian churches no longer proselytize Jews. It is clear that some religious Christian denominations now teach that Jews do not need to convert to Christianity; their salvation comes from their own pre-exisiting covenant with God. And they back this belief up with actions. RK 12:42, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

They have no need to target Jews for proselytization, RK. They don't target Muslims or Evangelicals either. But, you repeatedly return to the issues of hell and damnation — you can't conceptually get at the Catholic idea of salvation, by starting with hell. Catholics are not Evangelicals with taller hats. They certainly are sincere, and they certainly do back it up with actions, which I'm sure they appreciate you acknowledging. But, they continue to hold to the historical definitions of belief in Christ, including Christ's resurrection, ascension, present reign over the earth for the sake of the Church, and coming again for judgment. All I'm asking you to do, for the sake of this encyclopedia article, is to put these statements in their fuller context, so that they can be understood. That fuller context includes the idea that there is no other salvation than through Jesus Christ, but that such traditional statements are increasingly understood in an inclusive rather than an exclusive way (which even Catholics are not sure they understand, yet). Mkmcconn 13:38, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

I agree with all this; this info should be in the article. It is odd, I would admit, that Catholics "continue to hold to the historical definitions of belief in Christ, including Christ's resurrection, ascension, present reign over the earth for the sake of the Church, and coming again for judgment" yet also hold that Jews find heavenly salvation without accepting Jesus. I have read two explanations: (A) The salvation that Jesus brings is an extension of the previous covenant with Jews; Christianity is thus how the rest of the world would find salvation. (B) All salvation is through Jesus , yet even Jews ultimately come to God through Jesus. Precisely how this happens isn't explained, but then again, Christian theology doesn't explain how belief in Jesus can allow this to happen to Christians. All it says is that such salvation does happen. (Similarly, Jewish and Muslim theology doesn't explain how God brings people to Heaven; it only describes the conditions under which a person will earn an afterlife.) RK 16:06, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

As to whether the "Catholic Church" no longer teaches that Jews don't need Jesus

It is true that some hierarchs no longer believe and teach that Jews need Jesus -- but these hierarchs are not "the Catholic Church." If the Pope himself were to say that "Jews don't need Jesus in order to be saved," it still doesn't mean that "the Catholic Church no longer teaches that Jews need Jesus."

Right. Damn those fake Catholics! Ony you represent the real Catholics! Sigh....

I think what's meant here is if "the Catholic Church" was changed to "the Roman Catholic Church", the statement would be accurate, as it would not be making claims on behalf of the "traditional" Catholics, individual Catholics, Bob's Discount Catholics or whatever. -- Jim Regan 19:38, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What is very apparent in some of the edits made to the Christian-Jewish reconciliation page is that too few people are willing to study the nature of Catholic dogma and the nature of infallibility. To sum it up: A statement is infallible if it has always been taught. This is dogma and doctrine rooted in the Universal Magisterium. A statement is infallible if it is solemnly defined by the Pope himself. These solemn definitions are characterized by clarity (there is no wishy-washiness about them), intent (it is clear that the Pope intends to formally define a dogma) and the association of anathemas if one were to not accept the definition (e.g., a solemn definition would look something like this, modelled after Pope Pius XII's solemn definition on the Assumption of Mary: "By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that X, Y, Z. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.") A solemn definition cannot contradict what has always been taught (see the documents of Vatican I), but may more explicitly define.

