Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
This is the Great Commission given by Christ to his disciples. It was in pursuit of this that Peter, Paul and the Apostles gave their lives; it is in pursuit of it that countless Christians have endured hardship to spread the word to the very ends of the earth. Now, however, the Vatican has clarified something which had puzzled some of us since the Second Vatican Council – what is the position with regard to the Jewish people, those of the first Covenant? I say clarified with hesitation, and I raise the issue with the hope someone will tell me I’m reading this wrongly. But as I read the recent statement from the Vatican it is saying we do not need to convert the Jews, as they, under the first Covenant, can be saved any way. The statement admits it is a great mystery how this can be so. But while all in favour of mystery, this seems, I am afraid, like a bad way of avoiding answering the obvious question – which is how it conforms to Matthew 28:19 and Acts 4:12?
I am all in favour of the way in which the Vatican has moved to distance itself and Christianity as a whole from an attitude towards the Jewish people which led to massacres, and which, in its own way, helped prepare the ground for the holocaust (note, I am not saying it caused it because I don’t think the record shows that). It is good to recognise the common heritage in Abraham and what we call the Old Testament. There should be no place for anti-Semitism in Christian life, and those who still maintain the old charge of ‘deicide’ against the Jews need to rethink their views and ponder the words of Christ about forgiveness.
All of that said, I am happy to argue with anyone who wishes to keep those bad old ways, I cannot agree with what I take to be the meaning of the Vatican statement. Is the Vatican really saying that the Jews should not be evangelised? Is it really saying that Jesus meant ‘make disciples of all nations except the Jews’? Is it really saying that Paul did not mean it when he clearly states that the Jewish Law is not unto salvation? It won’t, for me, do to duck this issue by taking refuge in the claim ‘it’s all a mystery’, because in that case, the only real mystery is what the people who say this actually mean? There is one name by whom we are saved, just the one – Christ Jesus. If we believe on Him we are saved. Is it not the ultimate in anti-Semitism to exclude the Jews from this?
I stress that I raise this issue in the hope of being told I am reading the document quite incorrectly, and that the link I gave gets it wrong. I hope so. If not, then I have no idea what is going on in the Vatican, but decline to listen to another word from it.
All Along the Watchtower 
We’re as confused as you are Geoffrey. The real ‘mystery’ is the present Pope and his Curia which requires the really ‘good’ folks to pull something useful out of all the contradictories that are being tossed about. I’m not so sure how successful they will be . . . and I’m sure that this will only be one more blip on the radar screen, soon forgotten, and relegated to the round filing cabinet next to the desk of historical pertinency. I hope that clarified it for you. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you my friend for taking this as meant. It isn’t a criticism – yet – because I’ve no idea what it means. If it is saying there is more than one covenant and more than one way of being saved, then I – and I think you – will be criticising it. Why, why, why, even bother saying this sort of thing f you are not going to be clear???
LikeLiked by 1 person
It was politically expedient to do so perhaps? Just like Cuba and global warming and moral depravity and redistributive political systems that are presently getting a thumbs up from our hierarchy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It looks to me as though it does mean what it looks as though it means, but that someone pointed out the problem – at which point they went all ‘it’s a mystery’ on it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Probably CYA for our present situation that is a mystery to everyone. If they say they understand what this man is saying then they truly are holy fellows with their ears to the mouth of God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeas – we can watch the tumbleweed blowing in the wind!
LikeLiked by 1 person
We have tumbleweeds all the time here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave,
I have also read this isn’t really a binding document as it does not represent the Magisterium, if this is true, producing a document like this would be even more confusing. Have you heard or read anything on the matter?
Notwithstanding, I remember being it taught and stressed in Catholic school of God’s special relationship with the Jews, perhaps this is an outgrowth of that message?
In the end, I suppose when there is confusion we can simply pray for God’s guidance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes Philip, the document seems more like an agreement between Netanyahu and the Vatican State as opposed to a religious proclamation. I have a read a few things and they seem confused or amazed that this was put out there withou some explanation.
Yes the side-by-side covenant theory where both are in effect simultaneously has grown from the solemn belief that God never goes back on His word. That is fine as far as it goes . .. but even then, as Geoffrey states . . . somehow their salvation rests excusively with Christ. So it is a bit of quandry and backing down from evangelization efforst seems rather peculiar and hints at indifferentism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I dunno, I read it the same way you do. Didn’t the very first council cover this, when it was decided that it OK to evangelise the Gentile instead of ONLY the Jews? Must be progress, I guess, or maybe novelty. Either way, it makes no sense at all to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As I said to Dave, my guess is it either means what it looks like and they are obfuscating – or it is one of those clever-clever bits of stupid that only very clever people can come up with. Either way it is not helpful.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Maybe we should ask a (great) Methodist about it:
“If you just set out to be liked, you will be prepared to compromise on anything at anytime, and would achieve nothing. ”
― Margaret Thatcher
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes – and he is not even liked by many Catholics.
