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
  #31  
Old Feb 21, '12, 6:30 am
YanniP YanniP is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: February 8, 2012
Posts: 18
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Now let’s look at our foundational disagreement. In summary, you are trying to pull forward the natural law basis, and universal promise to all men through Abraham, from the Mosaic Covenant. In effect, you are stating that what was eternal or irrevocable comes from the Mosaic Covenant itself. That is akin to claiming that the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness derive from our bill of rights. The taskmaster, intended to prepare for Christ and keep the acknowledgment of sin on the lips of Israel, was to be annulled. The underlying natural law, or the OT religious content as Heinish and Heidt call it, does not derive from the Mosaic Covenant itself – it preexisted. So, the Mosaic Covenant can be killed, buried and revoked, yet the underlying “religious content” be fulfilled. But it has nothing to do with the proclamation of the shadow of truth, or of law, contained in the Mosaic Covenant. It was Christ from the beginning. This is much different than your both/and position.

Your ambiguity misleads people to believe that there is a current chosen race outside of the Church and outside of Christ, even with your disclaiming pronouncements. That is the evil of ambiguity.

If you read the below, understanding that the law was a glimpse of Christ that preexisted, maybe it might enlighten you:

"Christ is the centre of the economy of salvation, the recapitulation of the Old and New Testaments, of the promises of the Law and of their fulfilment in the Gospel; he is the living and eternal link between the Old and the New Covenants. Commenting on Paul's statement that "Christ is the end of the law" (Rom 10:4), Saint Ambrose writes: "end not in the sense of a deficiency, but in the sense of the fullness of the Law: a fullness which is achieved in Christ ("plenitudo legis in Christo est"), since he came not to abolish the Law but to bring it to fulfilment. In the same way that there is an Old Testament, but all truth is in the New Testament, so it is for the Law: what was given through Moses is a figure of the true law. Therefore, the Mosaic Law is an image of the truth". Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor.

Instead of replying to my comment, I believe it would be most helpful if you answered Mr. Sungenis’ questions. I do believe they will help narrow down your positions, correct any disagreement you may have with the above post and clarify the ambiguities.

I’m hopeful we can come to more common ground, and again, thank you for discussing this very important issue.
  #32  
Old Feb 22, '12, 11:00 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,

I read your post and some clarifications are needed regarding your whole approach to what we’ve written. You said,

Quote:
Originally Posted by YanniP View Post
The real debate is centered on what remains of the Mosaic Covenant.
In light of Bob’s questions that seems to be his supposition as well. I’d suggest that you're looking at this issue through "Bob-colored glasses". Bob sees everything through his extreme focus on the Mosaic Covenant being "revoked" and so he's just overly suspicious, as you appear to be. His fixation on this precise word is odd because, to the best of my knowledge, he’s been unable to produce a single example where Scripture, the Fathers or the Magisterium has ever used it to describe the status of the Mosaic Covenant. And he [i]has</i?> been asked to do so: http://liveweb.archive.org/http://be...filled-part-2/ How odd, then, to go so far as to name his definitive work on the topic, “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked”, don’t you think?

You said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by YanniP View Post
I believe I understand your positions more clearly. I do see that we are saying much of the same thing, but you insinuate and imply much more.
I hope you understand our positions “more” than you did originally, but you don’t understand them clearly yet. What’s clear is that you didn’t read very carefully. For example, at the beginning of your last post, you cited Mystici Corporis as though this was something we hadn’t considered. The problem is that we did quote at length from Mystici Corporis 29 (see below).

In fact, when I looked over “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked”, I noticed that he includes a supposedly comprehensive list of scriptural, patristic and magisterial evidence proving that the dual covenant theory is false. Notice anything?

Sungenis cites:
Hebrews 7:18, 8:7, 10:9

2 Cor 3:14

Col 2:14

Mystici Corporis 29

The Catechism of the Council of Trent

The Council of Florence

Cardinal Ratzinger (Many Religions, One Covenant)

St. John Chrysostom (Homily on Galatians, Ch 3)

St. Augustine (Letters 74,4)

Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 11)

And what do we cite in “All in the Family”?
Gal 2:21

Col 2:14

Hebrews 7:18

Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 11)

Tertullian (An Answer to the Jews, Ch. 3)

St. Augustine (Letter 75, 4 – Bob had a citation error)

The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (#42)

Redemptoris Mater (fn. #2)

Mystici Corporis 29

The Council of Florence

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Many Religions, One Covenant, p. 63)

http://www.cuf.org/laywitness/LWonli...forrestapp.asp
We cited almost all of the sources that he did and a few others to boot. So, we’re at least as well researched on this point as your trusted source, Bob Sungenis. And we obviously agree with these statements because we cited them ourselves! So exactly how is it that we’re supposedly ignoring or skirting the teaching of the Church on this issue?

Further, as you seem to have missed them somehow, I’ve listed some of the statements from our articles involving words like “abolish”, “supersede” and “abrogate’ in relation to the Mosaic Covenant:

The following are all from “All in the Family”:
"the New Covenant in Christ superseded the Mosaic covenant (which is true)"
St. Justin Martyr states in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 'We do not trust through Moses or through the law' . . . because there is 'a final law, and a covenant, the chiefest of all, which it is now incumbent on all men to observe,' and 'law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one.'
We cited Hebrews 7:18:
Hebrews 7:18: “On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect).”
We quoted Mystici Corporis:
“And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; . . . but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross.” (no. 29)
We even cited the Council of Florence:
[The council] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments . . . although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming . . . ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally.
We quoted St. Augustine:
Instead of the grace of the law which has passed away, we have received the grace of the gospel which is abiding; and instead of the shadows and types of the old dispensation, the truth has come by Jesus Christ. (Letters, 75, 4)
We quoted the PBC document "The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (2001)"
Those institutions are now abrogated to make way for the sacrifice and priesthood of Christ (Heb 7:18–19; 10:9). For Christ has overcome all obstacles by his redemptive obedience (Heb 5:8–9; 10:9–10), and has opened access to God for all believers (Heb 4:14–16; 10:19–22). In this way, the covenant announced and prefigured in the Old Testament is fulfilled. (no. 42)
  #33  
Old Feb 22, '12, 11:01 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?

