Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #91  
Old Mar 6, '12, 1:27 pm
Robert Sungenis Robert Sungenis is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: February 17, 2012
Posts: 17
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Palm: Quoting a private email I sent to you, you quote me as saying: I wasn’t quite sure whether it was Rhoades [sic] or [name deleted] who was the mastermind behind this whole thing. My suspicion now is that it was [name deleted], not Bishop Rhoades. I’ve heard from someone very close to the Harrisburg diocese, who grew up with [name deleted], that he is “an evil man.” Those were his exact words. . . . Perhaps now that Rhoades [sic] is away from [name deleted], he may be more open to talk about these events and I would be more than willing to do so to clear up the issue. In fact, I think I am going to write Rhoades [sic] a letter and make some conciliatory gesture toward him based on how [name deleted] handled this whole thing. My present interpretation is that it is [name deleted] who is the real anti-supersessionist, not Bishop Rhoades. And if I am right, I will certainly apologize to Bishop Rhoades. But I need to know the truth, and that can only come from Bishop Rhoades.

R. Sungenis: This goes right to your character, Mr. Palm. I believe when I wrote that email to you it said that it was private between us and not to be disseminated in public. Obvioiulsy, you can't be trusted, and thus this conversation is over, and I will never communicate with you again.

Palm: I don't think you did contact Bishop Rhoades, Bob, because if you did you would have found out that he does not hold the views you've accused him of.

R. Sungenis: Well, thanks for your opinion, Mr. Palm, but it's wrong, as usual. We've already shown that Rhoades' letter to Forrest stated that he believed the Jews presently have a special relationship with God based on the Mosaic covenant. Since that is the case, then he does hold an erroneous view of the Jews, since neither the Magisterium, Scripture or Tradition teach such a thing.

Palm: And yet in spite those doubts about your "case", you went right ahead and re-posted your heresy charges against Bishop Rhoades. Twice now, in fact.

R. Sungenis: YOU said I called him a heretic. I did not. I said he holds a heretical view of the Jews and the Mosaic covenant, just as you do. And you helped in comfirming this for us by making a shift from the Mosaic covenant to the Abrahamic, but not realizing that the letter Rhoades wrote to Forrest shows he is still using the Mosaic covenant! Get your story straight, Mr. Palm. Goodbye.
  #92  
Old Mar 6, '12, 3:26 pm
DavidPalm DavidPalm is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Posts: 772
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Well, perhaps "Yanni" and I can continue for some time yet and I'll have a bit more to say about Bob's latest postings. Thanks as always for your patience.
  #93  
Old Mar 8, '12, 5:12 am
DavidPalm DavidPalm is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Posts: 772
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
This goes right to your character, Mr. Palm. I believe when I wrote that email to you it said that it was private between us and not to be disseminated in public. Obvioiulsy, you can't be trusted, and thus this conversation is over, and I will never communicate with you again.
Unfortunately, what can’t be trusted is your memory, Bob. Here’s what I wrote to you before you sent me the email about Bishop Rhoades:
D. Palm; "P.S. Please note that while I have no intention of publicizing this discussion, based on past experience I have to keep that option open in case it becomes necessary to defend myself or others. Also, per your request I did forward your note to Michael Forrest."
So according to your standards of "character" it's no problem that you continue to publicly slander Bishop Rhoades as a dual covenant proponent”peddling” the dual covenant “heresy” to “unsuspecting Catholics”, while failing to bring one bit of evidence to back up your charge and while privately admitting that you don’t believe it’s true anymore. The real problem is that I defended Bishop Rhoades by exposing that fact, even though I told you straight up front that I kept that option open. I just don't know what to say to this sort of thing anymore. I don't understand the moral compass that's behind this sort of behavior.

Bob, you were right years ago when you recognized in Bishop Rhoades the "[shepherd] that God has placed as [overseer] of my life ". Your descent into the fever swamps of conspiracy theories and your scandalous attacks on Bishop Rhoades do nothing but harm you and the Body of Christ. Listen to the voice of the Good Shepherd, that came to you through the voice of the earthly shepherd that God placed over you, your bishop. For the sake of those you lead astray and for the sake of your own soul, Bob, leave this garbage behind and return to the good work you did when you first returned to the Church.


[More to follow.]
  #94  
Old Mar 8, '12, 7:38 am
DavidPalm DavidPalm is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Posts: 772
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Now, to deal with a few of Bob's final criticisms before moving on:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
There he goes again…Not only are we to give unsaved and anti-Christian Jews some kind of “special relationship” with God, but the Church is “inherently Jewish”!
No, Bob. We don’t “give” Jews a special relationship with God. God gave it to them. The Church has simply acknowledged the relationship and so should we. But there’s no cause for sibling jealousy.

