Peter Papoutsis, one of our frequent commentators, sent Monomakhos this essay. Like me, he’s concerned about the implications regarding the recent Vatican statement regarding the validity of the New Covenant.
Specifically, whether Jews need to adhere to it in order to be saved or whether they’re exempt from it.
The implications of this new understanding (to my mind) are startling. At the very least, they point to racialist distinctions between Jews and gentiles that are antithetical to the Apostolic tenor of the New Testament.
No doubt other alarms will be sounded as well.
In the meantime, please take the time to read Mr Papoutsis’ thoughtful essay.
And in the meantime, I pray everyone has a merry (New Style) Christmas!
The Fractured Christ of Renovation
By Peter Papoutsis
On December 10th 2015 the Vatican issued a new document on Christian-Jewish dialogue. The new document entitled “The Gifts and Calling of God are irrevocable,” marks the 50th anniversary and continued expansion of the declaration “Nostra Aetate” of the Second Vatican Council. “Nostra Aetate” presented a so-called “new theological framework” for the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people. The declaration made several statements which caused a shift away from the Catholic churches supersessionist beliefs, and towards a new theological understanding that God did not repent of the gifts he makes or of the calls he issues towards the Jewish people.
This new theological understandings of the Jewish people in regards to gifts God has made it to them or calls he issued to them that have never been abolished by God, led Pope John Paul the second in his historic visit to the synagogue in Mainz, Germany in 1980 to state that the Jewish people are the “people of God of the Old Testament, which has never been ever get it by God.”
In 1997 Pope John Paul again stated in regard to the Jewish people’s covenant status “this (Jewish) people continues in spite of everything to be the people of the Covenant and despite human infidelity the Lord is faithful to His covenant.”
Given these statements as well as the Catholic Church’s new theological perspective in regards to the Jewish peoples continued covenant relationship with God, it is therefore not surprising that the Vatican’s most recent statement on December 10th 2015 affirmed “that the covenant of God with Israel has never been revoked.” However even though the Vatican statement on the continued cover of God with Israel is not surprising it is problematic at the least, or critical at the most.
The Vatican’s new document in stating that the Church does not replace the people of God Israel and that the covenant that God has offered Israel is irrevocable creates three biblical and theological problems from an orthodox Christian perspective:
- The repudiation of St Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews;
- An erroneous and renovationist interpretation of St Paul’s theology in his epistle to the Romans;
- The creation and promulgation of “another gospel” in place of our Lord’s gospel.
I. The Repudiation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews
The Holy Orthodox Church for all of her history has held the clear up Apostolic teaching that the church is the New Israel and that’s through faith and obedience to Jesus Christ become part of God’s new and everlasting covenant. in speaking of this New Covenant the church has often quoted and relied upon the teaching as presented in St Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews 8:19, which states:
In speaking of a New Covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away (Hebrews 8:13).
St Paul is able to make this statement because of his explicit belief that Christ’s sacrifice of himself on the cross secured an eternal redemption that is far superior than what was offered under the Old Covenant (Hebrews 9:12-13) that if the first covenant with the Jewish people had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second (Hebrews 8:7). In fact, St Paul cites the Prophet Jeremiah for the proposition that even Jeremiah found fault with the Old Covenant, and prophesied the coming of a New Covenant. The Prophet Jeremiah, as cited by Saint Paul, stated:
The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a New Covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand and to leave them out of the land of Egypt, for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord. This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord” (Hebrews 8:8-10).
As it can be seen, for St. Paul, the New Covenant, of which Jeremiah prophesied, surpassing the first (Old) covenant.
St. Paul, in further quoting Jeremiah, states in regards to the New Covenant that God will put his laws into their minds and write them on their hearts, and he will be their God, and they shall be his people. And they shall not teach Everyone his fellows or everyone his brother, say no the Lord, for all shall know me from the least of them to the greatest (Hebrews 8 : 10-11). For St. Paul this demonstrates the superiority of the New Covenant in that it not only surpasses the Old Covenant, but provides a universal and personal knowledge of God. thus, one can immediately see that even in Jeremiah’s day, by speaking of a New Covenant the Old Covenant was treated as obsolete, and ready to be discarded.
With such explicit language in the Epistle to the Hebrews how does the Vatican’s new document assert that “That the covenant of God with Israel has never been revoked?” The document does this by first wrongfully redefining the central message of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and later by disregarding the Epistle to the Hebrews altogether. The Vatican’s document states “This epistle (To the Hebrews) however is not directed to the Jews, but rather to the Christians of Jewish background who have become weary and uncertain.” Well why? Why have the Christians of Jewish background become weary and uncertain? Because these Jewish Christians were being called back to Judaism, back to the Old Covenant. Again St Paul is very clear of this when he states:
For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and the fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the Covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the spirit of grace (Hebrews 10:26-29)?
If the Old Covenant is still valid, and a sufficient vehicle for salvation for the Jews then why such strong language of condemnation for those Jewish Christians who forsake Jesus Christ and go back under the Old Covenant?
The Vatican’s new document goes even further in twisting and distorting the Epistle to the Hebrews by stating that Jeremiah’s promise of a New Covenant, as sizing in chapter eight of the Epistle, has no intention of proving the promises of the Old Covenant false, but on the contrary treats them as valid. This is a very disingenuous statement because St Paul when citing Jeremiah 31:31-34, is not a certain that the Old Covenant was false, but obsolete, and what is obsolete is old and done away with (Hebrews 8:13). That it is the New Covenant, through faith and obedience in Jesus Christ, that has fulfilled the Old Covenant, surpass that, and offers eternal redemption for all. Hebrews 9:11-14.
The Vatican’s new document, knowing it could not maintain its misrepresentation of the Epistle to the Hebrews simply disregarding it by stating: “Nostra Aetate did not refer to the Epistle to the Hebrews. However Nostra Aetate in the Vatican’s new document did refer to St Paul’s reflections in his letter to the Romans chapters 9 through 11 as their authority in developing their new theological understanding of the continued validity of the Old Covenant. Yet, in examining St Paul’s “reflections” in Romans his “theology” becomes clear that the Old Covenant no longer exists, and only the New Covenant survives by fulfilling the Old, and making membership in the New Covenant completely dependent on having faith in Jesus Christ.
II An Erroneous and Renovationist Interpretation of St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans
The Vatican’s new document on Christian-Jewish dialogue makes the bold statement that “The covenant that God has offered Israel is irrevocable…” and that “The permanent elective fidelity of God expressed in earlier covenants is never repudiated.” The new document cites Romans 9:4 and Romans 11:1-2, but fails to explain them or to articulate clearly St. Paul’s theology. If done so one would have quickly realized that Romans 9:4 simply states that to the Jews belong all the promises and covenants and patriarchs, which is true but then in verse 5 St Paul states “and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God overall, blessed forever” (Romans 9:5). St. Paul asserts the superiority of Christ even though praising his own brethren in the Jews. In verse 6 St Paul States very clearly that the descendants are not the physical descendants of Abraham but the children of the promise are reckoned as Abraham’s descendants (Romans 9:8). The remainder of Romans chapter 9 reveals who these children of the promise are, they are Gentiles who have accepted Christ through faith as opposed to the Jews who have rejected him (Romans 9:25-33).
Romans 11 actually continues this thing by stating that God has not rejected the Jewish people but later on in the chapter St Paul makes clear that the reason God has not rejected his fellow Jews is because the gift of inclusion in the New Covenant is based upon faith in Christ. St Paul states: “So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works otherwise grace would no longer be grace. What then? Israel failed to obtain what it sought. The elect obtain it, but the rest (of the Jewish people) were hardened” (Romans 11:5-7). For St Paul the remnant of the elect are those who have accepted the gospel, and have faith in Jesus Christ. The rest who have hardened their hearts are the majority of the Jewish people who have rejected Jesus Christ (Romans 11:8-10). But has God rejected the Jewish people? St Paul says no. However, for St. Paul it is not because their covenant is valid, but “through their trespasses salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespasses means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will there full inclusion mean” (Romans 11:11-12).