LikeLike
I know, but the media love him, and the elites, maybe that’s the goal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It rather looks like it. Best of luck to him with that one. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
At the risk of repeating myself, ive been listening to Imaculat Heart Radio 930 AM on so cal station. Two days ago the DJ said that the catholic church was gods gift to mankind. That reminded me of what a devotee said when I posted a pic of a dragon that is on the wall in the Vatican. The devotee said that it wasn’t a dragon, but that is was something else, like a furry kitten or something. I guess that if I belonged to a religion I would defend it also. But I have always been realistic. I read a book of history and it outlind how the first colonists would burn heretics. They put them on wheels and slowly turned them over a fire. and other things they did to them. In their defense, I say they were first catholics, then left the church, but still they were imbued with murder from their mother church. I don’t deny the murder and torture done by the protestants. I didn’t know it till I read a history book about it. I believed it. The book was credible. It told also of how the Spaniards and the priests made little ones go down in holes to fetch gold and lots of them died in collapses. And if they didn’t become catholic, the parents were killed and the children were raised catholic. For the life of me I don’t know how anyone in civilized society remains in that false wicked joke of a false religion called the catholic church. Id join the Jehovas or Morons, oops, the Mormons befor id join the church that invented the inquisition.
LikeLike
On completion of my degree in history, I took a Capstone class on how to avoid macro-generalizations when examining historical events.
I wish everyone I’ve encountered had taken the class; however, one can certainly still read the book I was assigned on the topic. “The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past” by John Lewis Gaddis. A short read, only 150 pages.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is this your equivalent of whipping yourself?
LikeLike
Personally, I try not to whip myself, However, the university at times enjoyed intellectually trying to whip me by forcing me to read John H. Arnold’s “A History: A short Introduction.” There’s only so much marxist dialectic I can stomach in a decade.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know Arnold – or used to. As close to parody as you can get and still chew gum and walk – odious little creep!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Make disciples. Followers of Christ. Not followres of budha or Moroni. Anyway, the bible is for the saved,not the unsaved. The damned of god catholic church cast dispersion on protestant people saying they don’t have this fullness stuff. What is this fullness? I suppose its one way the Marys scare their children into staying catholic. You’d better attend mass every week or you will go to hell. If I were president of the US id jail every catholic priest for child torture.
LikeLike
‘Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.
‘I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.’
It looks as if the Apostle Paul disagrees.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What do you preach in your ministry? There is only one message. Christ and him crucified. Tell people to ask Jesus to come to them. That’s the only message. No face full of crackers or vain philosophy. Just ask Jesus to come and sup with you.
LikeLike
The message is:
‘What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?’
Doesn’t apply to you, I’m afraid; your whole testimony is that you are not ‘dead to sin’; your mind is fixated with filth and you are still living in sin.
LikeLike
In a room full of sinners, I am considered chief. Glad to know that you have no sin.
LikeLike
So you keep telling us – you work hard at continuing in your sin, you delight in committing new sins more revolting than anything you ever came up with before – and you imagine that you will be welcomed into the heavenly kingdom?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco, of course Christians still sin and occasionally mess up. The sacrament of confession would be unnecessary if this was not the case as well as the sacrament of the Eucharist. The whole point of being dead to sin is striving toward perfection away from this sinful life. You simply cling to your own sin and say that you know Jesus more than us. The reality is that your sin masks the face of God from you and you don’t know diddly squat about him. You’re a lost sheep unable to find his shepherd because you never heard his call.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Stuff a sock in it Newengland.
LikeLike
Exactly how I’d expect the heathen to respond to good advice from a Godly man.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good advice from a godly man.Haaaaaahahahahahahahaha ahhhhhh (;-D Jock, you do have a sense of humor after all.
LikeLike
Oddly enough we preach Christ and him crucified.
LikeLike
That’s us in good company then 😉
LikeLike
Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
LikeLike
True – all the more reason to proclaim the gospel to them, so that they may believe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Take that up with your head honcho – he does not seem to be able to message.
LikeLike
Yes, you’ll get another one who wants to be popular – or he’ll get monstered and end up resigning.
LikeLike
When you find yourself sounding like Bosco, it’s time for a scotch ☺️
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s called common sense – something you’d be well-advised to acquire 🙂
LikeLike
Take it with your own church which, as so often, fails to agree with you.