We quoted Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Dulles:
God, according to the Prophet, will replace the broken Sinai covenant with a New Covenant that cannot be broken . . . . The conditional covenant, which depended on man’s faithful observance of the Law, is replaced by the unconditional covenant in which God binds himself irrevocably.” (Many Religions, One Covenant, p. 63)
Avery Cardinal Dulles also echoed this view in 'The Covenant with Israel': We may say that the Old Covenant is in a sense abolished while being at the same time fulfilled. The law of Christ gives a definitive interpretation to the Torah of Moses.
And last:
Pope Benedict XVI wrote: . . . Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded.
Again, all of these statements appear in “All in the Family” (www.cuf.org/Laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrest.asp). How did you miss them?

Now, rather than being convinced that we “insinuate and imply much more”, “Yanni”, you might consider another possibility: you're reading your own undue suspicions and the suspicions you've picked up from Bob Sungenis into what we've written.

You made more assertions in this same vein:

Quote:
Originally Posted by YanniP View Post
It is this “religious content” that you believe exists from the Mosaic Covenant even though abrogated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YanniP View Post
Now let’s look at our foundational disagreement. In summary, you are trying to pull forward the natural law basis, and universal promise to all men through Abraham, from the Mosaic Covenant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YanniP View Post
The underlying natural law, or the OT religious content as Heinish and Heidt call it, does not derive from the Mosaic Covenant itself – it preexisted.
And most blatant of all:

Quote:
Originally Posted by YanniP View Post
Your play on “chosen”, “special relationship”, being in the family “in a certain sense”, all attempt to placate a very well known and active heresy.
I see. It doesn’t matter that we’ve explicitly rejected and denounced the dual covenant error repeatedly and unequivocally, calling it a “heresy”. According to you, what we’re actually up to is trying to “placate” it. You have some secret knowledge of what we really intended to convey, regardless of direct statements to the contrary. Well, that’s certainly how a quasi-gnostic conspiracy theorist would approach the evidence, Yanni.

We affirm all that the Magisterium teaches about the status of the Mosaic Covenant. But that's precisely the point—what I think you and Sungenis are missing is that the divine election of the people of Israel didn’t originate in that Covenant and, therefore, is not dependent upon its status. We emphasized several times that the election of the people of Israel took place prior to the Mosaic Covenant and therefore is not contingent on the status of that Covenant. For example:
God’s gracious choice of Israel - predates the Mosaic Covenant and is rooted in the calling of Abraham (see Exodus 4:22; Isaiah 49:1,3; Isaiah 51:1,2; Deuteronomy 7:7). The calling was *not* because of Israel’s righteousness in the first place; therefore, neither does Israel’s lack of righteousness nullify the call.
God's love and concern for the Jewish people – the relationship – is also something that continues under and was not "revoked" by the commencement of the New Covenant. God chose Israel before the swearing of the Mosaic covenant; therefore, Israel's election is not dependent upon the status of that covenant. The election or "chosen-ness" of Israel is rooted in the Abrahamic covenant. It continued on through the Mosaic covenant and finally into the New and eternal Covenant in Christ.
The important point to notice about the chronology of Israel's calling is the fact that it took place before their deliverance from Egypt, which is to say, before the swearing of the Covenant at Sinai. Thus the calling and election of Israel by God is not based upon the Covenant made at Sinai; the calling and election of Israel came long before Sinai, and is based upon God's gracious choice, as both St. Paul and Deuteronomy again affirm: "It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love upon you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples; but it is because the LORD loves you, and is keeping the oath which he swore to your fathers" (Dt. 7:7)
Therefore I can affirm all that the Magisterium affirms about the status of the Mosaic Covenant and I can affirm all that the Magisterium affirms about the election of the Jewish people and their ongoing role in salvation history. But I don't think that Bob can, which is why he works so hard to deny that the Jews are in any way chosen or that there is any such thing as a future special conversion of the Jews. This despite significant support for these very things from Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium (which again, you seemed to have missed in our writings, preferring instead to claim that, "These proponents hold that by Divine choice, a racial group has a ‘special relationship’ with God and play a special role in God’s design for man’s salvation, being that there are Scriptural promises and a special eschatological role for this racial group. These tenets...are not based upon any clear statements from the Church, either from Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium.")

Also, you keep saying that we leave the nature of this relationship totally nebulous and vague. Not true. In "All in the Family" we laid out six concrete ways in which this relationship is evident. I don’t know how you could have missed it.

Again, I suggest that you’re reading through a pair of "Bob-colored glasses" and you're missing things that are right in front of your eyes. Now, please read my response to Bob Sungenis in light of what I have said here.
  #34  
Old Feb 22, '12, 11:06 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?

Bob, as you consider whether or not to respond here, I thought I should mention that we’ve read what you have written on this topic, including your “responses” and “critiques” of our articles. So, we’re not asking anything of you that we haven’t done ourselves. Actually, I had a few moments and reviewed some of what you’ve written in your articles again and have presented a few initial ideas and questions for you.

I would also ask you to please take note of what I wrote above to “Yanni”.