Right! And you alone define the truth of what Catholics and Chrisitans must believe! To heck with those arrogant Chritians who differ from you! That'll show them! Good for you! Keep it up! RK

Well, they're all going to Tartarus^WHell anyway, right? I'll admit to not having read up on Catholic dogma; it's what made me give up on Catholicism in the first place, as I'd believed I was a Christian first - a lot of Catholic dogma seems incompatible with Christianity to me. Especially if it's being suggested that it's part of the faith to blame all Jews for deicide when the Gospels specifically name the temple priests. But, as Nietzsche said, "The very word 'Christianity' is a misunderstanding-—there was really only one Christian, and he died on the cross." -- Jim Regan 19:38, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Note the appeal in the above to the papal Solemn Magisterium ("by our own authority"), the clear intent ("we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma"), the clarity ("X, Y, Z), and the anathemas ("if anyone... he has fallen away..."). Anything less than these two sorts of infallible statements -- i.e., anything less than what has always been taught or solemnly defined -- is not infallible. It must be obeyed, however, unless it contradicts what has always been taught or what has been solemnly defined, or unless it harms souls or leads to sin. THAT is Catholic theology, like it or not. Just because a group of American Bishops have come up with documents marked by heresy if not outright apostasy, and even if the Holy Father himself were to do the same, Catholics know that Catholic teaching can NOT change. I, as a Catholic -- and a most faithful one at that -- resent having my edits labelled, of ALL things, "anti-Catholic" because they don't square up with what some Cardinal Kasper type character might believe or what some Jews wish "the Catholic Church" taught. I challenge any Catholic and any Jew to study these issues before going on about what "the Catholic Church" teaches.

Right on, True Catholic Man! You show them! They are committing apostasy. Thank God you are here to show us the truth! To hell with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Wikipedia is run by pseudo-Catholics, and we don't need to follow their stupid rules!  ;-) RK 20:51, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It would be anti-semitic if the Catholic Church were to teach anything less than it has: Jesus Christ died to save man. Jews are men (and women, obviously). Christ died for the Jews, too. Racism or a denial of the Truth to a people based on ethnicity has NO place in the Catholic faith. From Her beginnings, the Church has been peopled by Jews, Africans, Arabs, Greeks, Asians, and Europeans. This is the way of Christ. If certain Jews don't wish to be included in the usual definition of "humanity," then they either believe they are above orlower than humanity -- or they believe that they are humanity but noone else is. According to the Talmud, this last definition seems to be what is believed. Catholics, though, don't use the Talmudic definition, so deal. And refrain from telling Catholics (and readers of this page) what "the Catholic Church" teaches if you have no clue. -- La Minturnesa

This anti-Semitic rant is fun. I have seen similar statements about those arrogant Jews by the Nazis. Want to add some other groups in as well, or will leave it at Jew-bashing alone? RK

Stop your "Christian-baiting", please Bob. Youve violated Godwin's law more times than I can count. 戴&#30505sv 21:16, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Stevertigo's dishonest claim that I am somehow "Christian baiting" is a lie. Rather, I am writing in support of Christians having the right to be here, without being slandered as committers of apostasy or heresy. This is an NPOV encyclopedia, and not a Usenet discussion forum, where anything goes. Wikipedia has certain standards that we must follow, and raving accusations of heresy against Catholics, Protestants, Jews, etc., are not allowed. It is this new anonymous user who has written anti-Catholic diatribes, as well as anti-Semitic diatribes, and Stevertigo is shockingly encouraging him to further vandalize our articles. I am also disturbed that Martin (MyRedDice) is encouraging this vandal. RK 00:32, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Disasterously, we don't seem to have articles on Catechism of the Council of Trent (or Catechism of Trent) or Mit Brennender Sorge. I humbly suggest to La Minturnesa that it would be of considerable benefit to us to have complete, accurate, and neutral articles on these key theological topics, and I entreat him to help us in writing such articles and remedy this shocking lapse in our religious coverage.

Best of luck in your writing,
Martin 23:00, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

However, we do have an article on Papal Infallibility. Perhaps Anon could read that article and see if it needs editing, and link to it from this article where appropriate. Martin 23:24, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It is outrageous that you would encourage an enraged Catholic hater to write encyclopedia articles on Catholicism. RK 00:33, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm encouraging a Catholic to write encyclopedia articles on Catholicism. No doubt readers will be able to make their own judgement on whether this particular Catholic is either enraged, or engaged in self-hate. Martin 08:58, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

RK, it's not a matter of what "I" believe (at least not per se), it's a matter of Catholic theology, ecclesiology, and soteriology. Catholic dogma and doctrine are what they are; no amount of whining about it, no amount of "democracy" can change it. No Catholic teaching can contradict former Catholic teaching and still accurately claim to be true. X=X, NOT X is not X. It's as simple as that. You may not like it, you may find heretical or apostate priests and Cardinals who'd love to agree with you that "Jews, unlike everyone else in the world, don't need Jesus," but those are the facts.