And of course the Church is inherently Jewish, Bob. You’re flirting with multiple heresies by denying that fact. Are you a Docetist? Jesus Christ is both true God and true man. That "true man" is a Jewish man. The head of your Church, which is His Body, was, is and forever will be a Jew. Do you deny the Real Presence? Whose Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity do you receive at Holy Communion, Bob? That of the Jewish God-man, the King of Israel, right? Who is our Mediatrix of all graces, Bob and our spiritual Mother? Miriam, the Jewess. Who will sit in judgment with the Jewish God-man? Twelve Jews, representing the twelve tribes of Israel. Who wrote your Bible, Bob? All Jews (with only one exception). Who are the "natural branches" of the Olive Tree, compared to those who are grafted in "contrary to nature"? Do you see how inherently Jewish the Church is now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
Sure. I expose the error of the US Catechism; the bishops vote 243 to 14 to remove the error; the Vatican confirms the change, yet Mr. Palm claims I’m “not reflecting what the Magisterium teaches.”
Bob, I know for a fact that others recognized the problem before you did. And they continued to stay in communication with the USCCB about it without making a spectacle of themselves. The problem is not that you oppose the dual covenant heresy. Nobody in the apologetics community has ever criticized you for that and you will never be able to show a shred of evidence to the contrary, because we all (including Bishop Rhoades) agree with you that the dual covenant theory is a heresy. The problem is with the rest of what you teach, things that make you a crude supersessionist (to use Cardinal Dulles' words)—like teaching that “the Jews are godless”, that they “have infected our Catholic Church”, that they won’t ever be restored as a people alongside us Gentiles, that there is no further unique role for them in salvation history unless it is at the service of Satan. All accented with a continuous stream of anti-Jewish propaganda gleaned from white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and Holocaust deniers. You know, those kinds of things. Those have been and continue to be the problem, Bob.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
If [David Duke] is a racist, I'm not condoning it. You don't see anything on my website that does so. What you see is Duke's information on Jewish gangsters and bankers and Zionist hegemony. Besides, what's worse? David Duke's alleged white racism or your blatant Jewish racism?
David Duke is only an “alleged” racist? That’s pretty much what you said about National Vanguard—the white supremacist group that you've used as a source of material on Jews.

I continue to find it remarkable that you don’t seem to think that David Duke's prior leadership of one the world’s most notorious racist (and anti-Semitic) groups and his continuing racist views have any bearing on his ability to speak credibly on Jewish issues. But your mere suspicion that we have Jewish ancestry has a huge bearing on our ability to speak credibly on Jewish issues in your mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
R. Sungenis: It's a canard, Mr. Palm, because you know very well I gave a conditional apology to Mr. Schoeman due to the fact that I received information about a derogatory statement he allegedly made. I also stated I would give him an unconditional apology if he would assure me, through written statement signed by him, that he did not say the statement in question. To this day he has not done so, and you have not encouraged him to do so. The only thing you do is spread slander about me claiming that I'm "lying" about about the original statement Mr. Schoeman allegdegly said and that I still accuse him of saying it!!
Bob, please allow me refresh your memory. After the president of your board of directors (Mark Wyatt) discovered what Roy Schoeman had actually written, as opposed to what you falsely attributed to him, you wrote to the young man (Steve Tolles) who gave you the bogus quote of Schoeman and you told Tolles that you believed it was fraudulent. Not only that, but you sent him some bizarre, threatening emails. Yet, in public, you completely stuck by the quote and defended Tolles. Then you even publicly suggested that Roy Schoeman had changed the quote just to hide what he had said—basically calling him a liar. Only after sustained public pressure did you eventually send an email to Schoeman in which you said he had to get an affidavit swearing that he didn’t write the bogus quote and only then you would retract and apologize for it!

Do you really not understand why Roy never responded to that “apology”, Bob? You’ve also forgotten that Tolles wrote to Ben Douglass and told him straight out that the quote of Schoeman was bogus and how it happened. Tolles gave Douglass your strange and threatening emails. And your response? Complete silence.

It was a lie, Bob. You made very public and very false charges against Roy Schoeman. But you’ve allowed it to stand because of your animus against a Jewish convert. Now you’re upset when Roy is defended publicly. Again, the whole story is right here, written by your own former vice president in defense of Roy Schoeman: Origin of Schoeman Forgery Revealed
.
  #95  
Old Mar 8, '12, 7:40 am
DavidPalm DavidPalm is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Posts: 772
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
Mr. Palm, I suggest you go back and read the OT, and when you do, stop reading it behind your Deut 7:7 rose-colored glasses. Page after page after page of the OT deals with the sins of the Jews…The NT is crystal clear that God rejected the Jewish nation because of those sins, yet He held out his merciful hand to those Jews who accepted Christ, and continues to do so. You are a racist. God is not, since he shows no respect of persons (Romans 2:9-10).
You’re studiously avoiding my point. I showed where you have described the replacement of the Old Covenant with the New as God’s punishment of Israel. It was not. It was an act of God’s mercy. And you neglected the fact that I showed, yet again, where you were completely wrong about the context of Romans 11. You’ve repeatedly said that the context of Romans 11 comes out of the destruction of the Jerusalem. That is impossible because the destruction of the Temple happened AFTER Romans 11 was written, indeed, after St. Paul was dead. So there's a fundamental error in your understanding of the context of Romans 11 and that has in turn skewed your entire theology about the relationship between God and Israel according to the flesh.