The rejection of Christ and His gospel on the part of the majority of the Jewish people is part of God’s plan; God has hardened their hearts for the loving purpose of giving the Gentiles the opportunity to hear and receive the gospel. This will have the effect of making the Jews jealous and thus drawing the Jews to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. If the Old Covenant is still active, and God never revoked it, why does St Paul anguish over his fellow Jews’ inclusion in the New Covenant by accepting Christ and His Holy Gospel? Because for St. Paul the Old Covenant no longer exists, but it’s been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. St Paul is clear when he says: “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (Romans 3:21-22). St. Paul then drives the point home by stating for we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law (Romans 3:28). forcing Paul it is faith in Jesus Christ that matters, not the works of the law because for St Paul the works of the law lead to death (Romans 7:5).
St. Paul used the law of Moses as leading to death while faith in Christ, which is open to all, Jew and Gentile, leads to life. For St Paul states: “But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which holds us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the spirit” (Romans 7:6). So as it can be seen, st. Paul does not believe the Old Covenant is valid, but has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who is giving us a new and everlasting covenant through his death, burial and resurrection from the dead.
III The creation and promulgation of another gospel in place of our Lord’s Gospel
The Vatican’s new document is very clear that it is presenting a new theological relationship for Judaism. In many ways this is not a new theological relationship with Judaism, but a new take on an old problem dealt with by St Paul himself in his epistle to the Galatians. The problem in the Galatian church was that in addition to having faith in Jesus Christ a Christian was obligated to keep the Mosaic law. The Galatian Christians were insisting that the Old Covenant was still valid, and must be conformed to it before one could become a Christian. St. Paul insists very strongly to the contrary, and states that one only needs faith in Jesus Christ to become right with God. In fact, St. Paul’s complete rejection of the requirements of the Old Covenant is so strong that he states that the Galatians are preaching another gospel instead of the one true gospel, and by so doing are accursed (Galatians 1:6-9).
The Vatican’s new document amounts to presenting another gospel that negates the entirety of the Jewish people’s obligation to have faith in Christ because they’re covenant is still valid for their salvation, and makes any missionary efforts among the Jews unnecessary at the very least, and anti-Semitic at the very most. The Vatican’s new document qualifies are large great commission by saying we are to preach the Gospel to all the nations, except to the Jewish nation. St Paul states that if anyone, even an angel from heaven, you’re preaching of the gospel contrary to the one true gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ they are accursed. In other words they are anathematized.
As much as I want relations between Jews and Christians to improve, and develop strong bonds of mutual respect and friendship, that relationship cannot be built on lies and the negation of the Gospel. I hope and pray that the Vatican, and the Pope himself, the love this new document as critical, but the reality of the present situation speaks otherwise. Orthodox Christians cannot accept this new document from the Vatican, not because it comes from Rome, but because it renounces the cross and the very purpose and mission of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
I’m going to be very interested in what our brother Peter has to say. I’m sure it will be quite valuable.
With regard to your introduction, George, i would want to say it is fraught with language that makes discussions of thorny issues difficult. I didn’t get the impression from reading the Vatican document that it raised implications for “the validity of the New Covenant.” Even if it did (or does), you don’t actually define what you mean by “validity” nor what exactly you mean by the “New Covenant.”
In your next sentence you talk about whether people (in this case, Jews) “need” “to adhere” to “it” in order to be “saved.” Or, you ask, whether they are “exempt” from “it.” Too many charged and undefined terms for me. This leads, on the one hand, to arguments where there are none and, on the others, to a feeling of agreement when there may be none at all.
You also talk about this “new” understanding, but I don’t see much different from what was written 50 years ago in Nostra Aetate. So, I’m wondering what your time frame for newness versus oldness is.
We can talk more in the future. Meanwhile, have a most joyful and blessed celebration of our Lord’s Nativity according to the flesh. He is indeed the Way, the Truth and the Life and none comes to the Father but by Him. Indeed, He and the Father are one and the image of the invisible God. Of Him we can never say enough.
Gory to Jesus Christ.
lxc+
Peter makes an excellent critique of this absurd document from the Vatican, which is obviously based not on Scripture nor on theology but on PC vainglory and obsequiousness toward modern self-styled Jews. I would suggest that an additional key point to be mentioned in this matter is that today’s ‘Jews’ are, at best, the descendants of the Jews that rejected their Messiah and, by doing so, abrogated the covenantal relationship they had with God (if not actual imposters, in their claim to be the biological descendants of Abraham). Therefor, while it is true that God never abolished the Old Covenant, the Jews that rejected the Messiah rejected that covenant for themselves and their posterity (modern ‘Judaism’), thereby losing any claim they might have had, either spiritual or temporal (e.g., to the Holy Land) under it (cf., ‘Let His blood be upon us and upon our children!’). They are, instead, the spiritual descendants and disciples of the rabbis of the Talmudic tradition that was emerging at the time of our Lord and which He frequently criticised and even denounced. All the Jews of our Lord’s time that were faithful to the Old Covenant embraced Him as the Messiah of Israel and became Christians. So the whole Vatican statement is built on a fantasy.
One more comment, George: Please [edit better].
Thank you. I will also affirm the old covenant was not abolished, but fulfilled and renewed by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Peter
That was my failure to edit, not George’s.
today’s ‘Jews’ are, at best, the descendants of the Jews that rejected their Messiah and, by doing so, abrogated the covenantal relationship they had with God (if not actual imposters, in their claim to be the biological descendants of Abraham).
Comments like this are so depressing. Of all the lamentable forms of Orthodox triumphalism, a nasty attitude toward the children of Abraham is the most.
If Orthodox Christians could manage to muzzle their mouths on this point for a generation or two, people might start taking us for . . . . well, Christians.
I agree with Fr. Reardon. My post was to defend Jesus Christ and His Gospel, not to disparage a people that have already suffered throughout history.
Peter
I’m sorry father, but I disagree with you. I think the hieromonk is spot on. They are no longer the children of Abraham.
There is nothing depressing about it…..it is an accurate statement.
…..And who are all these “people” who do not consider the Holy Orthodox Church to be a Church of Christians?
They are no longer the children of Abraham. There is nothing depressing about it…..it is an accurate statement.
He declares that today’s Jews are not Abraham’s children. It is difficult to see that this is not anti-Semitism.
Father-
I just don’t see how making a statement of fact can be considered “anti-Semetic.” The True children of Abraham, the True Israel is the Church. The jews relinquished their claims on these titles when they collectively called down upon themselves the blood of the Savior. This is not “triumphalism.”
Stating that the jews are no longer the children of Abraham is pretty tame compared with what St. John Chrysostom had to say about them.
So what was St. Paul talking about when he wrote Romans decades after that “collective” event?
What part Tim?
Peter
The part about the Jews.
Romans 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but “Through Isaac shall your descendants be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants.
Galatians 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
Faith in Jesus Christ is now the per-requisite so as to belong to the Covenant of God which still exists but has been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Belief in Jesus was St. Paul’s main mission to his own People then unto the Gentiles. We see this clearly in the Book of Acts, as well as the whole New Testament.
Ask yourself this: “Why is the New Testament FULL of Old Testament quotations affirming Jesus Christ as the Jewish Messiah?” Did Pagans know the Old Testament Messianic prophesies? Did the Pagans even care? No they did not. So who cared? The Jewish People.
The whole of the New Testament is one big evangelism tool to the Jews to believe in Jesus as the Messiah and bring them into the new and everlasting covenant.
Later when the Gentiles came into the Church and the only Holy Scriptures we had was the Old Testament did the gentiles care about the prophesies about the messiah. But at the various times the individual books of the New Testament were written it was one of the NT’s aims to preach the Good News to the Jews as to the coming of their messiah, as well as to correct errors in the early Church, and to teach us Gentiles about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit in our lives and in the life of humanity.
Peter A. Papoutsis
Peter-
I disagree that pagans did not care or were not looking for a Messiah-like figure. We know that the Magi were most likely Zoroastrian priests from Persia. There are also mythic tales in ancient Egyptian lore that tell of redemption through the death of a Messiah figure. I’m sure there are probably more.
