Can Catholics practice jewish tradition?

Is it OK for Catholics to practice the Jewish faith and still be a good Catholic?

As a catholic, you practice the fulfillment of the Jewish faith. Why would you go back to the Old Covenant? The author of Hebrews warns about the inability of the Old Covenant to save anyone from thier sins. I am not sure what others would say, but no it would not be okay to be Catholic and try to be Jewish at the same time. However, you should know that Catholicism is from the Jewish faith and the full flowering of it - SO BE HAPPY IN KNOWING YOU HAVE THE REAL THING!

[quote=lasersmith]Is it OK for Catholics to practice the Jewish faith and still be a good Catholic?
[/quote]

Jesus practiced it fully.

[quote=lasersmith]Is it OK for Catholics to practice the Jewish faith and still be a good Catholic?
[/quote]

Colossians 2 says the ordinances of Jewish tradition, the sabbaths, the meat and drink laws, the feast days, etc. are of no value.

[quote=lasersmith]Is it OK for Catholics to practice the Jewish faith and still be a good Catholic?
[/quote]

Yes and no. here’s how: Yes, you may maintain any lifestlye you decide as long as it isn’t in itself sinful. No, if you are maintaining that lifestyle with the anticipation or belief that it is gaining you merit with God, you may not.
If you just “like” the customs, as long as they arent done for spiritual benefit, go for it. If you feel it makes you closer to God, no, it doesn’t. an example, the jewish dietary laws were written for specific reasons, health mainly, no pork, shell fish, no “bottom dwellers” probably isn’t a bad idea, if you feel they will provide a healthier life go for it, if you’re following them because you believe you must to be a follower of God’s Law, not so much.

Catholics beleive that Chirst has fullfilled perfectly all Jewish law and gave us a new covenant when we participate in communion for instance we fufill the passover sacrifice that christ made perfect and complete.
By still celebrating passover you are denying Jesus fullfilled this sacrifice.
We have parallel holy days as well for example Hannukah or festival of lights is parallel to ur festival of lights the feast day of the Epiphany the celebration of the TRUE light of the world if yuu belebrate hannukah you are denying the light of the world is the Eipihany of Chirst.

Interestingly many evangelicals who don’t celelbrate catholic feast days and thing of sacraments as symbolic and not a fullfillment of OT shadows. They long for a connection to tradition since they reject catholic tradition. They opt to celebrate the Jewish traditions such as Hannukah without realizing that Jesus is the fullfillment of all Judaism.

I asked this question because of a discussion I had with somone I work with. One big point he had was that in Matthew Jesus says that he came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it. And furthermore, it said somthing to the effect that if we attempt to diminish the laws or abolish them then we are going to hell.

I know for every bible quote there is an opposite quote that can be sited. And I don’t want to go down that path. Is this one of those points that we need to just trust the wisdom of the doctors of the Church?

[quote=Tom]Yes and no. here’s how: Yes, you may maintain any lifestlye you decide as long as it isn’t in itself sinful. No, if you are maintaining that lifestyle with the anticipation or belief that it is gaining you merit with God, you may not.
If you just “like” the customs, as long as they arent done for spiritual benefit, go for it. If you feel it makes you closer to God, no, it doesn’t. an example, the jewish dietary laws were written for specific reasons, health mainly, no pork, shell fish, no “bottom dwellers” probably isn’t a bad idea, if you feel they will provide a healthier life go for it, if you’re following them because you believe you must to be a follower of God’s Law, not so much.
[/quote]

Another problem I have with practicing jewish tradition is this: We as Catholics have traditions and sacraments that we protect. For example we are to protect the Eucharist. A protestant should not receive communion in order to protect the sacredness of the true presence of Jesus. It would diminish the Eucharist if we gave it to everyone even non-beleivers and those without the knowledge of what the Eucharist really is.

Don’t we owe the jewish people the same sort of consideration. That is, if a group of Christians get together and have a seder meal just to socialize, try new foods, and learn about the jewish faith doesn’t that diminish a jewish tradition as well. You can learn about a seder meal by reading about it. It just seems wrong to actually participate in one.

[quote=patg]Jesus practiced it fully.
[/quote]

Yes, Jesus practiced it fully, but didn’t he do that in order to change it.