With regard to your repeated charge of "spiritual racism", let's look at a few points. First, as your own former vice president, Ben Douglass, has previously noted, you openly acknowledge that God had a "special relationship" with Israel in the Old Testament. In fact, you used those precise words.
R. Sungenis : "The reference to Israel as God's "firstborn" does not refer to being born first (Ex 4:22-23). It refers, rather, to the special relationship between God and his chosen people."
(http://web.archive.org/web/201011201...vend-heos4.htm)

Therefore, if such a "special relationship" between God and the Jewish people is "racist" now, as you charge, it was racist then. Similarly, if such a special relationship represents an immoral sort of partiality now, in violation of Rom 2:9-10, then it represents an immoral partiality then. And just a few chapters later in this same epistle, was it spiritual racism for St. Paul to state that the Jews remain the "natural branches" – literally "the branches according to nature" – and that the Gentiles are grafted into the Olive Tree "contrary to nature" (Romans 11)? Was it spiritual racism for him to teach that the Olive Tree remains the Jews’ “own tree”? Was it spiritual racism for St. Paul to teach that Jews are more easily grafted into the tree than the Gentiles?

Your complaint against the appearance of divine "favoritism", then, is fraught with problems. But it's easily solved. While God gives sufficient grace to everyone, He gives differing actual graces. If you are to be consistent, this discrepancy—or apparent "favoritism"—shouldn't be possible. Yet, God has singled out certain individuals and even entire nations (such as Saul /St. Paul and the Aztecs/Guadalupe or Fatima/Portugal-Russia) —whether under the Old or the New Covenant—for "special" treatment. However, we see no charges of "racism" or "favoritism" from you in regard to these instances. Your ire is reserved solely for the Jewish people. But if God preserves them through history as a people and chooses at some time to bestow special graces upon the Jewish people so that they might in great abundance be restored alongside the Gentiles in the Body of Christ, what is that to you, Bob? What possible ground can you have to complain about the Divine mercy?

The charge of "spiritual racism" makes for great rhetoric, but it doesn't stand up to theological scrutiny. Regardless, the fact is that even your own theology still gives witness to the fact that the Jewish people still have a special relationship with God, Bob. We invite you to read this again: Internal Contradictions in Sungenis’ Own Theology.

But to bring this full circle—again, neither Michael nor I care if you disagree with our presentation of the Church’s teaching in these areas. But we do care when you start throwing around irresponsible and unjustified charges of heresy in public—especially when it’s against a successor to the Apostles: Bishop Rhoades.

You haven’t supported your charges at all. I’ve asked you repeatedly to show us the magisterial statements that we deny or contradict and you haven’t even made an effort to do so. The same is true of your charges against Bishop Rhoades. I think you know very well that you’ve completely violated your own publicly stated standards https://sites.google.com/site/sungen...ards-of-heresy.

You have no evidence, Bob. So it’s time to publicly retract and apologize for these false charges against Bishop Rhoades and us. It’s that simple. And then simply honor the multiple promises you’ve made to stop attacking Jews. (You can see your own promises right here) Return to the kind of good, honorable work you did shortly after your reversion to the Catholic faith. If you did that, I think you’d be pleasantly surprised by the kind of response you’d receive.
  #96  
Old Mar 8, '12, 2:03 pm
DavidPalm DavidPalm is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Posts: 772
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

"Yanni",

I don't know for certain who you are—that's why I didn't come out and accuse you. Some very interesting "coincidences" remain, nonetheless. Whoever you are it's plain that you know Bob well enough that he promptly came out to defend and support you. I've known Bob long enough to know that he doesn't do that for just anyone. He rarely ventures onto Internet venues where he doesn't have a lot of support. It's also plain that the comments you initially made about our article came from reading Bob's material. In fact, when I pointed that out, you didn't deny it and Bob suddenly came out of the woodwork. And now he's even fielding questions that were directed to you. That's something considering the fact that he won't answer an apologetic question on his website unless you pay him $4 first. And I find it highly unlikely that it's a mere coincidence that you and Mark Wyatt, both collaborators with Bob, just happened to pick the very same on-line moniker "truthseeker" independently of each other. But hey, I suppose stranger things have happened

Yet, your identity is just an interesting question, "Yanni." I don't care if you use a pseudonym. What I mostly care about is the blatant double standards I illustrated. You ignored my entire first post and the questions I ended with in the second. You ignored the plain heresy right in front of your face on this thread--that Jesus was not the Messiah for the Jews--and instead only felt compelled to come out of the woodwork in order to warn people about how dangerous our article supposedly is, even though we're both on the same side, in opposition to that heresy. In fact, you've now admitted that you were wrong to assert that we held a heresy ourselves, but you're still more concerned about our article than the true heresies right in front of you. And you're apparently not the least bit concerned about the plainly offensive and objectionable material put out by your friend, Bob Sungenis, either. That’s telling.