What the pagans believed was probably the remnants of the lost knowledge of God that humanity began to forget after the Fall.
The Magi were probably heavily influenced by the exiled Jewish people that lived in Babylon at the time of the exile and beyond.
As for the rest, I can assure you no one cared for or was looking for the coming of a Jewish messiah.
Peter
St. Paul was also speaking prior to the destruction of the Temple. Today’s “jews” practice a religion very different from the religion of the Old Testament. Rabbinical talmudism is not Judaism.
What does “prior to the destruction of the Temple” have to do with it?
The logic proceeds thus: The destruction of the Holy Temple in 70 A.D. by the Romans destroyed the sacrificial system inherent in Second Temple Judaism. With the Destruction of the Temple animal sacrifices could not take place, and a book and tradition based religion was born that was against the dictates of the Torah. Thus a wholly new and different form of Judaism developed that is at odds with Biblical Judaism.
I do not believe this is the case as I believe Judaism is still the same today, but adjusted accordingly to survive until the Temple is restored and the sacrifices can be resumed. Many Jewish people believe, and rightly so, that if the Holy Temple cannot be built to specific requirements in the Torah, then they are exempt from the Temple’s Holy Services and sacrifices until such time the Temple can be properly rebuilt and consecrated for Services.
See the following article: Rebuilding the Holy Temple.
So Modern Rabbinic/Talmudic Judaism is the same as so-called biblical Judaism, but adjusted in practice under the circumstances. To say otherwise is wrong and not in keeping with the historical reality of the Jewish Diaspora.
Peter
Peter, I almost agree with you.
The problem is with the concept of “biblical Judaism”. There were many different sects and schools of thought within Judaism in Biblical times (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Christians, etc.} Modern Rabbinic/Talmudic Judaism is the descendant of just one of those sects. So to say it is “the same” as Biblical Judaism, as if there was but one “Biblical Judaism”, is to over simplify things a bit.
Steven:
Has Steven read the gospels? Jesus wasn’t a big fan of the temple and its authorities.
Steven:
Today’s “orthodox christians” practice a religion very different from the religion of the Old Testament. Orthodox christianity is not Judaism. SO WHAT?
Steven:
Bible thumping literalism invading Orthodox Christianity….
OOM-
Sts. Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Chrysostom seem to interpret this passage literally. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
I’ve taken to simply ignoring your posts since they tend to be long on snark and short on substance but I’m curious regarding your un-literal non-Bible thumping interpretation.
Steven (scarasm on) Surely you must know that we moderns have discovered so much and progressed so far that the opinions of men in the past ate simply archaic predjudice.
Look, brethren. It really all boils down to this. Pharisaic Judaism preceded the destruction of the Temple. It is the linear ancestor of modern rabbinic Orthodox Judaism. Read the Mishna and Gemarra – the Talmud. It was begun about 200 years before Christ and completed about 400 years later.
If St. Paul’s first priority was to go to the synagogue and preach Christ to the Jews, obviously he felt they were in need of Christ. Though I’ve never been a fundamentalist, low-church Protestant:
“Gimme that old time religion, gimme that old time religion, if it was good enough for Paul, it’s good enough for me.”
Amen, brother; praise the Lord!
“God is able of these very stones to raise up children to Abraham.”
There is one people Israel, the Orthodox Christian people. The fact that people happen to have a higher percentage of this or that DNA is not the relevant criterion any more.
Hieromonk MK:
TO WHICH HIERARCH DOES CLERGYMAN KERR OWE OBEDIENCE? DOES THAT HIERARCH APPROVE OF CLERGYMAN KERR’S ANTI-CATHOLIC JEW-BAITING?
“Anti-Catholic” (religious institution)? You want “pro-Catholic” (religious institution)? Orthodox have no Eucharistic Communion with the the RC, none, even the most liberal like Bartholomew for time being. The divide between Orthodoxy and Catholicism in the past 1000 years has only widened with each passing year-decade-century due to all the new false stuff the Vatican is always making up. Those “Orthodox” who so very much wish to join with the RC and have all these ecumenical prayers and meetings and eventually the sought for communion are all “BIG TIME” …. departure …. from historical Orthodoxy. Those Orthodox just simply should convert to the RC! Make their wish come true, for themselves; they do not belong in Orthodoxy, they directly contradict all the historical Orthodox Church Fathers and their teachings. As to your aforementioned “Hierarch” of clergyman Kerr approval/non approval, if he disapproves let him state his reasoning for disapproval, then you find out who he is, Orthodox or not. Further, there is no “jew-baiting” here. Judaism simply outright rejects the divinity of Jesus Christ of the Gospels. Some Jewish people like to refer to their own version of Jesus as a “prophet” and if he is that, a “prophet,” then that “prophet” can only be a “False Prophet” because the Orthodox Religion and the Gospels in no way and in no manner teach that Jesus is any kind of a “prophet!” Then everything in the Gospels would be complete total fabrication. The Gospels are predicated on Jesus as ONLY being Lord and not any “prophet.”
As far as the Old Covenant goes, there will be a “remnant” of the Israelis true to the Scriptures from Old Testament all the way through the New Testament and till the End. A remnant of that remnant will be significant members of the Church, its been prophesied, who in End Times will be formidable foes of the Anti-Christ.
As imperfect as this offering is I give it to all Christians to ponder and study, and as a witness to the world of Jesus Christ the way, the truth and the life that no one may come to the Father but through Him and Him alone. One Covenant, One Church, One Faith built firmly upon Our Lord and Savior and His Holy Gospel. Anything less is pure heresy.
Peter A. Papoutsis
Your contribution is much appreciated, Peter. It contains much food for thought and study and already help me see things I had not noticed before and to think more deeply on the subject.
It’s a lot to digest and comment on in a forum such as this–as was the Vatican document–which while problematic in parts is not “absurd” as suggested by our brother, Hiermonk Mark, nor composed by biblical illiterates as suggested by our ever-gracious episcopal brother. You did a good job in pointing out problems with the document in three sections over three pages. Thank you.
Without writing a long piece either to wrestle with yours or the Vatican’s let me simply ask us consider–if we must speak in terms of “validity”–what is the New Covenant “valid” for? What is its purpose?
Now, once we have the answer to that question, ponder this one: was the Old Covenant, whatever its terms (I’m still not clear on that point since no one has defined them), was the OC intended for the self-same purpose? Or did it have another or other purposes for which it was, and may still be valid, though it was never valid or intended to be valid for what the New Covenant is given for?
We know that Jesus Christ is the Theanthropos, the only begotten Son of God, that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, that none comes to the Father but by Him, that He and the Father are One, that there is no other Name under Heaven whereby we may be saved, and that their is One LORD, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all. This reality is true for all men of every tongue, tribe and nation. I do not believe the Vatican documents from Nostra Aetate, to Dominus Iesus to this one that The Gifts and Calling of God are Without Repentace deny these truths. and I think you go too far in suggesting that this one “renounces the cross and the very purpose and mission of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” I think the document and you mean different things by a number of terms and have different thoughts in mind. This does not mean that I disagree that there are equivocal statements in the document that could be used to instill error–especially when taken out of context. But this is a problem with many written texts written by fallible human beings–including you and me.
My we pray for the correction of error and the unity of all men in Christ, to Whom be all honor and glory, now and forever.
Forgive me, a sinner.
lxc
Amen, Peter!
I avoided getting into another point which is this: If the Old Covenant is still valid, are the territorial claim under the Old Covenant also still valid? The Old Covenant was not just a religious instrument, but also a territorial instrument.
Many Palestinian. Jordanian, Egyptian, etc., people, especially if they have existing property rights over certain lands, may have a problem with this.
Peter
PAP:
PAP’s “theology” avoided all the worthwhile points – NOT including whether the territorial claims of the Jews for their homeland is still valid.
Is PAP aware that the whole thrust of section of the epistle to the Hebrews from which he cherry-picks quotations is to DENIGRATE an earthly priesthood and earthly sacrifice? Can PAP’s thick skull absorb the embarrassment that that ought to cause the Orthodox church? At least the Vatican document alludes to it!
