What is the difference between Judaism and Catholicism

What is the difference between Judaism and Catholicism?

Jesus.

Judaism rejects the Messiah and claims that the Messiah hasn’t been born.
Judaism still believes in the old law which doesn’t apply to Catholics anymore because of the New Covenant with God.
The main language of Judaism is Hebrew where as in Catholicsm, it is Latin(some churches are greek)
The Jewish Bible today is actually different from the Catholic Bible. It doesn’t have Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch. This is because the Jewish Bible today wasn’t formed until about 90 years after Jesus’s death.

The difference between Catholicism and OT Judaism is that Jesus is the complete fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets as well as being the promised Jewish Messiah. The difference between Catholicism and post first century to modern Judaism is that most modern Jews reject Jesus as being the Jewish Messiah and are still waiting for one to arrive.

I think that’s a rather difficult question to ask Christians because most of them are pretty clueless about Judaism - there is something of a tendency to ‘invent’ Judaisms - curious ideas like Christianity is Judaism plus Jesus and Judaism is Christianity minus Jesus, for example.

Might I suggest that a better place to start is to ask yourself ‘What is Judaism all about, how does it ‘work’?’ and then ask Christians ‘What is Christianity all about, how does it ‘work’?’ The reason I say this is because when Christians argue that ‘Jesus is the answer,’ our minds should go to what the question was in the first place.

To Christians, ‘Jesus’ is the universal answer but what was the question? Was it a ‘universal’ question or was it a question that only arose from within the way that Christianity was set up in the first place, a question that only really exists within the Christian paradigm?

For example, should they respond that there is no ‘Salvation’ without the ‘Saviour’ Jesus, ask ‘Salvation from what, exactly?’ Then consider whether anybody has ever needed this kind of ‘salvation’ at all - whether what one was/is being ‘saved from’ is something that only came about because of the way that Christians perceive the world.

A brief answer to your original question is that the two religions are fundamentally different with entirely different foci - they ask different questions and have different answers. :slight_smile:

Thank you for your answer. You were the first person to answer this question in which the answer made sense.

When the priest pours water into the chalice at mass, he says ‘By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity.’

This is unthinkable in Judaism because divinity belongs solely to God and cannot be brought to a union with human nature; the Divine Name might come to inhabit a great teacher but never become that teacher; the Divine Presence is above the head, or among His people during the Sabbath or certain holy days; but there is an unbridgeable distinction between the two.
Christianity accepts the distinction and the infinite distance but asserts that God intended to bring His eternal life wholly into human nature, made possible through the mystery of a God who is One , but who is mysteriously a Trinity of persons; and because this is so, the Divine life could be communicated and unified with creatures raised up through the life of the one who takes on human life and dies a human death and raised human nature through His resurrection.
It might be said that the Church condenses Judaism into a single Person - Jesus becomes one lamb sacrificed, becomes the manna from Heaven, becomes temple and altar - and then expands this reality to all the nations. Judaism keeps it’s local referents fixed- Sinai is Sinai, where all Jewish souls are in a mysterious manner witnesses; the iinheritance is an inheritance; the Temple remains the Temple though it’s absence is now what is a matter of sacred recollection to on and mourning.

This is a very interesting point. Do you mean to say or imply that Jesus, who brought to us this ‘world view’, actually did transcend or alter Judaism? Curious to know whether you see Christian perception as valid on its own, which use of the term ‘world view’ seems to suggest? (The way you spell ‘Saviour’ looks like a sympathetic, leaning also).
:):slight_smile:

Yes. Catholics believe He IS the promised Messiah AND the Son of God. That is, beyond the promise of a Messiah that would save the Jews (and the whole world) from sin and open the door to eternal salvation - God (the Word) became flesh in the person of Jesus and became the promised Messiah Himself.

It does all boil down to Jesus. If He is accepted, and followed (in the Church He founded) then Catholicism is the post-Messianic continuation and perfection of what God began with Abraham and his family, the patriarchs before them, and our original common ancestors going back to the beginning of the human race. :slight_smile:

More differences between Judaism and Catholicism can be seen to be sure, culturally and theologically. But it does boil down to who Jesus was and is - and what follows from that.

My personal view of Christianity is that, for its believers, it’s mainly harmless. In other words, Christians have as much hope for the ‘World to Come’ as anybody and, from a traditional Jewish perspective, perhaps more hope because they don’t have to work so hard at it. The best thing for a Christian to do is to be the best kind of Christian he/she can be.