Yes we can. We practice the Jewish Tradition in its fullness at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Because of the miracle of the Eucharist, we are able to participate in Christ’s sacrifice for our sins in perpetuity.

Without the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Law would not be fulfilled.

Why is this?

Very briefly. Because every sacrifice for sin requires two victims. One victim is a lamb, the scape goat, on which the High Priest puts the sins of the people. The scape goat is then sent outside the walls of Jerusalem to appear before the Lord.

The other lamb is immolated upon the altar.

Jesus is the lamb, the scape goat sent out of the walls of the city. The high priest said “Let the sins of the people be upon Him and upon His Head.”

Jesus is the other lamb, immolated upon the altar. The bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ and immolated in an unbloody manner, when He is consumed by the priest.

A study of the rules for Jewish sacrifice, proves that it if Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law, and if Jesus Christ is the Sacrifice for our sins, then the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and the Mass is to be offered in perpetuity. To come to any other conclusion is irrational.

No, the Council of Florence says that anyone who dares to practice the Old Law commits mortal sin and is damned. It specifically targets circumsicion greatly:

It [the Holy Roman Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ’s passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.

[quote=lasersmith]I asked this question because of a discussion I had with somone I work with. One big point he had was that in Matthew Jesus says that he came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it. And furthermore, it said somthing to the effect that if we attempt to diminish the laws or abolish them then we are going to hell.

I know for every bible quote there is an opposite quote that can be sited. And I don’t want to go down that path. Is this one of those points that we need to just trust the wisdom of the doctors of the Church?
[/quote]

Well your friend has a gross misinterpretation of this Bible passage I would encourage you to read Romans, Corinthians and Hebrews about the law being a shadow of things to come all being fulfilled in Christ in a greater way

Corinthians 2 16Therefore no one is to (A)act as your judge in regard to (**(“http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=58&chapter=2&verse=16&end_verse=18&version=49&context=context#cen-NASB-29511B”))food or (C)drink or in respect to a (D)festival or a (E)new moon or a (F)Sabbath day-- 17things which are (G)a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

This in direct response to the Judaziers (jews who kept the law and expected the gentiles to adhere to the old law as well)

I agree. a few years ago DRE inquired with local synagogue about info on Seder meal, or a joint seder meal, and was informed in no uncertain terms the Christians “playing games” with Jewish religious customs was considered highly offensive. You either accept Torah, with all its prescriptions and live as an Orthodox Jew, in which case you reject belief in Jesus as Son of God, second person of the Trinity as blasphemy, or you do not. Cafeteria jewishness is just as nonsensical and morally vague as cafeteria catholicism.

[quote=CatholicCrusade]No, the Council of Florence says that anyone who dares to practice the Old Law commits mortal sin and is damned. It specifically targets circumsicion greatly:

It [the Holy Roman Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ’s passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.
[/quote]

Crusade:

I seem to recall that the Council of Florence was dealing wiht the problem of CONVERSOS (Jews had had converted to Christianity under compulsion but who still practiced their old religion in secret). Since CIRCUMCISION was the sign of the sealing of the male child to the God and the people of Israel, and was the sign of the OLD COVENANT, and a sign the family in question (at the time of the council) still prcticed Judaism.

The primary problem in that case was probably not circumcision, but that fact that people were being converted to Our Lord and Savior UNDER COMPULSION, rather than of their own free will! In other words, as stated on another thread in this Forum, they became Catholics for the WRONG REASON. The full impact of that did hit me until I read Jay74’s Post which was used to start Hell’s Best Kept Secret (about committing to Christ for the right reasons) in the Apologetics Forum:
forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=364967&postcount=1

So, the question has to be; “Will practicing any of the old ways stand in the way of or detract from the practice of the Catholic Faith?” …(I deleted one paragraph, that on further review, just didn’t make a whole lot of sense).

At the same time, we might learn what those Holy Days presage and foreshadow, and show them how JESUS FULFILLS THEIR LAW, and takes away the sin the Law convicts them of. I belong to a Congregation that was once kept alive by grateful, converted Orthodox Jews. Someone testified about Jesus to them sometime, and so I have a Church to go to today.