Thick skull? How rude. Must of hit a nerve with the TRUTH!
Peter
That territory belongs to the people Israel, ie the Orthodox Christan people, forever. The fact that the homosexuals and the heretical sharers of a relatively higher proportion of DNA with our brothers of ancient times who corrupted the British Empire managed to get it deeded to the wrong group is itself an affront to God’s covenant with the people Israel.
Peter, God may save, yes, through Christ, whomever He chooses to save. If HE the All-Holy Trinity saves someone who denies Him, that is HIS prerogative: you can’t brandish the Scriptures at Him in protest.
I assert The New Testament, Jesus Christ and St. Paul. I am sorry you have a problem with that. Fortunately I do not.
Peter
Here my good Bishop, a good Greek Orthodox Christian teaching the exact same thing as me another Greek Orthodox Christian
Jeremiah and the New Covenant
The above link, ” Jeremiah and the new covenant ” is not working. http:// http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/searchthescriptures/jeremiah_part_5
Thank you for providing the link. I greatly apologize for the link not working. It is a wonderful podcast by Prof. Constantinou.
Peter
A PROOFTEXTER’S DELIGHT! Sounds like one of my priest’s more tedious attempts at sermonizing. Another Orthodox Christian telling the Jews they need to convert. Who would’ve thunk it?
“Who would have thunk it?”
Answer: St. Paul
God may save those who deny Him, even if you throw St Paul at Him!
What can I say Universalism does seem to become you. I wonder then what was the whole point of the incarnation, crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Sorry to throw Jesus at you my good bishop.
Peter
Peter, I have nowhere indicated that everybody will be saved. I merely pointed to God’s omnipotence–why fight it? If that must be rationalized away, then,as a Greek Orthodox, please, tell us if your theology is cataphatic or apophatic, okay? There is more than one answer to the question you posed about “the whole point.”
It is conjectured that our Father Gregory of Nyssa would have been the third member of the Three Hierarchs (supposedly in place of St. Gregory the Theologian) had it not been for the “small” matter of his belief in the ἀποκατάστασις. The point of the sacrifice of the Incarnate Son of God, Peter, was to purchase salvation for everyone forever through “cleansing fire”; Gregory could not accept that God could tolerate, in the end, the destruction of any of his creation, and provided a mechanism for their ultimate salvation. The later Fathers found this teaching to be heresy, but St. Gregory of Nyssa remains a “Father & Teacher.” And seriously, who would not like to believe along with him…
I agree 100% I think it’s because many cannot tolerate that God could damn people who reject him that this “duel covenant” heresy has come about. In my mind it’s nothing more than a quasi-universalism that denies the power of the cross and Jesus Christ himself.
Thank you Michael, and feel better my friend.
Peter
So you are a Calvinist? God has already decided who he will save and not save? Christ’s death was a limited atonement for a select few? I really don’t understand your theology. Please explain as an OCA Orthodox Christian.
Peter
PAP:
Too bad he DIDN’T WRITE the epistle to the Hebrews.
St. Paul did write Romans, and the Epistle to the Hebrews is still Apostolic. Sorry buddy. Try again.
Peter
Has anyone questioned that? Peter, OOM, and I are Apostolic Christians; however, I’m not ALWAYS right!
They do.
The only time “proof texts” have no meaning is when they are taken out of context to assert a disparate agenda, something you liberals and Renovationists know a lot about. But when used to express the Patristic or Scriptural Consensus they are the appropriate method of stating ones point as opposed to novel contrivance steeped in relativism, anachronism and the ever so prevalent narcissism of Renovationist revisions.
But branding the witness of the Church which contradicts you and your teaching with a label is convenient, isn’t it? Otherwise you would have nothing to say and your Renovationist fraud would be readily apparent, right? Ah, the sham of McOrthodoxy!
MW:
Using the scriptures, willy-nilly, to make the point that Jews need to convert to Christ for their salvation has been done so many times before, with such little charity, leading to such disastrous consequences, that for ANY Christian to take up that old polemic now is entirely OBSCENE!
Any Christian who does not love his fellow human being enough to bring him to CHRIST is no Christian, but, rather, a being so full of hate as to be considered obscene.
Willy-Nilly? I guess St. Paul is willy-Nilly.
Peter
nolens-volens/willy-nilly—–not adjectives, Peter!
More commonly, we now say, “like it or not.”
Peter,
Keep truly loving the Jewish people in truth, none of us should cease to preach Christ to them.
St. Maximus the Confessor: I write these things not wishing to cause distress to the heretics or to rejoice in their ill-treatment — God forbid; but, rather, rejoicing and being gladdened at their return. For what is more pleasing to the Faithful than to see the scattered children of God gathered again as one? Neither do I exhort you to place harshness above the love of men. May I not be so mad! I beseech you to do and to carry out good to all men with care and assiduity, becoming all things to all men, as the need of each is shown to you; I want and pray you to be wholly harsh and implacable with the heretics only in regard to cooperating with them or in any way whatever supporting their deranged belief. For I reckon it hatred towards man and a departure from Divine love to lend support to error, so that those previously seized by it might be even more greatly corrupted.” (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 91 col. 465c).
This is a conversation best avoided. No disrespect intended.
Where are the pita chips?
Nope.
The post by Fr Reardon mirrors my sentiments. I think the same of the Vatican commentary, for the record. And I mean no disrespect. My dad would only give it a hand for’d.
NO DOUBT we can expect a loud vociferous reaction from Orthodox hierarchies and hierarchs from around the world containing not only “proof texts” from Scripture, as Peter has provided for us and for the biblically illiterate magisterium of the Roman Church, but something even more satisfying, such as a quote from St John Chrysostom who famously did not shy from denouncing the Jews.
Who will be the first? He who is the very first in honor, the Ecumenical Patriarch and Sacred Synod of Constantinople in Istanbul? The Patriarch of Antioch? Archbishop-Elder Demetrios of New York? Metropolitan Joseph?
Will someone from the Moscow Patriarchate reply, thereby giving us a peek into Vova Putin’s SYMPHONIC sentiments?
Did I miss some GOSPEL references or other in Part III above, “The Promulgation of another gospel in place of Our Lord’s Gospel?”
Surprise……..another sarcastic post.
Still waiting for one word from the Orthodox Hierarchy, Mikail02! Who do YOU think will be first to express disagreement with the Pope, Noting my sarcasm is not a rational reply however much you need to do it.
My favorite Gospel sarcasm is that of the man cured from blindness, ” Why do you keep on asking? Do you want to become His disciples?”.
I ‘m sorry if you do not like it to be pointed out……but virtually every one of your posts is laced with sarcasm.
It is a rational and truthful comment.
I don’t dislike my sarcasm being noticed at all! Why should I mind, Mikail02? I LOVE sarcasm.
I’m still waiting for some Orthodox hierarch or theological faculty to condemn Pope Francis’s words about Jewry!
In 2005 the EP and the GOAA started pushing this heresy. Look on the GOAA website the heretical article is listed there.
This “Dual Covenant” heresy, then and now, must constantly and continuously be fought against.
It’s when we stop fighting against the Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism and Synchronicity that Orthodoxy dies the same death as Western Christianity. So I and hopefully others continue to speak out for Christ and His Holy Gospel even as imperfect as we are.
May God have mercy on us all.
Peter
PAP:
PAP:
PAP:
1. Who appointed PAP to fight all these heresies?
2. What the heck does PAP mean by SYNCHRONICITY and why is it a heresy? Something to do with the calendar issue – or is he just completely making stuff up now, inventing new heresies to “fight against” and bolster his self-confidence and sense of self-importance???
1. Who appointed PAP to fight all these heresies?
ANSWER: “but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence.” 1 Peter 3:15
2. What the heck does PAP mean by SYNCHRONICITY and why is it a heresy? Something to do with the calendar issue – or is he just completely making stuff up now, inventing new heresies to “fight against” and bolster his self-confidence and sense of self-importance???
ANSWER: That all religions are reduced to their common denominators and so all of them are “Synchronized” in one belief and one form of worship that ultimately blends together. Hence this heresy also being called the Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism.