In that sense, I see Christianity as ‘valid’ but as to believing a word of it, well no. I don’t see the New Testament as scripture or reportage either.

There was a reason why I suggested that Rose350 should consider what the two religions are ‘about’ and how they ‘work’. I’ve been discussing religion online for a couple of decades now and know very well that, in the torrent of debates/apologetics that one can let loose, even very obvious things can disappear in a miasma of conjecture. The thing is that, when one steps back from all that and the fog clears a bit the obvious re-emerges and my suggestion is that what is patently obvious is that Judaism and Christianity are about different things and work differently.

Christianity emerged from certain themes in Judaism, particularly Judaism “in extremis”, one of the sequence of existential threats that the Jewish people have faced. It offered a heavenly alternative to here and now problems and a ‘messiah’ who would get you to heaven rather than a ‘messiah’ who would fix the here and now - about different things and working differently.

I’m afraid that my spelling merely reflects a traditional English education - I go to the theatre and see ships in harbour as well. :wink:

Catholicism is Judaism, Version 2.0.

If the Jews all accepted their own Messiah, there would be no distinction - the Jewish Church would simply have become the Catholic Church.

In software terms, it’s more like a forked branch of Android which can be a useful marketing tool and can look nice but isn’t really necessary.

That is an interesting reply (especially because you identify yourself as a Jew(ess).

I would argue that protestants are a forked branch of Catholicism, but Catholicism is an essential upgrade to the Jewish Faith.

I ask you (as a Jew(ess), what you believe in regard to your Salvation.

If you’d read any of my responses you might have noticed that I said that nobody has ever needed Salvation in the Christian sense.

Quotes originally by Kaninchen:

My personal view of Christianity is that, for its believers, it’s mainly harmless. In other words, Christians have as much hope for the ‘World to Come’ as anybody and, from a traditional Jewish perspective, perhaps more hope because they don’t have to work so hard at it. The best thing for a Christian to do is to be the best kind of Christian he/she can be.

It would appear that you basically have assigned Christianity to the category of non existential threat (see your remark below). I agree in part in that I don’t think Christianity at any time wants to eradicate Judaism from the existential perspective or anyway. But I wonder how you or anyone Jewish or not Christian can quantify an inner spiritual work that is mainly invisible, as either less or more. What to you seems more painful, lifting 900 pounds of canned peaches on a barbel or suffering from muscle fatigue or illness that can’t be seen while laying down, but that wracks the limbs silently? Coping is a key word here. However, saying that the best thing for a Christian is to be the best Christian s/he can be was taken well in my view. I would say the same thing back to a Jewish person, quite literally.

In that sense, I see Christianity as ‘valid’ but as to believing a word of it, well no. I don’t see the New Testament as scripture or reportage either.

Some would tell me to stop discourse with you right now. But your use of the term valid justifies and makes me want ‘to respond’ additionally, provisionally.

There was a reason why I suggested that Rose350 should consider what the two religions are ‘about’ and how they ‘work’. I’ve been discussing religion online for a couple of decades now and know very well that, in the torrent of debates/apologetics that one can let loose, even very obvious things can disappear in a miasma of conjecture. The thing is that, when one steps back from all that and the fog clears a bit the obvious re-emerges and my suggestion is that what is patently obvious is that Judaism and Christianity are about different things and work differently.

I see your point about the fog lifting. Unfortunately, part of the issue is that the multifaceted nature of these discussions leaves one with the impression that we are not all after peace and a well functioning society. So I agree we work differently, but not that we want different things.

Christianity emerged from certain themes in Judaism, particularly Judaism “in extremis”, one of the sequence of existential threats that the Jewish people have faced. It offered a heavenly alternative to here and now problems and a ‘messiah’ who would get you to heaven rather than a ‘messiah’ who would fix the here and now - about different things and working differently.

(I would have to offer alternative phraseology). It ‘arose amidst’. As emergence, it ‘emerged’ (in my view) from God’s intervention in a human crisis at exactly the right time.

I’m afraid that my spelling merely reflects a traditional English education - I go to the theatre and see ships in harbour as well. :wink:

Yes. Good education means a lot.:slight_smile: Be not afraid! :slight_smile:
I enjoyed your post and offer blessings.

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.