If you want to understand Catholic teaching, I recommend you study Scholasticism and get a hold of the book "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Ludwig Ott. Read the documents of Vatican I to understand the nature and scope of papal infallibility (and while you're at it, look reallllllllllll hard to find any solemn definitions in the documents of Vatican II). You seem to be under the impression that if a certain number of Catholic theologians or hierarchs teach something that contradicts former teaching, then that is now what "the Catholic Church" teaches. But the Catholic Church is not a democracy and never will be, even if certain Vatican hierarchs -- even a consensus of them, even including the Pope himself -- wish it to be so.

The Catholic Church is not "the Pope," and is not "the Cardinals." She is the Mystical Body of Christ by virtue of being the Bride of Christ, joined to Him and made one Flesh with Him through the Sacraments (normatively) and faith, under the earthly authority of the Pontiff. Said Pontiff can sin and err just as Solomon sinned and erred through his paganism -- but his office and authority remain. The faithful obey when we are bound to obey (see Summa Theologica II-II-104), don't obey when we must not obey (ibid.), and always respect the office of the papacy because it is Christ-given. When King David played around with Bathsheba, Israel didn't say to itself, "Hmm.. adultery is now good! Adultery is now what 'Israel teaches'" When Solomon lapsed into paganism, Israel didn't follow (not the faithful Israelites, that is). Nonetheless, David and Solomon were Kings and were to be respected as such, in spite of their faults or material heresies. It is the same with the Church today.

• • Solomon's acceptance of Paganism was not a "lapse" - it was a broadening of his religious spirit, a gaining of a tolerant spirit. He was a multireligious King of Israel in his golden age... If Israel didn't follow, Israel apparently thought differently from Solomon, which is fine and dandy. Just don't let the differences escalate into violence. Rickyrab 21:03, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Catholicism is not a debate society and is not like post-Temple Judaism: we don't change our teachings in light of what this Rabbi or that teaches, nor do we have wiggle-room when it comes to dogma. There is no (real) debate as to what "the Catholic Church" teaches (though there are many with an agenda who like to believe there is and are usually quite loud about it. Many of these aren't even Catholic. Ahem.). There is no Catholic Maimonides that makes X not X; we have an earthly authority, traceable back to Pope St. Peter (a Jew, by the way) who is infallible when exercising his Solemn Magisterium and his Universal Magisterium. But there is no legal positivism involved in the Catholic religion; the Pope is as bound to Scripture and Tradition as the faithful are; he is not God, but only the Vicar of Jesus (Who is the Christ, and Who did die to save you -- all of us -- like it or not. If you ever are open to discussing Jesus, you are more than welcome to write to me at XXXlaminturnesa@Xaol.comXXX -- remove all Xs).

If you believe what the "Catholic Church" teaches to be otherwise, then produce a single infallible statement, any solemn definition, that teaches that a Pope or Council can contradict former Solemn or Universal Magisterium in any way that must be accepted as what "the Catholic Church" teaches. Just one. You won't find anything by any Church Doctor that teaches such nonsense, and I'd bet good money (if I had any LOL) that you couldn't find any such thing from the pen of even a "run of the mill Saint."

As it is, you are showing an agenda, ignorance, and/or maliciousness. I pray, and will assume, that you are writing out of simple ignorance of Catholicism (I don't mean that as an insult), but I do wish you'd stop telling the world what "the Catholic Church" teaches, in any case.