Well I hope that cleared this up for you OOM.
Peter
Thank you Peter for this excellent response. There is nothing wrong –and everything right–with boldly answering heresies.
This article needs some cleaning up. Some sentences make no sense.
Yes it does. U am a working attorney and full time dad of twins. It was a miracle I got this written and out to George at all.
Oh fat fingers and thumb! Arrrrrg!!
Corrected Text:
____________________________________________________________________________________
NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT
By Peter Papoutsis
On December 10th 2015 the Vatican issued a new document on Christian-Jewish dialogue. The new document entitled “The Gifts and Calling of God are irrevocable,” marks the 50th anniversary and continued expansion of the declaration “Nostra Aetate” of the Second Vatican Council. “Nostra Aetate” presented a so-called “new theological framework” for the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people. The declaration made several statements which caused a shift away from the Catholic Church’s supersessionist (i.e. Replacement) beliefs, and towards a new theological understanding that God did not repent of the gifts he makes or of the calls he issues towards the Jewish people.
This new theological understandings of the Jewish people in regards to gifts God has made to them or calls he issued to them that have never been abolished by God, led Pope John Paul II in his historic visit to the synagogue in Mainz, Germany in 1980 to state that the Jewish people are the “people of God of the Old Testament, which has never been revoked by God.”
In 1997 Pope John Paul again stated in regard to the Jewish people’s covenant status: “this (Jewish) people continues in spite of everything to be the people of the Covenant and despite human infidelity the Lord is faithful to His covenant.”
Given these statements as well as the Catholic Church’s new theological perspective in regards to the Jewish people’s continued covenant relationship with God, it is therefore not surprising that the Vatican’s most recent statement on December 10th 2015 affirmed “that the covenant of God with Israel has never been revoked.” However even though the Vatican statement on the continued covenant of God with Israel is not surprising it is problematic at the least, or heretical at the most.
The Vatican’s new document in stating that the Church does not replace the people of God Israel and that the covenant that God has offered Israel is irrevocable creates three biblical and theological problems from an orthodox Christian perspective:
The repudiation of St Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews;
An erroneous and renovationist interpretation of St Paul’s theology in his epistle to the Romans;
The creation and promulgation of “another gospel” in place of our Lord’s gospel.
I. The Repudiation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews
The Holy Orthodox Church for all of her history has held the clear Apostolic teaching that the Church is the New Israel and that through faith and obedience to Jesus Christ become part of God’s new and everlasting covenant. In speaking of this New Covenant the church has often quoted and relied upon the teaching as presented in St Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews 8:19, which states:
In speaking of a New Covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away (Hebrews 8:13).
St Paul is able to make this statement because of his explicit belief that Christ’s sacrifice of himself on the cross secured an eternal redemption that is far superior than what was offered under the Old Covenant (Hebrews 9:12-13) that if the first covenant with the Jewish people had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second (Hebrews 8:7). In fact, St Paul cites the Prophet Jeremiah for the proposition that even Jeremiah found fault with the Old Covenant, and prophesied the coming of a New Covenant. The Prophet Jeremiah, as cited by Saint Paul, stated:
The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a New Covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand and to leave them out of the land of Egypt, for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord. This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord” (Hebrews 8:8-10).
As it can be seen, for St. Paul, the New Covenant, of which Jeremiah prophesied, surpassed the first (Old) covenant.
St. Paul, in further quoting Jeremiah, states in regards to the New Covenant that God will put his laws into their minds and write them on their hearts, and he will be their God, and they shall be his people. And they shall not teach Everyone his fellows or everyone his brother, to say Know the Lord, for all shall know me from the least of them to the greatest (Hebrews 8 : 10-11). For St. Paul this demonstrates the superiority of the New Covenant in that it not only surpasses the Old Covenant, but provides a universal and personal knowledge of God. thus, one can immediately see that even in Jeremiah’s day, by speaking of a New Covenant the Old Covenant was treated as obsolete, and ready to be discarded.
With such explicit language in the Epistle to the Hebrews how does the Vatican’s new document assert that “The covenant of God with Israel has never been revoked?” The document does this by first wrongfully redefining the central message of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and later by disregarding the Epistle to the Hebrews altogether. The Vatican’s document states “This epistle (To the Hebrews) however is not directed to the Jews, but rather to the Christians of Jewish background who have become weary and uncertain.” Well why? Why have the Christians of Jewish background become weary and uncertain? Because these Jewish Christians were being called back to Judaism, back to the Old Covenant. Again St Paul is very clear on this point when he states:
For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and the fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the Covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the spirit of grace (Hebrews 10:26-29)?
If the Old Covenant is still valid, and a sufficient vehicle for salvation for the Jews then why such strong language of condemnation for those Jewish Christians who forsake Jesus Christ and go back under the Old Covenant?
The Vatican’s new document goes even further in twisting and distorting the Epistle to the Hebrews by stating that Jeremiah’s promise of a New Covenant, as cited in chapter eight of the Epistle, has no intention of proving the promises of the Old Covenant false, but on the contrary treats them as valid. This is a very disingenuous statement because St Paul, when citing Jeremiah 31:31-34, is not saying, and never says, that the Old Covenant was false, but obsolete, and what is obsolete is old and done away with (Hebrews 8:13). That it is the New Covenant, through faith and obedience in Jesus Christ, that has fulfilled the Old Covenant, surpassed it, and offers eternal redemption for all. Hebrews 9:11-14.
The Vatican’s new document, knowing it could not maintain its misrepresentation of the Epistle to the Hebrews simply disregarding it by stating: “Nostra Aetate did not refer to the Epistle to the Hebrews. However Nostra Aetate in the Vatican’s new document did refer to St Paul’s reflections in his letter to the Romans chapters 9 through 11 as their authority in developing their new theological understanding of the continued validity of the Old Covenant. Yet, in examining St Paul’s “reflections” in Romans his “theology” becomes clear that the Old Covenant no longer exists, and only the New Covenant survives by fulfilling the Old, and making membership in the New Covenant completely dependent on having faith in Jesus Christ.
II An Erroneous and Renovationist Interpretation of St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans
The Vatican’s new document on Christian-Jewish dialogue makes the bold statement that “The covenant that God has offered Israel is irrevocable…” and that “The permanent elective fidelity of God expressed in earlier covenants is never repudiated.” The new document cites Romans 9:4 and Romans 11:1-2, but fails to explain them or to articulate clearly St. Paul’s theology. If done so one would have quickly realized that Romans 9:4 simply states that to the Jews belong all the promises and covenants and patriarchs, which is true but then in verse 5 St Paul states “and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God overall, blessed forever” (Romans 9:5). St. Paul asserts the superiority of Christ even though praising his own brethren the Jews. In verse 6 St Paul States very clearly that the descendants are not the physical descendants of Abraham but the children of the promise are reckoned as Abraham’s descendants (Romans 9:8). The remainder of Romans chapter 9 reveals who these children of the promise are, they are Gentiles who have accepted Christ through faith as opposed to the Jews who have rejected him (Romans 9:25-33).
Romans 11 actually continues this theme by stating that God has not rejected the Jewish people but later on in the chapter St Paul makes clear that the reason God has not rejected his fellow Jews is because the gift of inclusion in the New Covenant is based upon faith in Christ. St Paul states: “So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works otherwise grace would no longer be grace. What then? Israel failed to obtain what it sought. The elect obtain it, but the rest (of the Jewish people) were hardened” (Romans 11:5-7). For St Paul the remnant of the elect are those who have accepted the gospel, and have faith in Jesus Christ. The rest who have hardened their hearts are the majority of the Jewish people who have rejected Jesus Christ (Romans 11:8-10). But has God rejected the Jewish people? St Paul says no. However, for St. Paul it is not because their covenant is valid, but “through their trespasses salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespasses means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will there full inclusion mean” (Romans 11:11-12).