Regarding Circumcision, many medical authorities are doing it now for hygenic reasons, and not as a sign of the Old Covenant or of belonging to the People of Israel. We are no longer dealing with the problem of people who’ve been compelled to accept the Gospel. Just the opposite, we’re now dealing with the fact that we’ve become afraid to proclaim the Gospel of Christ Crucified and risen from the dead to save us from the natural and logical penalty for our sins.

I don’t think the Council of Florence is meant to be used today as a Bludgeon on those who would convert from Judaism or those who would work with Jews and others to convert them to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

In Him, Michael

More for Crusade:

I post on a specialist Forum whose membership is largely Jewish, most of whom are Secular, Reform, or Conservative and a few of whom are Orthodox, and many of whom are Israelis. I am a Practicing Christian because one of them, an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, cared enough to first risk his life for me (Long story) and then, just as he was leaving the Forum, asked me why I had left the Church and when I was going back. That was 15 months ago.

As some consider me a friend, I have open invitations with some of the Observant members of the Forum for Sabbath meals, Hanukkah festivities and other things. As many of these are either on the other side of the continent or in Israel, the odds are, I won’t be able to collect.

Naturally, I’ve come to value those friendships. And, I’m sure that those who have Jewish friends, esp. those they’ve “been in the trenches with”, have come to value their friendships.

Those who have friends who invite them to meals and celebrations should pay attention to what those things foreshadow and presage. St. Paul and others have stated that we should be able to show Jewish people our Lord Jesus Christ using what they’ve learned in their own religion.

Since I belong to a church which was kept alive for years by grateful, converted Orthodox Jews, I know that must be the case.

So, I would say, If invited, attend, but DO NOT INVITE YOURSELF! AND, DO NOT GO IF IT WILL IN ANYWAY INTERFERE WITH YOUR KEEPING AND PRACTICING THE CATHOLIC FAITH which we’ve received from the Apostles and which has been given to us at such a great cost.

In Him, Michael

[quote=germys9]As a catholic, you practice the fulfillment of the Jewish faith. Why would you go back to the Old Covenant? The author of Hebrews warns about the inability of the Old Covenant to save anyone from thier sins. I am not sure what others would say, but no it would not be okay to be Catholic and try to be Jewish at the same time. However, you should know that Catholicism is from the Jewish faith and the full flowering of it - SO BE HAPPY IN KNOWING YOU HAVE THE REAL THING!
[/quote]

So, I must needs ask; if you believe that Hebrews teaches that the Old was not able to save people from their sins then how would you explain the following in light of the mass and the “eucharist”?

Hebrews 10:9-13 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.


I am trying to understand that if the catholic church is practicing what Christ says then why would they continually offer sacrifices that are no longer required since Christ did it once for all?

I suppose you could but since Jesus satisfied all the requirements of the Old Testament laws, what would be the point?

Hebrews 10:16-18 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

I guess the point I am trying to make is this: When Jesus said on the cross, “It is finished”, He meant that all was fulfilled for the forgiveness of sin, since He took it all on the cross and suffered separation from the Father when He cried out, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” Then He said, “It is finished”; no more sacrifice for sin, as is stated in the verses above and all throughout the whole of the New Testament.
So according to this there should be no more sacrifices in a bloody or unbloody manner. All we do is to be done to the Glory of God, nothing more, nothing less.

This is what the Bible says, and that is very straight forward. Jesus promised His Holy Spirit would help us understand and I believe Him. I don’t think one would be led astray if one is truly relying on the Lord for His guideance and understanding. From what the Bible says anyone can understand God’s Word if he truly believes in Him.

2 Timothy 1:12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

Quote
… Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally…

Crusade:

I seem to recall that the Council of Florence was dealing wiht the problem of CONVERSOS …

… Regarding Circumcision, many medical authorities are doing it now for hygenic reasons, and not as a sign of the Old Covenant or of belonging to the People of Israel.

I don’t think the Council of Florence is meant to be used today as a Bludgeon on those who would convert from Judaism or those who would work with Jews and others to convert them to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

In Him, Michael

Heck, having been circumcised 70 years ago, I was Baptized by the Catholic Bishop of Sale, Australia (as were hundreds of thousands of other circumcised children)!

To the rest said by Michael - I add my “Amen” (a Jewish word and tradition!)

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.