LikeLike
No, people like you are betrayed by your leaders and are whistling in the dark to keep your spirits up – none so blind as those who refuse to see.
LikeLike
You’ll eventually cotton on – or you won’t..
LikeLike
Q,
I’m curious, what are your thoughts on Cardinal Sarah?
LikeLike
Interesting analysis, I’ve skimmed his book “God or Nothing.” I certainly think there is wisdom there. I think on a lot of points I agree with his assessment on modernism; however, I think what you and I have disagreed on is our overall views on Vatican II. I think your with this you certainly disagree with Cardinal Sarah
I do think it would be worth your time to read his book though, I think you may even agree with some of it.
LikeLike
Most of your assessment on the council I wouldn’t disagree with Q. I think most people I speak to at least historically would claim it didn’t define dogma and the changes were pastoral in nature.
I think the council can be very much justified by the traditionalism of the Church. However, I think what I would disagree with is perhaps your opinion of its fatally erroneous optimistic assessment.
You’d have to understand though that I was born during the Pontificate of Pope John Paul II and spent more much than half my life with him as the leader of my Church. I do believe in his philosophy of love, which I think based on an optimistic assessment of humanity.
However, I may agree with you somewhat, I DO think that folks take it too far as Pope John Paul II is still very critical of rationalism/enlightenment/Descartes in his writings late in his Pontificate. He explains how in many ways is the same world who nailed “love” to a cross. Also described John O’Malley’s book on the topic, Cardinal Wojtyla criticized religious liberty documents for being too optimistic of the modern world, but I would say being Pope John Paul II wasn’t strident in those beliefs with his attitude toward ecumenism. Although I have great respect for Pope John Paul II his actions and words sometimes do not always seem clear to me.
It’s a complex matter and its hard to come to frame it in a simple judgment.
LikeLike
What are your thoughts though on Church ecumenism prior to Vatican II? Say from the Peace of Augsburg in 1555? It runs prior to the enlightenment period and it allowed rulers to determined the religion of their kingdom?
I think in accordance to Religious liberty and Ecumenism the Church certainly within its traditions carries the philosophy of will with the writings of Augustine and Aquinas.
LikeLike
You’re analogy is interesting, would those who were of another religion be able to practice so on their own property, even if it were outside and in public view?
In my understanding:
“Error has no rights” was a change from the Peace of Augsburg in the 19th century. So to speak if “the State” has to promote the truth and profess and defend the faith, which at times would be duty bound to discourse or even suppress other religions. Why would another state of another religion in reflection of such rule then in a sense give positive rights to a Catholic minority because it’s “the truth” and has no rights?
I think the American bishops were very much on board with changing this attitude during the council based on the election and sentiment of Catholics based on the election of John F. Kennedy.
Government in many ways is “Force” or at the very least coercion. I think in many ways the council did in fact address this properly. God must be manifested in one’s conscience and “Force” has no right to infringe on one’s free will by denying basic rights.
Although I certainly admit this creates problems with secularism promoting pluralism. However, according to the philosophy of St. Augustine, one must be free to accept the grace of God or not. I think the “Error has no rights” philosophy is a violates that sentiment.
LikeLike
It’s perhaps a bit more complex in a secular pluralist state.
For instance, let’s examine a situation of my own. Where I was born and raised Catholic but my grandparents were Methodists. Prior to Vatican II there was a source of a great conflict within American families, as I wouldn’t be allowed to attend a Methodist service prior to Vatican II. The Church could so to speak not allow me to attend a service with my family. The tension has been lifted and the tolerance of Catholics in America has great improved.
You deem this not a good thing?
LikeLike
Your concern with the Eucharist does merit a certain seriousness. However with your concern it appears to be missing a dimension of the community of the celebration of the sacrament that Pope John Paul II spoke of as a Bishop of Krakow.
The Eucharist in its celebration as Cardinal Wojtyla spoke of has a dimension of human community; a mutual union with co-operation and forgiveness.It’s important to understand this sentiment.
Attending other services does little harm in this lack of understanding. This lukewarmness is more or less a product of modern secularism. In many ways, also by the lack of teaching from Parishes.
I often pray for the wounds of the Church to be healed during other services.
LikeLike
Do listen to yourself. I’ve heard Jews say what you say, Muslims say what you say, Orthodox say what you say, Baptists say what you say. You all have one thing in common, you reduce God to the little space your head can grasp. Thank God for God.
LikeLike
Jesus criticised the Pharisees for just this attitude. The Gospel is freedom and joy – you distrust the first and evince no sign of the latter; I am sorry for you.