The rejection of Christ and His Gospel on the part of the majority of the Jewish people is part of God’s plan; God has hardened their hearts for the loving purpose of giving the Gentiles the opportunity to hear and receive the Gospel. This will have the effect of making the Jews jealous and thus drawing the Jews to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. If the Old Covenant is still active, and God never revoked it, why does St Paul anguish over his fellow Jews’ inclusion in the New Covenant by accepting Christ and His Holy Gospel? Because for St. Paul the Old Covenant no longer exists, but it has been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. St Paul is clear when he says: “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.” (Romans 3:21-22). St. Paul then drives the point home by stating: “for we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (Romans 3:28). Paul’s focus is faith in Jesus Christ because it is that which matters, not the works of the law because for St Paul the works of the law lead to death (Romans 7:5).
St. Paul used the law of Moses as leading to death while faith in Christ, which is open to all, Jew and Gentile, leads to life. For St Paul states: “But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which holds us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the spirit” (Romans 7:6). So as it can be seen, St. Paul does not believe the Old Covenant is valid, but has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who is giving us a new and everlasting covenant through his death, burial and resurrection from the dead.
III The creation and promulgation of another gospel in place of our Lord’s Gospel
The Vatican’s new document is very clear that it is presenting a “new theological relationship for Judaism.” In many ways this is not a new theological relationship with Judaism, but a new take on an old problem dealt with by St Paul himself in his epistle to the Galatians. The problem in the Galatian Church was that in addition to having faith in Jesus Christ a Christian was obligated to keep the Mosaic law. The Galatian Christians were insisting that the Old Covenant was still valid, or a part of the New Covenant’s requirements, and must be conformed to it before one could become a Christian. St. Paul insists very strongly to the contrary, and states that one only needs faith in Jesus Christ to become right with God. In fact, St. Paul’s complete rejection of the requirements of the Old Covenant is so strong that he states that the Galatians are preaching another gospel instead of the one true Gospel, and by so doing are accursed (Galatians 1:6-9).
The Vatican’s new document amounts to presenting another gospel that negates the entirety of the Jewish people’s obligation to have faith in Christ because they’re covenant is still valid for their salvation, and makes any missionary efforts among the Jews unnecessary at the very least, and anti-Semitic at the very most. The Vatican’s new document qualifies The Great Commission by saying we are to preach the Gospel to all the nations, except to the Jewish nation. St Paul states that if anyone, even an angel from heaven, were to
preaching of a gospel contrary to the one true Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ they are accursed. In other words they are anathematized!
As much as I want relations between Jews and Christians to improve, and develop strong bonds of mutual respect and friendship, that relationship cannot be built on lies and the negation of the Gospel. I hope and pray that the Vatican, and the Pope himself, renounce this new document as heretical, but the reality of the present situation speaks otherwise. Orthodox Christians cannot accept this new document from the Vatican, not because it comes from Rome, but because it renounces the cross and the very purpose and mission of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
I just GLANCED at this new edition, and read THIS: …the Jewish people’s obligation to have faith in Christ because they’re covenant is still valid for their salvation,” They are WHAT?
What Scripture does Peter cite when referring to teaching all “nations?” TheGospel referred to going out into ALL THE WORLD, It also referred to ALL THE WORLD being taxed, but this did not apply to China or North and South America of which the Holy Apostles were totally ignorant!
Now now my Good Bishop. Stay faithful until the end.
” they’re covenant is still valid” That’s an improvement? Couldn’t find any “teaching all nations?” There, there, my boy. Pray, study, toil and be temperate!
Yes those are words to live by. May I suggest you do so.
Peter
There are more Jewish converts than people think. Paul Johnson wrote a history of the Jews and stated at one time they were between 10 to 15 percent of the Roman empire. By the end of the Roman Empire, they were about 2 percent which suggest many of them converted to Christianity by the 4th century. Jews and Christians in the US for the past 50 years have had pretty good relationships unlike they do in other countries and times. I have a read who is Jewish on internet in New York.
I thought the Church was the “New Jerusalem” as we sing at Pascha, “Shine, shine, shine O New Jerusalem!”
That being said, I highly recommend Fr. James Bernstein’s book “Surprised by Christ: My Journey From Judaism to Orthodox Christianity.” Fr. James grew up Jewish and became an Orthodox Christian priest (he is currently the pastor of an Antiochian parish near Seattle).
If I remember correctly, Fr James touches in his book on this issue of the role of modern, faithful Jewish people in God’s plan. Paraphrasing highly, I think I remember reading that he believes God has some role for modern faithful Jewish people — given the persecution they have faced for centuries, their continued existence is indeed a miracle — but he does not know what that role is. But rather than believing my poor memory, get the book and read it. It makes a good Christmas gift. Blessed upcoming Nativity to those on the newer calendar.
The key word is modern *faithful* Jewish people. I have a problem with modern, secular Jews who only pull out their Jewishness when it is culturally or politically helpful to them but who ignore and reject God the rest of the time. I personally do not think that God has any plan for Jews who consciously turn their backs on Him and who push an aggressive atheist/communist/secular agenda. God cannot force us to do things — He has to work with those willing to work with Him (as Fr Tom Hopko used to say, God has to “work with what He’s got”) — and for Jews who consciously reject the God of their Fathers, I don’t understand how God could have any plan for them simply because they are Jewish by heredity.
Also, just in case people think the Orthodox Church has no outreach for Jewish converts to Orthodoxy, especially in Jerusalem:
Hebrew Divine Liturgy
Following the link, I found the other site, which looks to be a great resource.
https://sites.google.com/site/hebrewinchurch/
God is three persons: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. If the Jews believe in God (three persons), wouldn’t it necessarily follow that they also believe in Christ, whether or not they recognized Him as the Messiah during His incarnation?
God made a covenant with the Jews. To discount this premise is to discount the Old Testament, which no Christian is prepared to do. Why would the Pope even “go there?” Why would any Christian hazard a guess as to what God will do? That’s insanity to me. God will save whom He will. End of story.
Asking the blessings and prayers of Vladyka Tikhon & all clergy who who post here, and greet Mr. Michalopoulos and all who post here with the joy of the Feast of the Nativity of our Lord God a Savior Jesus Christ! I ask your forgiveness and prayers, and may the Lord forgive us all and bring us all healing and the Peace that surpasses all understanding in the new year that is to come. C Prazdnikom!
And to you Dr Stankovich and all my precious readers, contributors, commentators and all my Christian brethren: a blessed Feast!
Christ is Born!
And to you as well Michael. May God’s eternal blessings be showered down upon you and all your loved ones.
Peter A. Papoutsis
A couple of points:
1. I think Peter is on safe ground with his general thesis in that St. Paul made it a point to witness to the Jews first thing upon arriving in a location. That is inexplicable if somehow we know that they already enjoy salvation.
2. The Holocaust taints this whole conversation terribly. Just because a people was persecuted mercilessly and slaughtered by the millions does not mean that they were right about a particular conviction.
3. We should look to the Fathers on this question as well as Scripture. What did the Fathers say about the status of the Jews and the degree of imperative associate with witnessing to them and conversion, or the need for conversion itself? Therein lies Holy Tradition.
One other little thing: We should not look to Rome for guidance or support in our faith. They have been heretics for a thousand years. For the past fifty years or so, they have increasingly flirted with outright apostasy. I feel for them. I sympathize with the Traditio and St. Pius types, but they have but one thing to do to solve all issues – – abandon Roman Catholicism and adopt Orthodox Christianity.
So yes, Christians should in some way be evangelizing Jews, and, Orthodox Christians also should be evangelizing Roman Catholics. For the Orthodox Church is the only sure Ark of Salvation.
Merry upcoming Christmas Misha and may God’s blessing on you and yours.
Thank you, Peter. Merry Christmas!
Liberals. Gays. Catholics. Atheists. Orthodox Christians who don’t agree with you in every particular. Muslims. Now, the Jews.
The Monomakhos crowd is running out of groups to scold and browbeat. Who’s next, the Buddhists?
Blessed Nativity, everybody!
Faithfulness to the Gospel and not to some pan ecumenical heresy is not browbearing.
Peter
No, just Renovationist Russophobes like you.
We Orthodox love everyone, just not in the gay crusading liberal way, which we consider a form of hate.
“Submit yourself all ye nations for God is with us!”