You and I seem to be in a little war here, copy-pasting our entries in a back and forth fashion that is -- well, it's boring. At the very least, perhaps you and I could write an entry together that is both factually true and not offensive to either side, if that's possible. I am willing to try. Then we both could move on to other entries (and maybe even get lives LOL)

To the writer above who recommends I write something about Mit Brennender Sorge and the Catechism of the Council of Trent, that's a great idea! It might take some time (it will probably take a lot of time LOL), but I will put it on my long list of "Things to Do" until and unless someone beats me to it. (P.S. I, 205.188.208.166, am a girl, so your pronouns are off, but that's OK. I apologize for not having signed in before, but I'm new to Wikipedia and am still getting used to the process. Hope I sign in correctly below!)

La Minturnesa

Re: "It is outrageous that you would encourage an enraged Catholic hater to write encyclopedia articles on Catholicism. RK 00:33, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)": RK, is your punctuation accurate and you are accusing me of being a Catholic who hates? Or are you accusing me of being a hater of Catholics (Catholic-hater)? If the former, would the phrase "Jewish hater" bring on cries of "antisemitism"? In the latter case, would that make me a "self-hating Catholic" -- and one who hates her mother, father, husband, and so on? I assure you, "some of my best friends" are Catholics. La Minturnesa

"Some of my best friends are blacks". "Some of my best friends are Jews". The only people who need to make these statements are those who hate Jews and blacks. Frankly, I find your previous statements grossly anti-Semitic, and your only support comes from two renegades who themselves have been censured by the Wikipedia community for their biased and mean-spirited writings on Jews and Israel. Your attempt to speak for the Catholic Church is not convincing. Believe whatever the hell you want to, but don't use this NPOV encyclopedia article to bash Catholics, or to attack Jews using 17th century stereotypes. RK

Neither Stevertigo nor myself are "renegades" and neither of us have been "censured" by anyone except RK. RK doesn't speak for the Wikipedia community. Martin 08:29, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

And you don't speak for the Catholic Church. Stop egging on this anti-Catholic "traditionalist Catholic", who keeps slandering Catholics as apostates. RK 14:33, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Okay, this is all a crock of BS. Hyperbole aside, the Catholic Church has a 2,000 year history. There were good popes, bad popes, and popes who nobody remembers. There were popes with decent attitudes toward Jews, and popes who were less than friendly. That is fact. A little serious research that puts aside hyperbole might find, for example, Pope Gregory I, a Pillar of the Church, who defended the Jews (gasp!). I quote Sicut Judaeis: "Just as Jews ought not to be allowed in their synagogues more than is decreed by law, so neither ought what the law concedes them suffer any curtailment." He also rejected forced conversions, even while supporting prosetylization out of love. As for 17th century stereotypes, lets discuss Pope Clement XIV (1769-1774--I know, it's 18th century, but the numbers fit in), who, as Cardinal Ganganelli, was so appalled by the predominance of blood libels in Poland, conducted a comprehensive study and determined that they were all false, except for Simon of Trent and Anderl von Rinn, though in The Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew (ed. Cecil Roth), one Catholic author, a Father Vacanard contends that he only accepted them because of the authorization they received from Rome at the time. Needless to say, they were both later rejected by the Church. So please, enough with the sweeping generalizations. It is shoddy scholarship that would be utterly unacceptable from a first year history student. Vatican II was good, but there were precedents. Danny 01:46, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ok, but what specific problem in the article is this paragraph in response to? This information seems like something good to add to this entry. Would you be willing to work it in somewhere? RK 14:33, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

_____

RK, simmer down now. The reason I put "some of my best friends are Catholics" in quotes is because it is a JOKE. Most of my friends ARE Catholics, and I are one myself. So chill. And take the challenge I offered. Your ad hominems and clear attempts to portray your passion as being based on "concern" about anti-Catholicism won't work. You don't even know what Catholicism IS. La Minturnesa

After your bald-faced anti-Semitic comments, I shall not calm down. I am appalled at your hatred of Catholics and Jews. RK 14:33, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)