Now, to your own views:

The first thing to be said is that we have never characterized your position on the relationship among Jews, the Church and God as entirely wrong, let alone heretical. And we’ve never criticized you for merely opposing the dual covenant error (in fact, I don’t recall anyone ever going after you for simply opposing it and you’ve never given any evidence to the contrary). We do believe, however, that your treatment of this issue is unbalanced and confused at times (see for example: https://sites.google.com/site/sungen...#_Toc255151556, including the section titled “Revoked?” and also Internal Contradictions in Sungenis’ Theology?). We do object to the way in which you’ve pursued it – creating false conspiracy theories and accusing people of the most nefarious motives (see: Debunking Another Conspiracy Theory and U.S. Catechism for Adults Revised). And we do object to your tendency to assume the role of the orthodoxy police, “finding” and “condemning” “heresy” where there is none—even violating your own publicly stated standards in the process (see here).

So, let me present in brief again the ecclesiastical texts which I believe mark out our position as being in line with Catholic thought and faith.

Let's begin with the Postulatum Pro Hebraeis, a text drafted during the First Vatican Council and circulated for the signature of the Council Fathers. Fr. Denis Fahey, whom I think even you will admit is not a source biased in favor of “Jewish interests”, says about this statement that under "the kindly encouragement of Pius IX" the priest brothers Auguste and Joseph Lémann, "secured the signatures of 510 bishops, and all the bishops present at the Council would have willingly signed, only that the Fathers Lémann wished to leave the honour of the greatest number of signatures to the Postulatum for Papal Infallibility" (The Kingship of Christ the King). Here is what that text says:
The undersigned Fathers of the Council humbly yet urgently beseechingly pray that the Holy Ecumenical Council of the Vatican deign to come to the aid of the unfortunate nation of Israel with an entirely paternal invitation; that is, that it express the wish that, finally exhausted by a wait no less futile than long, the Israelites hasten to recognize the Messiah, our Savior Jesus Christ, truly promised to Abraham and announced by Moses; thus completing and crowning, not changing, the Mosaic religion. On one hand, the undersigned fathers have the very firm confidence that the holy Council will have compassion on the Israelites, because they are always very dear to God on account of their fathers, and because it is from them that the Christ was born according to the flesh.
Here, the fathers of the First Vatican Council address the Jews of their day who are not yet in the Catholic Church. Alluding to Romans 11:28, they say of the Jews that "they are always very dear to God on account of their fathers". In our article "On the Relationship Between the Jewish People and God" we wrote:
Here, even the Fathers of the First Vatican Council interpret St. Paul to have been referring to the very same group of people as “enemies” in respect to the Gospel yet “beloved” of God for the sake of the patriarchs of Israel (see Romans 11:28-29)." Obviously they were speaking of the Jews of their own day, whom they hoped would embrace Jesus Christ as their Messiah.
To this, you replied:
R. Sungenis: Certainly, but being “beloved” of God is not the same thing as being “the Chosen People” of God. The phrase “Chosen People” is a legal title with legal rights, but “beloved” is a personal and gratuitous relationship – two entirely different things.
First, I would point out that we never used the phrase "the Chosen People" ourselves. We have written that the Jewish people are still “chosen”, and we have made clear what we mean by that: the Jewish people remain dear to God for the sake of the Fathers of Israel. They retain a special relationship with Him that is not simply “in the past” and they still have a unique role to play in salvation history. They are not simply “done with” as a group (as you have contended). These things are all spelled out clearly and in some detail in last section of “All in the Family” (http://www.cuf.org/laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrest.asp). We wrote, “This abiding love for and special relationship with God’s earthly first-born, the Jewish people (cf. Ex. 4:22), is evidenced in several ways” and then we went on to list six specific examples. But we said nothing about any “legal” rights or legal titles that flow from the Mosaic Covenant.
  #35  
Old Feb 22, '12, 11:11 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?

This is important common ground. For the Apostle also says in Rom 11:28 says that the status of being "beloved" is according to "the election", which means "chosen". This also aligns with Deut 4:37: “Because He loved your fathers, therefore he chose their descendants after them.”

Indeed, you’ve implicitly acknowledged this distinction between the Jewish people as “chosen” in the full, “legal” sense vs. in a lesser, non-legal sense. You wrote:
R. Sungenis: I don’t know of one place in [Cardinal Ratzinger's] self-authored and self-edited writings that shows he regards modern day Jews as “the Chosen People,” at least in the legal sense of the term.

http://www.catholicintl.com/index.ph...lm-and-forrest
And with this we agree. Neither Cardinal Ratzinger nor we believe that the Jews are “the Chosen People” in some legal sense, derived from the Mosaic Covenant. Nevertheless, they remain “chosen” according to Romans 11:28.

This agrees with the fathers of the First Vatican Council and with great Catholic exegetes like Frs. Prat and Lagrange:

Fr. Fernand Prat, S. J. writes:
The subject of the phrase is clearly Israel [pas Israel], verse 26; [auton], verse 27); the Israelites are therefore, at the same time, from two different points of view, enemies and friends, not of Paul, but of God, as the following verses (29-30) prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. . . . The motive and end which inspire God show it no less: it is "on account of the Gospel" not in itself, for the Gospel excludes no one, but inasmuch as it has been rejected by the Jews, and it is "with a view to the Gentiles" ([di humas]) because the unbelief of the Jews, forseen by God, has had for its effect to hasten the evangelization of the pagans (verses 11, 15, 19).--However, from another point of view, Israel remains the favorite of Jehovah: it is "on account of the election" of which Israel was formerly the object (Deut. iv, 37) and which is not revoked (verses 2 and 29); and it is "on account of the patriarchs," the sacred root (verse 16) which communicates to the branches something of its goodness. (The Theology of St. Paul, vol. 2, p. 216n3.)
And Père M. J. Lagrange states that Rom 11:28 references precisely, "L'élection du peuple juif comme peuple de Dieu était en elle-même irrévocable", that is, “The election of the Jewish people as the people of God [which] was in itself irrevocable” (Saint Paul Epitre Aux Romains. Paris: Librairie Victor Lecoffre, 1922, p. 287.)