Discernment is required.
Recognizing that something is wrong and untruthful then articulating that is not necessarily scolding or brow beating.
Refusing to discern is dangerous.
Although it should be noted that much Orthodox mission work is founded on listening for truth the following that truth to its fulfilment in Christ. When dealing with heresies that is not really possible as the nature of heresy is to destroy truth.
Heresy is not merely a mistaken idea but a demonic suggestion wrapped in guilded, bejeweled poison.
Once entered into even unknowingly and without malice heresy becomes a systemic disease.
We must each guard our own heart and minister to those who suffer the most.
This guest editorial troubles me for the following reasons. First, I do not think the claims being made on Saint Paul’s behalf using his words are accurate, notwithstanding that he, as one of us, can be quite dogmatic at times, especially when he is addressing those for whom he feels great responsibility as one of them. Even Saint Peter reminded us of this. I love Saint Paul, but I will say he can be a bit overbearing at times. To me, his writings stand with the icons – some is radiant and full of the Holy Spirit; some, well, he got out of bed on the wrong side that day; he’s human, and I being an icon painter know that well about myself too.
I would remind us all that the Gospel on which our faith is based is the writings of four evangelists who were themselves of the Jewish faith as was Jesus and his earthly parents. I would remind us that the glorious feast of the Transfiguration presents us with Jesus in conversation with two mighty prophets from the Old Testament, the Jewish faith. That the icon of the Resurrection presents the vision of those in Hell being lifted from that place of torment by Our Lord and Saviour – all of them, even the ones who were our ancestral transgressors.
How can we say that the inspired prophets of God, that Abraham himself, did not and do not speak words charged with the Holy Spirit that were enough to carry them into paradise? At Pascha, Jesus reaches down to them – is the icon wrong? When Saint Stephen, whose day the west celebrated on Saturday, spoke so vehemently to the Jews assembled to stone him, he gave the example of Moses as that prophet to whom they should have listened because he spoke the truth. There are not separate truths! There is one, from then until now, one which we also have an obligation to adhere to.
The more we say that we alone are correct, we dot every i and cross every t, the more will we convince all people that we are narrow-minded and our Saviour a cardboard figure. He is not! Nor should we be.
Who are we to say what is to happen to those of any other faith??? Who are we to penetrate the spirit of any human being and say ‘No, you don’t qualify.’ To charge all Jews with responsibility for Our Lord’s death on the Cross is only applicable if we include ourselves in that throng, because we also are there, and we also are forgiven in the great Mystery that is His Sacrifice for us all.
Juliana,
I strongly suggest you re-read the Epistle to the Hebrews and Romans as well as Galatians because St. Paul is very clear and dogmatic on this point. Also, I would refer you to Prof. Jeannie Constantinou’s podcast, listed above, on the Prophet Jeremiah that should further clarify things for you .
Happy New Year.
Your statement ..
“Who are we to say what is to happen to those of any other faith???”
In the End, of course, it is only God who Judges.
That said, the other Faiths do not baptize in the Name of The Father, Son and Holy Ghost. As Orthodox Christians it is our Faith that baptism is a necessity for entering the “Afterlife,” a kind of “passport” if you will. Alone by itself it does not necessarily get you there, there has to be “Faith” and “Works” to go along with it however it is a prerequisite no doubt. Can there be exceptions? I am not an authority on that, maybe babies, children, maybe some circumstances, maybe 1700 years ago indigenous people in Australia have not yet heard of Christianity however when there is a Faith and it chooses to not Baptize then they don’t Baptize, non-Christian Jews, Muslims, Hindus Buddhists and so forth, I don’t think they get “exemptions.” If The Roman Catholics are trying to work some kind of “Old Covenant exemption” for Judaism, or then Islam, then thats just the RC going further and further into heresy and what else is new.
Several things to consider: the final published version of Fr. Georges Florovsky’s The Limits of the Church; the general Patristic notion that it is sufficient for us to know where the Church is, rather than to invest more energy in debating where it is not; and finally, to appreciate the teaching of our Father Gregory Palamas that only a fool would imagine to contain the uncontainable Energy of God the Father, and the teaching of our Father Ephraim the Syrian that, apply “theology” as you will, but “the Holy Spirit goes wherever He wishes.”
And appropriately enough, joy of the Feast, S Prazdnikom, to those bearing the name of our Father and member of the Three Hierarchs, Basil the Great.
John 3:8
“The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound thereof, but can not tell from where it came, and where it goes: so is everyone that is born of the Spirit.”
John 3:5
“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
So we know also in the Bible God “works in mysterious ways” and for people and humans to be making definitive like statements about what is what can be dangerous or specious and “judgmental.” Other hand we do have to “navigate” life, make decisions about things, “exercise judgment,” especially in the Modern World where so many crazy things are going on in the world everyday.
Verse of John 3:8 is one to keep in mind. Then also if you give it “overweight” significance to everything then you can just wind up in a world of “relativism” where you just can’t discern anything from good or bad or right or wrong or correct or incorrect on the basis of all the other things we have learned and come to know from the Scriptures as taught through the Church and in the “Lives of Saints” and then making the best of that with oh lets say the 100 and plus a few points I.Q. we may possess (hopefully, not 90), so you cannot rule the Holy Spirit out in places where you don’t think it may ordinarily be manifesting Itself, then again you can also surmise that indeed its not “likely” to be around in a lot of places or situations, manifesting itself in some positive way however the principle of God’s Omnipresence is always a law, a constant.
The Pope during WWll (Pius xll) had Nazi symphthies there is a movement for his canonization. If this hapens it will cause problems. for more information I would recomend “Hitler’s Pope” by John Cornwell
Christ is Bron!-Glorify Him!
Pope Pius XII was not sympathetic to the Nazis. That smear against him has been discredited years ago. It is only the anti-Catholic intelligentsia that perpetuates it.
Thank you, Anthony. Cornwell’s book is indeed a smear, based on the play The Deputy foisted on the world by the, then, Communist Kremlin. Eugenio Pacelli saved scores of thousands in the churches and monasteries of Rome. The chief rabbi of Rome came to Baptism because of him and took his name. His testimony is quite moving. This, by the way, is how to “win some” as St. Paul said. It will come through love, empathy and compassion and a readiness to give a reason for the hope that is in us to anyone who asks and it is the love,empathy, compassion and kindness that will give rise to the asking, This is tesdeqah or “righteousness” which is not “right-standing” with God but an expression of His saving presence to rescue those in need in the name and person of Christ.
Christ is born!
lxc
Thank you Lex as well. The slander against Pope Pius XII is particularly scabrous given his own harassment by his Nazi wardens. The horrendous book, Hitler’s Pope, should have never seen the light of day. Fortunately, it has been utterly discredited thanks to the work of historians such as Martin Gilbert (who is himself Jewish).
Sir, if what you say is true, what is one to make of Plus XII’s blessing of the Croatian Ustashe’s ethnic cleansing of Serbs and his directives to Ukrainian Uniates to cooperate and collaborate with the NAZI government, even going so far as to see the creation of such things as Galician SS Divisions with mobile gas chambers as proper?
He was just following orders is what you seem to be hinting at. Many of Hitler’s generals, minister’s and toadies suffered abuse from the hands of his government only to later hang at Nuremberg. Rightly so.
Mr Warren, what you are saying is true. However the critique of Pius XII that he was an anti-Semite and accomplice to Hitler’s Final Solution is a false one.
If we are to be honest, nobody’s hands were clean during WWII. Some were just dirtier than others.
Sir, there is plenty of dirt to shovel around during that era, agreed. I simply cringe at the mention of Pius XII who ordered his Russicum to work overtime to send in Uniate priests and missionaries with the Wehrmacht to “convert godless and schismatic Russia.” He tried to take advantage of NAZI Eastern policy. His commendatory pronouncements to cardinals overseeing ethnic cleansing and pastoring SS Divisions in my mind are a particularly repulsive and inhuman form of casuistry. While these things may not be totally anti-semitic, I suggest we remember that NAZIism murdered three times as many gentiles as Jews, giving it no amnesty for any of its evil. That’s the vantage point from which I see Pius XII.