Please go back and read this post.

Please note again the questions I ended with. Will you answer those, or are you content to let your friend Bob Sungenis answer for you?

I'd like your own answer on all of them, but by far the most salient is this one: Do you believe that the kind of material presented by Bob and the sources behind them represent the sort of balance you are seeking and are rightly viewed as an effective way to reach the Jewish people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by YanniP View Post
To say the “tree” in this analogy is Christ is completely consistent with Church teaching. The tree and roots have specifically been referenced as the Church, which is consistent with the Fathers teaching that the tree is rooted in the patriarchs. Do you see the consistent thread here to this position? Why is it that the tree is rooted in the Patriarchs? Let's find out.

Pope Pius X proclaimed it in his encyclical Iucunda Sane: etc.
Yes, of course "Yanni". What makes you think we would disagree?

Ever since 2006 we’ve been taking the “both/and” approach. We've been completely consistent on this. Once again, it’s Bob Sungenis who has taken the absolute either/or approach, condemning people with whom he disagrees. Here's what Michael documented back in September, 2006:
Sungenis: “This is certainly a novel interpretation. Unfortunately for Moss, it totally distorts the words of Romans 11:17-20… Moss believes that the “root” of Romans 11 is Israel, not Christ, and that as the Gentiles are saved as they are grafted into Israel. This is wrong. The root is Christ, not Israel.
Notice that it is Bob who is insisting that the view that Israel is the Olive Tree is a "novel interpretation" and that it is "wrong" to say that the root is Israel. (Do please note that David Moss never implied, let alone stated, that the root is “not Christ”) That's why it was important to point out that, in the very context of the citations from the same Fathers he cited, those Fathers made clear that they interpreted the tree as Israel.

As Ben Douglass, Bob’s former vice-president, said to him while Ben was still helping Bob at CAI:
St. Augustine read the root of Romans 11 as Israel, and he says so in the immediate vicinity of the passages you quoted to argue that the root is Christ and not Israel. Again, you're lobbing softballs at your critics, and it's a good thing I caught this before they did. There could hardly be a clearer illustration of Forrest's thesis that your use of the Fathers is highly tendentious when the subject is Jews and Israel (emphasis mine).
This was a few months before CASB2 was released. Yet, Sungenis allowed the book to go to print without correcting this obvious error and it remains in his published work.

Similarly, Bob quotes a passage from St. John Chrysostom in which he applies the metaphor of an olive tree to the Church, but ignores the passage in which this Doctor of the Church actually interprets Romans 11:17ff. There he interprets the olive tree not as Christ but as "Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, the prophets, the patriarchs, all who were of note in the Old Testament". Michael Forrest brought this to Bob's attention in September of 2006, but Bob refused to change CASB2 to reflect this fact. See complete documentation in "The Theology of Prejudice: The Olive Tree or 'Root' of Romans 11"

To summarize: we have always acknowledged the validity of the various interpretations of the Olive Tree of Romans 11 – they are complementary and not contradictory (see: http://www.sungenisandthejews.com/uploads/ROOT-LINK.doc). It is Bob Sungenis who has created the false dichotomy, suppressing the evidence on this matter to fit his theology of prejudice.
  #97  
Old Mar 8, '12, 2:07 pm
DavidPalm DavidPalm is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Posts: 772
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Quote:
Originally Posted by YanniP View Post
Finally, as for your complaint that in interpreting Romans 11 you cannot seperate "Israel" into two groups, isn't Augustine saying exactly the contrary?
What I stated is that there are "exegetical difficulties" associated with that approach (post #76). Then I documented that the Magisterium of the Church does not separate Israel into two separate groups in its use of Rom 11:28-29 and I supported the Church's teaching exegetically and gave other support from both popes and respected Catholic scholars.

Remember, when St. Augustine wrote, the Church had obviously not yet produced the magisterial documents I cited. As such, he was not contradicting the Church. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for Bob's writings. And also unlike Bob, St. Augustine readily acknowledged that his private interpretations could be wrong and are not the official teaching of the Church:
In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush headlong and so firmly take a stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture (The Literal Meaning of Genesis 1.18).
Here are a few other salient facts:

Bob has contradicted himself on this passage right here in this thread. He has said that "there is a smaller group of elect Jews who are beloved of God" but he has also stated that "the Jews, at large, are beloved". So, depending on which Bob one wants to quote, he also disagrees with St. Augustine's exegesis.

Contrary to Bob, St. Augustine expected a future significant conversion of the Jews. See citations in Compilation on the Conversion of the Jews.

More importantly, in his CASB3 volume on Romans, Bob accused St. Augustine of "exegetical duplicity" involving his treatment of Jewish issues, because St. Augustine’s exegesis supported the traditional Catholic teaching about a future special conversion of the Jews. Here is Bob's remarkable accusation against this Doctor of the Church:
As a result of this exegetical duplicity, Augustine and his followers subsequently produced many forced interpretations of Ap 11:5-8 and Rm 11:25-26 to make room for both a Jewish conversion and a Jewish evangelism to the Gentiles (CASB3, p. 454).
Just so we're clear on definitions, "duplicity" is defined as "deception; double-dealing".