This accords too with the magisterial texts we have presented:

Lumen Gentium 16:
There is, first, that people to which the covenants and promises were made, and from which Christ was born according to the flesh (cf. Rom: 9:4-5): in view of the divine choice (electionem), they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts of God are without repentance (cf. Rom 11:28-29).
This magisterial text applies Rom 11:28-29 to the Jewish people in the present. It speaks explicitly of the electionem, the divine choice.

Nostra Aetate 4:
As holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize God's moment when it came (see Lk 19:42). Jews for the most part did not accept the Gospel; on the contrary, many opposed the spreading of it (see Rom 11:28). Even so, the apostle Paul maintains that the Jews remain [NB: manent, present tense] very dear to God, for the sake of the patriarchs, since God does not take back the gifts he bestowed or the choice he made.
John Paul II

And in a context obviously not as authoritative as the texts above, John Paul II stated: "it is the teaching of both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures that the Jews are beloved of God, who has called them with an irrevocable calling." (November 26, 1986 in Sydney, Australia.)
  #36  
Old Feb 22, '12, 11:15 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?

CCC 1963

As you’re reading, please notice that the following section of the Catechism explicitly speaks of the ”the chosen people” in the present tense as distinct from Christians:
According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good, yet still imperfect. Like a tutor it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a "law of concupiscence" in the human heart. However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God.
Here, again, please note first that the Catechism refers to “the chosen people” as distinct from Christians; therefore, it is plain that it is referring the Jewish people by this phrase. This is also confirmed by the fact that on every occasion in which Catechism uses the phrase “the chosen people” it is referring to the Jewish people (see 60, 288, 441, 576, 751, 1081, 1150, 1539, 1716, and 1819.)

To this point, you responded: “Mr. Palm is making the simple mistake of thinking that the reference to “chosen people” refers to Jews today rather than Jews in the Old Testament. According to St. Paul in Gal 3-4, the law was a tutor for the Jews in the OT, when they were the “chosen people.” But Paul never refers to unbelieving Jews in the New Testament period as ‘the chosen people’.”

The problem is that you didn’t engage the fact that the Catechism treats "the chosen people" as distinct from Christians, and that both are referred to in the present tense. Note, the CCC states that the Law “prepares (present tense) and disposes (present tense) the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God.” The CCC does not state that the Law “prepared (past tense) and disposed (past tense) the chosen people….for conversion” and it wouldn’t make any sense if it did, because it also refers to Christians in the very same context. Christians did not exist in the Old Testament; therefore, it makes no sense that the CCC would have the Old Testament period in view here.

The Magisterium (and we, ourselves) have been careful to note that this "personal and gratuitous relationship" (to use your own phrase) that God has with the Jewish people, is not salvific. As we’ve written, "St. Paul and the Church have made clear that they do retain such a special relationship, yet that relationship is not salvific in and of itself. It is inferior (in the theological sense) to the relationship that any baptized Catholic (Jew or Gentile) has with God and, normatively speaking, it needs to be fulfilled through full incorporation into the New Covenant by baptism in order to be salvific.”

We’ve never connected this with the Mosaic Covenant and we're not sure why you keep bringing that into this discussion.

We’ve also never made any connection between this and the land of Palestine nor to any matters of modern politics and we're not sure why you keep dragging these things into the discussion, either.

I think your use of the term “supersessionism” needs discussion as well. Above, you asked: “Where does the Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium teach that there is a difference between “supercede” and “supersessionism”?”

I know that “supersessionism” is an important word for you because you’ve basically hung your entire “case” against Bishop Rhoades on it (see: “Bob’s Continued Misuse of Supersessionism” and “Supersessionism…Again”). But I’m not sure how we can make it any clearer for you: “supersessionism” isn’t a Catholic term. It’s never even been used, much less been defined, by the Magisterium. Period. The same even goes for “supersede”, frankly. We’ve presented this fact on multiple occasions, with a great deal of documentation. As such, your question is nonsensical. If the Church has never used or defined the term “supersessionism” at all, then how could it teach that there’s a difference between it and “supersede”?

Again, please review the information here:

https://sites.google.com/site/sungen...essionismAgain

https://sites.google.com/site/sungen...#_Toc255151555

The point that Michael documented is that “supersessionism” and “supersede” mean different things to different people. There is no uniform definition in the Catholic Church, contrary to your belief. Unfortunately, like the word “proselytism”, it has taken on a decidedly pejorative nuance because some people – like you – have adopted and promoted what Cardinal Dulles has termed an extreme or “crude supersessionism”.

See: Is Robert Sungenis an Extreme Supersessionist? And also “Revoked?”


But, regardless, you’ve been accusing us of teaching a "heresy" in regard to the Jewish people still having a unique role in salvation history, still being having a special relationship with God, remaining “chosen”.
  #37  
Old Feb 22, '12, 11:17 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?