LikeLike
You seem to mistake freedom for license, which is a better error than our society makes when it does the opposite. Joyful? I hope so, though I see precious little sign. A happy Christmas to you and your family, I have one post up today, but will be away for most of the next week,
LikeLike
I initially would say what an absurd bunch of Pharisee legalism and still may, but you may simply misinterpreting what I am saying or misconstruing, we’ll see.
As my two paragraphs separates my two points about Eucharist within the community of Catholicism and the other stating how attending another Christian service is NOT a representation of this community between Catholics. Therefore, it does not beget active participation within the protestant service, it’s false equivalence. It’s nothing more than listening to a prayer service. I suppose you believe that if you hear a protestant pray you have to go to confession.
The attempt to portray the two statements are connected is simply a fallacy.
Let’s look at some of Pope John Paul II’s teachings:
“The Church, precisely because it is Catholic, is open to dialogue with all other Christians. (strange how the Pope doesn’t say ‘false religion’?)… The Church wants to preach the Gospel together with all who believe in Christ.” (Wait…Pope we can’t DO IT together, that’s active participation!)
“The Council speaks of membership in the Church for Christians…for people of goodwill. (cf. Lumen Gentium) People are saved through the Church (I’m sure you’ll agree with), they are saved in the Church (No problems), but they are saved by the grace of Christ. (wait, St. John Paul II what are you saying?) Besides formal membership in the Church, the sphere of salvation can also include OTHERS FORMS OF RELATIONS TO THE CHURCH. (huh… wait what are you saying!?) Paul VI expressed this same teaching in the first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam, when he spoke of the various circles of the dialogue of salvation (cf. Ecclesiam Suam 101-117), which are the same as those indicated by the Council as the spheres of membership in and of RELATION to the Church. This the authentic meaning of the well-known statement “Outside of the Church there is no salvation.
“It would be DIFFICULT TO DENY that this doctrine is EXTREMELY OPEN.(oh, I see what you’re saying) It cannot be accused of an ecclesiological EXCLUSIVISM.(Wait, it can’t? But that’s not how I read your last sentence…) Those who rebel against claims allegedly made by the Catholic Church probably DO NOT have an adequate understanding of this teaching.”
Pope St. John Paul II, of course, The narrative you and other traditionalists have produced is one that is based on an exclusive formula, which is according to Pope St. John Paul is not the correct one.
Of course, he could be wrong and supporting a cult of a false religion and committed a mortal sin. If so, it wouldn’t be possible he could be a Saint…oops. Well, I suppose he could have recanted.
Should we continue the lesson with Pope John Paul II?
(Pope St. John Paul II repent, those other Christian divisions are heretics!)
“Divisions that that to a great degree result from the idea that one can have monopoly on truth”–Bingo.
“Nevertheless, these different approaches to understanding and living out one’s faith in Christ can, in certain cases, be complementary; THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.” (Yes, they do! or it’s a mortal sin, don’t you know that Pope?)
That should be enough for now, no offense Q, but I’m just going to take his word of it.
LikeLike
Okay, fair enough, forgive the misunderstanding on that part of “participation”.
However what about Pope St. John Paul II on his sentiments on salvation in the Church? It appears that largely what he is describing is a union of “Nicene Christians.” Those are written in Crossing the Threshold of Hope for reference btw.
LikeLike
PS Again, forgive all the typos. I can’t reread my entire comment in the tiny window to address my comment’s clarity.
LikeLike
ROME (AP) — Police said Monday they had seized 3,500 fake Vatican parchments that were being sold to unsuspecting pilgrims taking part in Pope Francis’ Holy Year celebrations
The parchments were knock-offs of the calligraphy-filled, personalized Apostolic Blessing parchments that are sold inside the Vatican by Francis’ chief alms-giver
http://news.yahoo.com/italy-seizes-3-500-fake-apostolic-blessings-rome-132709485.html
Yes, make sure the blessing you purchase is authorized.
LikeLike
Bosco’s always mad whenever I present an argument against his falsehoods because he cannot refute my arguments and knows they are true (it is typical of Satan to try and avoid the light that is shed on his darkness). So rather than actually come up with an argument in response he tells me to “stuff a sock in it”. His father, the father of lies, cannot stand it when I speak truth to him so he must possess his dear child to tell me to stuff a sock in it or falsely claim I’m drunk.
LikeLike
You forget that ive gotten to know you. I don’t answer you seriously because youre a joke. Hows that for an answer?
LikeLike
No. You don’t answer me seriously because the devil in you cannot handle the truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person