So you and we acknowledge that St. Augustine was indeed a wise man – certainly wise enough, we believe, to humble himself in the face of the application of a passage of Scripture by the Magisterium that may differ from his own. Bob, on the other hand, considers the saint to be duplicitous, at least if he writes anything positive about Jews.

Candidly, “Yanni”, you seem more balanced about these matters than Bob. I don’t think we disagree on much. I do wonder if you don't too lightly dismiss the ramifications of the Catholic teaching on a future special conversion of the Jewish people to Christ and perhaps that's something we should discuss. But the only place in which you seem to be noticeably out of balance is in regard to your determination to try to find or manufacture something wrong with what Michael and I believe and have written on this issue. It seems that the material you’ve read from your friend Bob about us has created an impression in search of a justification. Again, it would also be helpful if you would look a bit more closely at what your friend has written about Jews and decide if you genuinely want to stand behind it.
  #98  
Old Mar 9, '12, 10:59 am
YanniP YanniP is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: February 8, 2012
Posts: 18
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Mr. Palm:

You are persistent, I’ll give you that. I’ll save your first question for last, but address your other points in seriatim:

Condemning the real heresy: In a dual covenant discussion, the ambiguities in your article are unhelpful and may lead readers to heretical conclusions. That has been my point all along. Your article supports the exact racial pride that was the basis for the breaking of the covenant. So my warning still remains justified.

The Olive Tree: The only magisterial statement I have seen directed to this specific analogy, is the one I quoted above from Pope Pius X. The Roots of the tree is the Church. End of story. The portion of the Roman Catechism section cited by Mr. Forrest in his short piece on the Olive Tree stated: “On that land the ancient olive tree grows whose holy roots were the prophets”. But let’s read that entire section 755:

"The Church is a cultivated field, the tillage of God. On that land the ancient olive tree grows whose holy roots were the prophets and in which the reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles has been brought about and will be brought about again. That land, like a choice vineyard, has been planted by the heavenly cultivator. Yet the true vine is Christ who gives life and fruitfulness to the branches, that is, to us, who through the Church remain in Christ, without whom we can do nothing.”

You can see why Pope Pius X was clear to define the Roots as the Church, and why the Catechism was clear in its use of the analogy not to limit the interpretation to the Prophets. In fact, it clarified that the olive tree analogy in Romans 11 was Christ, just as in the vine analogy used elsewhere! In order to call the tree or roots Israel, you would have to do as Augustine did and clarify the separation from those claiming to be Israel who don’t belong:

For thus do they become of the house of Israel, when their uncircumcision is accounted circumcision, by the fact that they do not exhibit the righteousness of the law by the excision of the flesh, but keep it by the charity of the heart. If, says he, the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? Romans 2:26 And therefore in the house of the true Israel, in which is no guile, they are partakers of the new testament, since God puts His laws into their mind, and writes them in their hearts with his own finger, the Holy Ghost, by whom is shed abroad in them the love Romans 5:5 which is the fulfilling of the law. Romans 13:10” Spirit of the Letter, 46

This separation is necessary to eliminate the possible interpretation that we are engrafted into a racial group or a temporal nation.

As we see just right before and after the section in the CCC cited by Mr. Forrest, the continuity of the Church, and of Christ, is clearly explained, and it is that continuity which your ambiguities eviscerate. As I’ve argued before, to which you have not responded, the “Church” has usurped the Chosen, and therefore there is no group presently chosen outside of the Church. Suggesting otherwise, is suggesting love and election outside of Christ. See, as the catechism states, the old Chosen has deceased(interesting theme, as it’s used for the Old Covenant also), and the official Church of Christ becomes the “heir”. There is no “heir” unless there is a death:

751 The word "Church" (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to "call out of") means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose.139 Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people.140 By calling itself "Church," the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is "calling together" his people from all the ends of the earth. The equivalent Greek term Kyriake, from which the English word Church and the German Kirche are derived, means "what belongs to the Lord."

Yes, the Church, the True Israel, or Chosen if you will, existed throughout the beginning of time: “The gathering together of the People of God began at the moment when sin destroyed the communion of men with God, and that of men among themselves. The gathering together of the Church is, as it were, God's reaction to the chaos provoked by sin.” CCC 761

This history of the Church reveals more:

“The remote preparation for this gathering together of the People of God begins when he calls Abraham and promises that he will become the father of a great people.157 Its immediate preparation begins with Israel's election as the People of God. By this election, Israel is to be the sign of the future gathering of all nations.158 But the prophets accuse Israel of breaking the covenant and behaving like a prostitute. They announce a new and eternal covenant. "Christ instituted this New Covenant." CCC 762
  #99  
Old Mar 9, '12, 11:02 am
YanniP YanniP is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: February 8, 2012
Posts: 18
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Therefore, the people founded by the patriarchs, is the Church itself. Abraham, the patriarchs, and Israel, refer to the “True Israel”, the group of those who see God. Disconnecting these groups is the substance of your misconception regarding the revocation of the Mosaic Covenant. The thread has always been the same, and your attempt to carve out “Israel” without properly identifying it, creates that ambiguity I have been decrying.