I invite you to review your own standards for when it’s appropriate to call something a heresy. You have laid out standards elsewhere which may be summarized as follows:
• If there is an ambiguity that admits an orthodox interpretation, then it's not heresy.
• Heresy consists only in "direct and provable statements of error."
• The burden of proof is entirely on the accuser.
• Heresy is "deliberate, calculated and unequivocal statement to circumvent established dogma."
• The accuser is "required to give substantial evidence for the accusation and conviction."
• And finally, unless he can prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt, the accuser has no case.
See Sungenis’ Own Standards of Heresy

You’ll notice that your condemnations against us here and elsewhere violate all of your own standards. Now, some questions for you:

Can you quote for us a clear teaching of the Magisterium that we have ever denied in what we’ve written?

Where has the Magisterium ever said that the Jewish people are not "chosen" in any way, so that there would be a contradiction with our understanding of the magisterial texts cited above?

Where has the Magisterium ever said that the Jewish people have no special relationship with God whatsoever, so that there would be a contradiction with our understanding of the magisterial texts cited above?

Since the answer is “nowhere”, how can anything we wrote in this regard be fairly be labeled "heresy"?

I may follow up with more, if I have time. I’ll also await your response.
  #38  
Old Feb 22, '12, 11:52 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?

Alas, I've done a bit of a cut-and-paste error.

On posting #35 above, just before the sentence "This is important common ground." I intended to say:

However, we’re pleased to see that you at least agreed with us here that Romans 11:28-29 refers to the Jewish people as a whole, the very same group being described by the Apostle Paul as both "enemies" and yet as "beloved" of God for the sake of the patriarchs. We’re also pleased that you agreed that this amounts to a "personal and gratuitous relationship".

This is important common ground.......
  #39  
Old Feb 23, '12, 8:17 am
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?

R. Sungenis: Bob-colored glasses? I can always tell when Mr. Palm senses his arguments are weak. He starts making caricatures of his opponent. What’s the real problem here? It’s simple. Mr. Palm was educated to believe that the Jews are special people, just because they are Jews. As a result, he is forced to approach the Scriptural and Ecclesiastical data like a Pharisee in order to escape their clear teaching. The Pharisees would parse words ad infinitum trying to find some loophole out of obeying the law. That is what Mr. Palm is doing with the words commonly employed to describe the cessation of the Mosaic covenant. I’m going to call it Palmistry, after his name, since he has the dubious distinction of inventing a whole new hermeneutic when it comes to the status of the Mosaic covenant.

His new boast is that the word “revoked” isn’t used in “Scripture, the Fathers or the Magisterium.” He made a similar boast about the word “supersessionism,” making a big deal of the fact that he “can’t find it in an official Catholic document.” He even tried to make a distinction between “supersede” and “supersessionism,” as specious as that is. The temptation when one hears these Pharisaical-type arguments is to just leave the conversation. But for the sake of the people on this forum, I’m going to set the record straight.

It is very clear from Catholic authoritative sources that words very similar to “revoked” and “supersede” are used in regards to the cessation of the Mosaic Covenant. Words such as “annul, abolish, set aside, do away with, cancel, withdraw, terminate, rescind, invalidate, dissolve, eliminate, cease, eradicate” are commonly used in official and unofficial literature when dealing with the termination of the Mosaic covenant. These are all synonyms of “revoked” or “supersede.” So Mr. Palm’s boast that “revoked” or “supersede” are not used is nothing but a Pharisaical canard.

The reason “supersede” has become a more precise word in recent times on this particular topic is that it not only means to annul or abolish but to replace what was abolished with something new. This fits perfectly with what the New Covenant did to the Mosaic covenant – it legally annulled it and then put itself in place of it.

Let’s take Scripture first. It uses similar words to “supersede.” Hebrews 7:18, in context of the Mosaic law, says that it was “annulled,” which is the Greek word athetesis.

The Friberg Analytical Lexicon says this means: “as a legal technical term annulment, setting aside as being no longer in force.”

The Louw-Nida Greek English Lexicon says: “to refuse to recognize the validity of something; to reject; to regard as invalid; annulment.”

Thayer’s Greek English lexicon says: “abolition.”

Moulton-Milligan’s Vocabulary of the New Testament says: “The force of athetesis in Heb 7:18; 9:26 is well brought out by Deismann’s reference (BS p. 228f.) to the technical legal formula in the papyri…”

Gingrich’s Greek NT lexicon says “annulment technical legal term Hb 7:18; removal 9:26.”

Bauer’s Greek-English lexicon says “1. Annulment legal…a former commandment is annulled Hb 7:18.

Schaff then points out that Chrysostom, a Greek father who knew Greek very well, used “athetesis” in his commentary on Heb 7:18.

Hebrews 10:9 says the same as Heb 7:18, but with a different Greek word, a synonym. Imagine that, Mr. Palm, a synonym for “revoked” or “superseded”!

With the Mosaic covenant in context, Paul says “the first was TAKEN AWAY in order that the second may be set up.” The words “taken away” are the Greek “anairei.” So let’s go through the Greek lexicons again.

The Friberg Analytical Lexicon says: “take away; do away with; destroy; of persons kill, murder, usually in a violent way.

The Louw-Nida Greek English Lexicon says: “to kill; do away with; to remove or withdraw the validation of something; to abolish; to invalidate; to do away with.”

Thayer’s Greek English lexicon says: “to take away; abolish.”

Moulton-Milligan’s Vocabulary of the New Testament says: “kill; destroy.”

Gingrich’s Greek NT lexicon says “take away; abolish; do away with; kill.”

Bauer’s Greek-English lexicon says “take away, do away with, destroy.”

Hebrews 8:13, quoting from the time of Jeremiah when the Mosaic covenant was still in force but slowly waning due to the Jews going off into captivity, says: “When he says New, he has made old the first, and that which is made old and growing aged is near vanishing away.” This coincides perfectly with Hebrews 7:18 and 10:9 who state that when Christ came the annulment of the Mosaic covenant was complete.