This is exactly why Augustine calls your position “utterly foolish”. In fact, you disparage Mr. Sungenis for saying: “You claim that I say “Rom 11:28 that you say only applies to Jews who have accepted Christ.” No I don’t. I said that the Jews, at large, are “beloved,” but only because they are given a chance to become saved, to become “the elect.”” But, that is the exact dichotomy that Augustine made in On the Predestination of the Saints, Book I, 33, and that St. Paul in Romans 9!


Now quickly to your first point. I have not viewed every video on Mr. Sungenis’ website, but quickly looking at them, I again don’t see any that claim to represent official Church teaching. They are political and cultural commentaries. Yes, at first some appear controversial, but looking at one at your instigation has actually enlightened me. I was not aware of the rampant underreporting of Palestinian deaths from our media. Since 2000, 1463 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis while 124 Israeli Children have been killed by Palestinians. Altogether horrendous, but that ratio is not what I have been told by our media. This is from ifamericansknew.org. I do not see the hateful, racist propaganda that you are trying to paint him with.

As for the premise of that type of website, you can contest the veracity of a news item, but identifying the attacks on our culture (Christian culture) is crucial to our faith.

All men, without the Spirit, will eventually crepe into immorality. Those rejecters of Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, have laid waste to our culture. So calling sin sin, and exposing Godless activities is not only our duty, but also charitable to those who are living in deceit. It is a call of mercy. That is exactly what the Law of the OT did, it prepared men’s minds for Christ by keeping alive a consciousness of sin – and a yearning for salvation.

I’m not about to read reams of your personal attacks. I have seen enough here, and on the Bellarmine Report website to understand that you are acting irrationally. Nothing I say will comfort you, just as you see no problem with the ambiguities in your article.

I am afraid this conversation has concluded and I will leave you again with Augustine’s words:
"For are those enemies who perished in their enmity and those of the same people who still perish in their opposition to Christ—are those chosen and beloved? Away with the thought! Who is so utterly foolish as to say this?"
  #100  
Old Mar 12, '12, 10:50 am
DavidPalm DavidPalm is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Posts: 772
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

“Yanni” you wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by YanniP View Post
Condemning the real heresy: In a dual covenant discussion, the ambiguities in your article are unhelpful and may lead readers to heretical conclusions.
Listen, you’re obviously trying very hard to be a good and loyal Sungenis follower. I understand that—to a point. But there’s a limit and you’ve long since crossed it. You joined the CAF in order to take a shot at us because we’ve been strongly critical of the views of a person you look up to and follow. Then you back-pedaled when I called you on your complete mischaracterization of what we wrote. But now you’re trying to divert attention away from Bob’s plain errors and bigotry by straining to manufacture something, anything to accuse us of—even when it means ignoring, distorting, or denying what the Magisterium has taught. You’re straining at gnats while swallowing the camel whole.

Although I’ve supported what I’ve presented with sound magisterial evidence, you “find” alleged heresies not in our actual words but, one might say, in the penumbras and emanations of our article, i.e., in your imagination. We’ve repeatedly condemned the dual covenant error as a heresy. So any “heretical conclusions” you imagine our article could lead to must be something other than that. Most telling, neither you nor Sungenis have been able to tell us what these other “heretical conclusions” might be and haven’t offered one shred of magisterial evidence to support your contentions. The silence has been deafening.

On the other hand, several obvious errors that Bob makes have been exposed here and you ignore them:

Bob believes and teaches (even in his CASB series) that the context of Rom 11 is the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. This is impossible since Romans was written and St. Paul even died before the destruction of Jerusalem. So Bob is completely wrong. Your response? Crickets.

Bob believes and teaches that the replacement of the Old Covenant with the New Covenant was a punishment against the Jews. But the truth is that the replacement of the Old Covenant with the New Covenant was an act of God’s great mercy because the Old Covenant couldn’t save, it couldn’t change hearts. Again, Bob is flatly wrong. Your response? Crickets again.

Bob believes and teaches that, according to Romans 11:28, the Jewish people “at large” are beloved for the sake of the fathers of Israel—except when he’s contradicting himself by saying that only a smaller subset of Jews are beloved according the very same passage (his latter opinion itself being in contradiction to multiple magisterial statements). Your response to that? More crickets.

From these broad, contextual errors flow his more specific errors:

1) His campaign to deny that the Jewish people will be restored to their own tree alongside Gentiles (against overwhelming patristic and magisterial evidence to the contrary here)

2) His insistence on employing a pejorative term the Church has never used, “supersessionism” , as an absolute litmus test of orthodoxy (see here and here here)

3) His insistence on a term (“revoked”), never used by the Church, that incorrectly implies that the replacement of the Mosaic Covenant with the New Covenant in Christ was a punishment of the Jewish people, to describe the status of the Mosaic covenant (explained here and here)

4) His insistence that the Olive Tree can not be Israel (refuted here)

5) His angry denial of the inherent Jewishness of the Church (which can easily lead to heretical conclusions, see here), etc.

So why not show that you are no respecter of persons, “Yanni”? Stop worrying about imagined ambiguities in our article and start making an effort to correct your friend Bob’s actual, documented errors—at least some of which do naturally lead to heresy. That's what a real friend would do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YanniP View Post
Your article supports the exact racial pride that was the basis for the breaking of the covenant.
That’s odd. I remember Scripture and the Church teaching that Israel according to the flesh often violated the covenant because of their stubbornness and hard heartedness. But I don’t remember either Scripture or the Church stating, “racial pride…was the basis for the breaking of the covenant.” Speaking of doctrinal novelties….

I assume that your next mission is to warn the Vatican to excise Rom 11:17-24 from the Bible? This passage describes unbaptized Jews as being “branches according to nature” from the Olive Tree even in their separated state and describes baptized Gentiles as being grafted in “contrary to nature.” It even tells unbaptized Jews that the tree is “their own” and that they will be more easily grafted back onto it than Gentiles! According to your standards that’s a bald-faced appeal to racial pride. This passage must have been added by Jews at a later date.

Personally, I see no reason why Jews shouldn’t feel proud of their heritage. Yes, they have their full share of sinners like everyone else. But is there another group that can claim one of its own as the God-man, the Savior of the world? Is there another that can claim "our tainted nature's solitary boast", our dear Mother Mary, as one of its own?
  #101  
Old Mar 12, '12, 10:50 am
DavidPalm DavidPalm is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Posts: 772
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

As J.R.R. Tolkien once retorted when he was asked by a German publisher to give proof of his Aryan (read: non-Jewish) ancestry:
I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people…I have been accustomed, nonetheless, to regard my German name with pride…I cannot, however, forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride.” http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/03...at-gifted.html
Considering Bob’s persistent fixation on whether Michael, Jacob, Jared Olar, or I have Jewish ancestry, perhaps he and Tolkien’s German publishers have something in common in this particular area?

Quote:
Originally Posted by YanniP View Post
The Olive Tree: The only magisterial statement I have seen directed to this specific analogy, is the one I quoted above from Pope Pius X. The Roots of the tree is the Church. End of story.
I guess you can’t take “yes” for an answer, “Yanni.” Again, we don’t disagree.

You cite St. Pius X on the root of the Olive Tree and declare that’s the “end of story”. We cite 510 fathers of Vatican I, two passages from an Ecumenical Council, and two Popes on the interpretation of Rom 11:28-9 and that settles nothing for you.

But if you look at the full context of your quote from St. Pius X, there’s no indication that by identifying the root with the Church the Pope intended thereby to prohibit and exclude the other common, patristic interpretations. This is precisely why Pope Benedict XVI can speak of the Olive Tree as “Israel” and the Catechism can state that the roots of the Olive Tree are “the prophets”. Depending upon one’s vantage point, the root can be seen as Christ, the Church, Israel, or the Patriarchs of Israel. (Just as, for example, the Rock of Matt 16:18 can be seen as St. Peter himself, his confession, and his faith.) These are all complementary interpretations, not contradictory ones. Even in the passage of the Catechism you cited (#755), this complementarity is plainly evident.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YanniP View Post
As I’ve argued before, to which you have not responded, the “Church” has usurped the Chosen...
Your choice of the word “usurped” here is even more theologically problematic than Bob’s insistence on the word “revoked” to describe the status of the Old Covenant, Yanni. The definition of “usurp” is: “take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force

The Church did no such thing and you deeply insult and impugn her by making the claim. The Church is the completely legitimate and organic continuation of Israel in the fullest sense of the term. God Himself, in the Person of the Jewish Messiah, the King of Israel, peacefully and willingly turned leadership over to twelve Jews (who will later sit with him in judgment), with a Jew named Kepha leading them, and with a Jewess named Miriam as spiritual mother and Mediatrix of all graces. Where is the “usurping” here? Again, it seems that you’ve swallowed Bob’s erroneous theology of punishment and discontinuity.

And we’ve stated very clearly and emphatically, “it bears repeating that we have never said that Jews are “the Chosen People”, as if Israel according to the flesh is still God’s official representative on earth. That distinction now belongs solely to the Church, the New Israel (which is composed of both baptized Jews and baptized Gentiles).” http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....3&postcount=76

But the Church has also made plain that unbaptized Jews, as a group, remain dear to God for the sake of the fathers of Israel. Fathers, Doctors, and the Magisterium teach that they will one day receive greater graces, so as to turn in great number to Christ. And as the present Holy Father has stated, even their “standing at the door” fulfills a special mission until the time at which they will be restored as a people into their own tree, alongside their Gentile brethren. But this mission is no longer to be His official representative on earth. Jews need Christ and the Church just like everyone else. When they are baptized, they are coming home in a unique way—returning to their own tree, as natural branches, unlike the Gentiles who are grafted in “contrary to nature” as St. Paul says.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YanniP View Post
I have not viewed every video on Mr. Sungenis’ website, but quickly looking at them, I again don’t see any that claim to represent official Church teaching. They are political and cultural commentaries. Yes, at first some appear controversial, but looking at one at your instigation has actually enlightened me. I do not see the hateful, racist propaganda that you are trying to paint him with…I’m not about to read reams of your personal attacks.
1) The link I provided was to Bob’s own statements about Jews. The attacks made are by Bob against Jews and Bishop Rhoades. Take a close look at them. Here’s the link again.