I’ll be back to answer the rest of Mr. Palm’s specious arguments.

R. Sungenis
  #40  
Old Feb 23, '12, 9:16 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?

Bob, when you reply please at least be sure to factor in that I explicitly said that I agree with all that the Magisterium teaches on the status of the Mosaic Covenant and that we already explicitly cited almost every single quote you cited, as well as a few others. You seem to keep missing that fact.

I think it's worth pointing out that, with all of those words at your disposal, you specifically chose one, "revoked", that isn't used in any scriptural text or magisterial document to describe the status of the Mosaic Covenant and then use that as a veritable litmus test of orthodoxy. And it's even worse with supersessionism. The word is not even of Catholic origin, has never been used in any magisterial text and therefore has no official definition, and has a wide range of meanings.

For instance:

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%...1gT4Exj08Li57A

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Supersessionism

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/...essionism.html

http://www.presbyterian.ca/webfm_send/5040

http://www.shema.com/Combating%20Rep...gy/crt-004.php


All of these are cited, along with a broader explanation of your errors in this area, here:

https://sites.google.com/site/sungen...essionismAgain

And yet you fixate on this word and use it to condemn others--including a Catholic bishop!--of heresy.

If you're going to publicly condemn people of "heresy", you don't get to use words "similar to" what the Church has said as a litmus test. And you most certainly don't get to use words that the Church has never used, much less defined. What is so hard to understand about this?

This is exactly the kind of stunt you pulled with Bishop Rhoades, demanding that he sign off on several statements you personally composed before you would stop accusing him of heresy. (See the documentation here.) Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is?

The point here is to remind you that you are not the Magisterium and you don't have the authority to judge anybody based on your own vocabulary. At the very least, you should stick to actual magisterial language when judging others and the discussion will at least be easier.
  #41  
Old Feb 23, '12, 9:32 am
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?

R. Sungenis: No, it is quite the contrary. It is David Palm who is looking at these pre-Mosaic passages with “Palm-colored glasses.” He has fallen into the same trap that others have fallen into.

Palm writes: We emphasized several times that the election of the people of Israel took place prior to the Mosaic Covenant and therefore is not contingent on the status of that Covenant. For example:
God’s gracious choice of Israel - predates the Mosaic Covenant and is rooted in the calling of Abraham (see Exodus 4:22; Isaiah 49:1,3; Isaiah 51:1,2; Deuteronomy 7:7). The calling was *not* because of Israel’s righteousness in the first place; therefore, neither does Israel’s lack of righteousness nullify the call.

R. Sungenis: The fallacy of Mr. Palm’s approach is that he doesn’t make the proper distinctions in the Abrahamic covenant. Abraham was given two covenants: a physical covenant with physical dimensions for the nation of Israel; and a spiritual covenant for the saved of both Jews and Gentiles. This is clearly demonstrated in the various types of language given in Genesis 12-31 when it speaks about the covenants with Abraham.

Mr. Palm’s lack of making the proper distinctions is precisely why he balked earlier at the passages I demonstrated from Joshua 21:43-45; 1 Kings 8:56 and Nehemiah 9:7-8 that show God has already completely fulfilled the physical land promised to Abraham in Genesis 12-22 for his physical descendants, the Jews. All Mr. Palm could say in return was that he “couldn’t find any Church teaching” to that effect. Apparently he has no qualms about giving a private interpretation of Exodus 4:22; Isaiah 49:1,3; Isaiah 51:1,2; Deuteronomy 7:7, but when it comes to Joshua 21:43-45; 1 Kings 8:56 and Nehemiah 9:7-8, all of a sudden he loses his hermeneutical abilities.

And here’s the rub. The fact that the Israel of “Exodus 4:22; Isaiah 49:1,3; Isaiah 51:1,2; Deuteronomy 7:7” was already given the land promised to Abraham and his descendants, was not, in fact, given to Abraham! This is precisely the argument of Hebrews 11:13, 16 and 39-40. But the promise was made to Abraham. So how will it be fulfilled? In the new heaven and new earth (2 Peter 3:10-13). And all those who will enjoy it with him are “the Israel of God,” composed of both saved Jews and saved Gentiles (Eph 2:14-15; Gal 6:16; Rom 9:6; 11:5-7; 26).
Interestingly enough, the very “Israel” Mr. Palm believes is “special” (without him giving the proper distinction between Israel and Israel), is the very group Jesus says will be thrown out of the kingdom since it will be given to others (Matt 8:11-12).

That Gentiles were already included in the spiritual side of Abraham’s covenant from the get-go with Genesis 12:3 (“in you all the Gentiles will be blessed”), which verse St. Paul quotes in Gal 3:8 to show that God had already made the first necessary distinction.

So, Mr. Palm is stuck again. Although he admitted that the Mosaic covenant has nothing to offer the Jews of today, he also needs to realize that the physical/ethnic side of the Abrahamic covenant has nothing to offer the Jews of today, since that dimension of the covenant was annulled or fulfilled just as the Mosaic covenant was annulled or fulfilled.

And THAT is the very reason Nehemiah can say that God fulfilled his land promises to Abraham and his seed; it is the very reason that St. Paul can make a sharp distinction between Israel and Israel in Romans 9:6; it is the very reason that the New Testament NEVER says the Jews, as Jews, have a special relationship with God, at least one that is in distinction to the Gentiles. (And Mr. Palm’s question-begging interpretation of “the election” in Romans 11:28 is no help since it is just more of his petitio principii exegesis). If anything, the Jews, as Jews, are chastised and given a poor prognosis in the New Testament (cf. Acts 13:43-48; 1 Thess 2:14-16; Romans 9:30-33; 10:16-21).
The only “specialness” the Jew has from God today is the same spiritual specialness that God gives to anyone who accepts Jesus Christ, be he Jew or Gentile.

Mr. Palm’s attempt to make the Jewish race special, above the Gentile races, and to call the Jewish race “the election” is categorically wrong. Not only that, it is heretical. It is, as I said many times, “spiritual racism.” There simply is no such teaching in Scripture, Tradition or the Magisterium to support his novel thesis.

Mr. Palm’s attempt to base his novelty on the Abrahamic covenant simply shows that he doesn’t understand the Abrahamic covenant. But that is common among Dispensationalist-type hermeneutics. They love to interpret passages like Deut 7:7 without the benefit of the New Testament commentary or the patristic commentary. They want to isolate Deut 7:7. Unfortunately, isolating Scripture from the rest of Scripture is what often leads to heresy.

It is the same error that Roy Schoeman makes when he claims that all the prophecies in the Old Testament about “Israel” apply to national Israel today and not to the Church, and he reaches this absurd position by declaring that the Fathers and “two thousand years” of Church teaching was wrong! No, he is wrong, and so is Mr. Palm.

R. Sungenis
  #42  
Old Feb 23, '12, 9:58 am
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: And yet you fixate on this word and use it to condemn others--including a Catholic bishop!--of heresy. If you're going to publicly condemn people of "heresy", you don't get to use words "similar to" what the Church has said as a litmus test. And you most certainly don't get to use words that the Church has never used, much less defined. What is so hard to understand about this?

R. Sungenis: No, the only thing hard to understand is Mr. Palm, since he has a very confused understanding of the covenants. I understand what the Church has taught, and it is not teaching Mr. Palm’s racist novelties.

Palm: This is exactly the kind of stunt you pulled with Bishop Rhoades, demanding that he sign off on several statements you personally composed before you would stop accusing him of heresy. (See the documentation here.) Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is?

R. Sungenis: Ridiculous? In bringing Bishop Rhoades into the discussion, Mr. Palm just trapped himself.

As we all remember, the US bishops voted in 2008 to take the heretical statement out of page 131 of the US Catechism, but this was the very paragraph Rhoades quoted when he denied me an imprimatur to my book on the Apocalypse.

Why is this important? According to Mr. Palm’s new interpretation (i.e., that the Abrahamic covenant makes the Jews “special”) he is inadvertently accusing Bishop Rhoades himself, since in Rhoades’ February 7, 2008 letter to Michael Forrest he says this about the statements on page 131 of the US Catechism:

Rhoades: I can see how the one statement that ‘the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them’ might be misunderstood. I would interpret it to mean that the Jewish people retain a special relationship to God because of the Old Covenant, but I would not interpret it to mean that the Jewish people can be saved through the Old Covenant apart from Christ.”

Now, notice that Bishop Rhoades is talking about the “covenant…through Moses” (not the Abrahamic covenant) when he says that he thinks it should be “interpreted to mean that the Jewish people retain a special relationship to God because of the Old Covenant.”

In other words, Bishop Rhoades is saying that it is because of the Mosaic covenant that the Jews should have a "special relationship" with God.

But according to Mr. Palm’s latest interpretation, it is wrong to say the Jews have a special relationship with God based on the Mosaic covenant, since he says it is based only on the Abrahamic covenant!

In addition, notice that Bishop Rhoades confirms he is speaking about the Mosaic covenant (not the Abrahamic covenant) as the basis for the “specialness” of the Jews since he goes on to say that we should not “interpret interpret it to mean that the Jewish people can be saved through the Old Covenant apart from Christ.”

Hence, Bishop Rhoades is saying that the Mosaic covenant cannot save the Jews.

All well and good, but that just proves that Bishop Rhoades is basing the alternative position (i.e., the “special relationship” of Jews with God), on the same Mosaic covenant he says was not salvific for the Jews – the very covenant Mr. Palm just told us does not give the Jews a special relationship with God, since only the Abrahamic covenant does!

I rest my case.

Robert Sungenis
  #43  
Old Feb 24, '12, 12:28 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?

Bob, I've seen you latest postings and want to let you know that I will work on a response, but I need to attend to my day job which is a little hectic right now. Thanks for your patience.
  #44  
Old Feb 25, '12, 6:32 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?

Bob, regarding your post 41, there's a great irony that you're accusing me here of being a Dispensationalist (I'm not and never have been, by the way) when I'm casting my entire case in terms of Catholic magisterial texts. Conversely, you're approaching this matter more as Bob the Bible Answer Man, complete with your own private interpretations, just as you used to do in your Protestant days. I noticed that in you didn't cite a single magisterial text to back up your assertions and interpretations. So, can you show me where the Magisterium has ever said that your interpretation of these passages is the correct one and that anything else is heresy? Because I've already shown you where the Church supports our position.

You wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
Mr. Palm’s attempt to make the Jewish race special, above the Gentile races, and to call the Jewish race “the election” is categorically wrong. Not only that, it is heretical. It is, as I said many times, “spiritual racism.” There simply is no such teaching in Scripture, Tradition or the Magisterium to support his novel thesis.
We've never said that the "Jewish race [is] special, above the Gentile races". In fact, we've said something quite different:
Just to be clear, this does not mean that Jews are more loved than non-Jews. It just means that they are unique; the have played and continue to play a unique role. A first-born (Exodus 4:22) is unique, but not necessarily more loved. (http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news...people-and-god)
I would also again strongly suggest that you read Sibling Jealousy and Racism?

Perhaps you missed all this because you said you won't read anything that we link to.