2) Bob has repeatedly promised to stop pushing political and cultural commentaries on Jews. And he has repeatedly broken those promises. So either he never intended to keep them, or he’s unable to. That’s a serious problem either way. Sungenis’ Broken Promises to Stop Attacking Jews.

3) I didn’t say that he presented his new material as magisterial teaching. But his attacks on Jews give a clear testimony to how Bob believes Jews should be viewed. You're concerned with the balance in our article, but you don’t see any problem with the balance on his website in relation to Jewish issues. If you don’t see a problem there, I can’t help you.
  #102  
Old Mar 12, '12, 10:52 am
DavidPalm DavidPalm is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Posts: 772
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Quote:
Originally Posted by YanniP View Post
This is exactly why Augustine calls your position “utterly foolish”…. I will leave you again with Augustine’s words: "For are those enemies who perished in their enmity and those of the same people who still perish in their opposition to Christ—are those chosen and beloved? Away with the thought! Who is so utterly foolish as to say this?"
And I agree with you that if “election” in this verse meant election unto salvation then it would indeed be “utterly foolish”. But the context and details of St. Paul’s argument much better fit the view—supported by the vast majority of Catholic exegetes and the repeated application of this verse by the Magisterium—that the choosing of the Jews as a people is in view. The fracturing of this verse into two totally different groups of Jews is alien to the context and exegetically problematic. As the renowned exegete Fr. Fernand Prat, S. J. noted,
The text in its entirety and in its details could not be clearer, and we see how it would be so obscured as to be unintelligible if theological notions foreign to the subject were mixed up with it; for example, by taking "election" in the concrete sense, as referring to those "elected to celestial glory" (St Augustine)." (The Theology of St. Paul, vol. 2, p.216n3)
I certainly will not accuse St. Augustine of “exegetical duplicity” as Bob has done. Rather, I believe the saint was more than wise and humble enough to recognize alternative interpretations that are exegetically superior, especially when those interpretations have the repeated backing of the Magisterium.

And of course, St. Augustine fully believed in a future special conversion of the Jews (see here). It’s a shame that we couldn’t explore this doctrine more fully, for here is yet another very clear indication—firmly grounded in the Fathers, Doctors, and Magisterium and therefore no novelty—that Israel according to the flesh is the recipient of unique and special promises by God in the New Covenant era.

Now, to bring this full circle once again:

The reason this matters, why it’s important to delve into these things in such detail, is because I’ve seen firsthand the corrosive effect this kind of dark and paranoid conspiratorial mindset—whether about Jews or geocentrism or whatever—can have on the faith of ordinary Catholics. As we have seen very clearly here in this thread, Bob’s private theological views on Jews and Judaism do not comport with the teaching of the Church. But he built up a reputation early on with some legitimately good work and now Catholics who don’t know where he’s gone can get led into the quagmire with him.

And I care also about the numerous people that Bob continues to publicly attack—I believe it’s a matter of justice that they are defended, just as publicly.

Hey, neither Michael nor I care if you or Bob disagree with our presentation of the Church’s teaching in these areas. But we do care when you start throwing around irresponsible and unjustified charges of heresy in public—especially when Bob does so against a successor to the Apostles, Bishop Rhoades. Bob has a serious problem grasping the limits of his authority. Put simply, he doesn’t have any; he’s a simple layman with no more authority than anybody else.

As he has no evidence or any particular authority, it’s long past time for Bob to publicly retract and apologize for his false charges against Bishop Rhoades especially and others such as Roy Schoeman and us. It’s that simple. He has a particular moral duty to do so in regard to Bishop Rhoades because Bob has privately admitted that he believes his accusations against His Excellency were incorrect. And then he needs to honor the multiple promises he’s made to stop attacking Jews.

This is just common, Catholic decency and sense. I think people would be happy to see Bob climb out of the fever swamps of conspiracy theories and anti-Jewish campaigns and return to the kind of good work he’s capable of. It would certainly do him good as well.

I will leave you with words of Pope Pius XI:
Mark well that in the Catholic Mass, Abraham is our Patriarch and forefather. Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the lofty thought which that fact expresses. It is a movement with which we Christians can have nothing to do. No, no, I say to you it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we are all Semites.
Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
6657CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: tawny
6282Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
5224Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
4631Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4336Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
4055OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: Fischli
3295For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: GLam8833
3261Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Herculees
2831Let's Empty Purgatory 2
Last by: Jeannie52
2449SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 3:43 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.