And we have never called the Jewish race "the election". Again, those are your own overlays and presumptions about what we "must" mean. Rather, we said what sacred Scripture and the Magisterium say, namely, that "in view of the divine choice (electionem), they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers" (Lumen Gentium 16).

But remember that in post #34 above I cited your own words admitting that Romans 11:28-29 refers to the Jewish people as a whole, the very same group being described by the Apostle Paul as both "enemies" and yet as "beloved" of God for the sake of the patriarchs. And we noted that you agreed that this amounts to a "personal and gratuitous relationship".

We wrote:
Here, even the Fathers of the First Vatican Council interpret St. Paul to have been referring to the very same group of people as “enemies” in respect to the Gospel yet “beloved” of God for the sake of the patriarchs of Israel (see Romans 11:28-29)." Obviously they were speaking of the Jews of their own day, whom they hoped would embrace Jesus Christ as their Messiah.
To which you replied:
R. Sungenis: Certainly, but being “beloved” of God is not the same thing as being “the Chosen People” of God. The phrase “Chosen People” is a legal title with legal rights, but “beloved” is a personal and gratuitous relationship – two entirely different things.
So here, you agreed with us that Romans 11:28-29 refers to the Jewish people as a whole, the very same group being described by the Apostle Paul as both “enemies” and yet also as “beloved” of God for the sake of the patriarchs. And we agree with you that there is no legal title or right involved, but rather, a “personal and gratuitous relationship.” I ask you then: is there some other group of people that is singled out in Scripture and the Magisterium as being specially "beloved" by God "for the sake of the patriarchs of Israel"?

Remember, too, the magisterial teaching of Lumen Gentium 16 which says that the Jewish people "in view of the divine choice [electionem] . . . are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers". Is that heresy? Was it heresy for Pope John Paul II to say "it is the teaching of both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures that the Jews are [NB: present tense] beloved of God, who has called them with an irrevocable calling"? Is it heresy that the CCC states that the Jews are "the chosen people" in the present and in direct juxtaposition to Christians? Is it heresy for Nostra Aetate to say that the Jews "remain" [present tense] very dear to God on account of the patriarchs and that God does not repent of the calling (vocatio)?

You persist in throwing about charges of heresy. I challenge you again to review your own standards (Sungenis’ Own Standards of Heresy):

Now, please discharge your burden according to your own standards, since you are the one making the accusation. Show us the magisterial texts that teach that the Jewish people are not in any way specially beloved by God, are not in any way "chosen" by God, and cannot by definition play any special on-going role in salvation history. Please, no texts about salvation being offered equally to both Gentile and Jew. We agree with that. Please just answer the questions with clear magisterial texts and not your private interpretations.

Thank you.
  #45  
Old Feb 25, '12, 6:35 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?

[I apologize to the forum moderators in advance for the length of my response. But as Bob Sungenis has expressed a general unwillingness to read links to the material we've already written that answers many of his questions and points, I'm re-presenting more of it below than I'd like to. I'm not sure how else to to place the evidence before him. Thank you.]

I wrote:
And yet you fixate on this word and use it to condemn others--including a Catholic bishop!--of heresy. If you're going to publicly condemn people of "heresy", you don't get to use words "similar to" what the Church has said as a litmus test. And you most certainly don't get to use words that the Church has never used, much less defined. What is so hard to understand about this?
To which you answered:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
No, the only thing hard to understand is Mr. Palm, since he has a very confused understanding of the covenants. I understand what the Church has taught, and it is not teaching Mr. Palm’s racist novelties.
So, you’re not going to own up to the fact that you are publicly condemning people of heresy using words that the Church has never used? Just going to hope that nobody will notice that you completely failed to answer this central question?. Really? Well, we noticed, Bob.

But I guess I should feel honored to be cast into “Bob’s House of Heretics and Racists” along with Pope Pius IX, virtually all the fathers of Vatican I, renowned Catholic exegetes like Frs. Lagrange and Prat, Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and John Paul II.

We’ve already answered your charge of “spiritual racism”, Bob. Please read it:

https://sites.google.com/site/sungen...#_Toc255151551

I do marvel at the amount of chutzpah it took for you to charge us with “racism” considering the fact that you’re currently promoting a video by David Duke— the former head of the Ku Klux Klan— about Jews on your website.

http://www.catholicintl.com/index.ph...an#comment-204

Seriously, what are you thinking? Almost your entire website has degenerated into a clearing-house for (mostly Jewish) conspiracy theories. I urge you to stop spreading this garbage and get back to some good, core apologetics work. You’re capable of much better than this.

Now, regarding Bishop Rhoades, I suppose it’s understandable that you would try to divert attention away from the actual point I made. What else could you do, really? It is a fact that you demanded that Bishop Rhoades sign off on three statements that you personally made up before you would stop publicly accusing him of heresy. I suspect (hope?) you’re at least beginning to realize how completely and utterly ridiculous that stunt was – hence your diversion.

Here’s the story recounted again, in case you missed it: http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.c...ne_29.html#six

You don’t seem to understand who you are and what your limits of authority are, Bob. You’re a very smart guy in some respects, but you seem to forget that you’re a simple layman with no more authority than any other layman. You don’t even have any degrees in Catholic theology or any other Catholic discipline, for that matter. And you don’t even seem to think your own publicly stated standards apply to yourself because you violate them at will against laymen and even a Catholic bishop:

Sungenis’ Own Standards of Heresy

Last edited by DavidPalm; Feb 25, '12 at 6:45 am.
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
6631CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: tawny
6228Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
5195Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
4631Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4314Poems and Reflections
Last by: tonyg
4055OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: Fischli
3293For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: GLam8833
3261Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Herculees
2828Let's Empty Purgatory 2
Last by: Tis Bearself
2449SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 5:42 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.