Mr. Warren may we have credible evidence and review of the facts underlying your allegation of Pius XII’s alleged “blessing” of the Croatian Ustashe’s “ethnic cleansing of Serbs” and his “directives” to Ukrainian Uniates to “cooperate and collaborate” with the NAZI government. Your wording hints at a interpretive gloss on the facts. I wonder what they really were? I admit that I was not alive nor knew Eugenio Pacelli or any or the persons involved, but I suspect that not all reliable sources share your take on the matter. A more measured approach could be prudent and charitably Christian.
Christ is in our midst,
lxc
Lex, the problem with WWII historiography is that we see it completely through the lens of HitlerBad/AlliesGood. While I most certainly agree that Hitler’s paranoia and neo-paganistic/Darwinism were evil, we must remember that during the events as they happened, many nations, ethnicities and minority groups were on his side to one degree or another. The Irish, the Croations, the Albanians, Hungarians, Romanians, Macecdonians and of course the Romanians. (If you or I were Ukrainian, we probably would have joined the SS –Hitler was a liberator in comparison to Stalin.)
Heck, even the Zionist government was sympathetic in the immediate pro-War years. They even struck a medal glorifying the Nazi regime in hopes of working out an entente with them. The stated goal being the emigration of German Jews from Germany to Palestine.
It is in this light that Pius XII’s agenda regarding the expansion of the Roman church into Orthodox areas, and/or the solidification of the Unia in these areas must be viewed.
Regardless, the moral support that Pius XII gave the Croatian Ustashe and its leadership is a known fact. Its rampage against the Orthodox Serbs is well-documented.
Again, when it comes to the history of Europe and its wars, no one wears a white hat. I take Bismarck’s view especially when it comes to the Balkans: “They are not worth the blood of one Pomeranian grenadier.”
Sir, minority nationalities who joined with Hitler were part of like minded political organisms. The chief military arm of these minority nationalities was the Waffen SS, and, yes, it was that bad!
While you err immensely in overestimating the support of these organisms amongst the people they supposedly represented. In the Ukraine, for instance, the populace at first was ambivalent to Hitler, but then after a few months decidedly turned against him and supported the Soviet Union. Partisan detachments operated throughout the Ukraine and had the supported of the population. The SS Division was primarily Galician and Uniate. Likewise Bandera’s UPA. Both perpetrated heinous atrocities against Jews and gentiles alike, being agents in the round up of Jews, Communists, homosexuals, gypsies, Russophiles, Polish irredentists, troublesome Orthodox, uncooperative peasants, trade unionists, etc.
None of the minority nationality collaborationist organisms (sanctioned and funded by the Reich) objected to NAZI policy at all and had a hand in carrying it out. Let’s not give blanket amnesties to NAZI collaboration. Nuremberg was clear in its condemnation of NAZI Fifth Column groups.
Your presentation gives us the impression that the allies invaded France and illegitimately destabilized the lawful Vichy government on D Day when carried to its logical conclusion.
Moreover, it is astonishing to get the impression that if Jews weren’t directly impacted by the NAZI Reich, then “Hitler was just another politician.”
My point was that the various populations that had historical grievances against other populations should not be judged too harshly for actions they took during WWII. The extermination camps, we shouldn’t forget, were hidden away from major population centers and few knew what was going on. Even Winston Churchill, in his magisterial, six-volume history of the Second World War barely mentions the Holocaust. In fact, contemporaneous sources indicate that he was aware of the possibility of a wholesale extermination but had no proof. And we should remember that Churchill had long inveighed against the Nazi regime and its attitude towards Jewry in the prewar years.
Sir, when the NAZIs entered the Eastern lands, public atrocities were commonplace and news spread quickly.
Not always. The Waffen SS often committed their crimes deep in the forest, away from prying eyes. So for that matter did Stalin: his slaughter of 5,000 Polish officers took place in the Katyn Forest. Because it was so far removed from local population centers, there is still controversy about its particulars to this very day.
Yet those same officers perpetrated atrocities against Ruthenian populations in Poland and in 1935 were ready with Hitler to fight against Stalin? Interesting how the world changes with a fuller picture?
Which was the greater atrocity-the Katyn massacre, whose details still are not fully clear or the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Wow, if Stalin had used the bomb we can only imagine the American denunciations today.
Between 20 – 40 million citizens were lost by the USSR in WWII at the hands of NAZIs and their minority nationality allies. Russia bore the onslaught of the NAZI war machine nearly 5 years. Surely, this victory is not now something to be revised as something “unfortunate”? That is a form of Holocaust denial. Despite Stalin’s sins, he was not Hitler. While the sacrifice of the Soviet peoples stopped the NAZI menace for ALL of humanity.
Would you like me to relate some atrocities which were publicly witnessed?
I am unqualified to dispute what you assert, George, though you do not cit your well documented sources,k and I am not convinced they are unbiased. You might find this interesting (not about Pius XII but Cardinal Stepanic). It paints with a different hue.
http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showresult.asp?RecNum=363536&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=Jasenovac&pgnu=1&groupnum=0
May forgiveness prevail over centuries of ethnic grievances. Christ is in our midst,
lxc
Lex: agreed. I will look into this look re Stepanic. Regardless, the ethnic atrocities that took place are a blight upon Christ’s holy church but that was not my primary point. And that was that we need to view history (as much as possible) as the actors who participated and not “retcon” our modern pieties back onto it.
As such I cannot condemn those who allied themselves with Hitler/Stalin/whoever and hammer them over the head with accusations that are colored by the Holocaust. I decry the Vichy government, the Banderist movement, etc, but I also understand that not everyone who participated in these regimes was a devotee of Nazism and/or participated in the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and other civilians.
It’s Cardinal Stepinac, and as Bishop Tikhon pointed out, the Pope recently stopped the beatification process of Stepinac, so let’s give him credit for that.
But, I’m sorry to say, that you indulge this Warren much too much. He is an intelligent, well-read person, but so was Hermann Goering. This is your blog and you can allow anyone to post, it’s your prerogative. But I’m not going to just sit here and let this man spew his Stalinist crap and half-truths. Elsewhere, he said that Bishop Tikhon said that Buddhism could be salvific. Again, the bishop didn’t say that. He said that if God wills, HE can chose to save Buddhists. Who are we to put limitations on God, that’s more in line with the Moslems, Monophysites, or the Papists.
Furthermore, under his real name( or was it another pen-name), about ten years ago, Warren posted on another site decrying the impending MP-ROCOR reconciliation. At that time, he urged ROCOR faithful to go to the Serbian church. Later , he decided ROCOR faithful should join the “Synod of Resistance” of the late Greek Old Calendar Metropolitan Ciprianos”. Now, he’s OCA, and a Neo-Stalinist. Anyone disagreeing with him is a Nazi or Banderafascist.
The West was allied with Stalin and saved by his Red Army? Or is the defeat of Adolph Hitler now a tragedy?
Luckily, for us the Serbian Orthodox people have not forgotten the crimes perpetrated against them which ever so innocent Plus XII found not to be worthy of consideration. Interesting how Francis today is prepared to beatify Stepinac.
It certainly seems to be fashionable nowadays to be negative about the Vichy government. However, before getting too red hot with indignance, some history points may help:
1. US had an embassy in Vichy all the way through its existence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Vichy_France
2. When the Nazis conquered the rest of France in 1942 it was the officers of the Vichy regime that sank the French fleet in Toulon, which the Nazis were planning to grab in order to gain naval superiority in various places
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuttling_of_the_French_fleet_in_Toulon
Sir, were there good NAZIs?
Not the point. All men are “good” and “evil” during any time of their lives. Stalin was an immensely evil man but when he was stabbed in the back by his ally Hitler, circumstances forced him to emancipate the Church. That was a good thing.
FDR on the other hand was a “good” man who did (or allowed) evil things. Or things that were complicated: like the forced internment of 120,000 Japanese-American (and some German-American) citizens. In order to keep the “Solid South” solid for the Democrat Party, he went along with every segregationist wish of the Dixiecrats. John Metaxas, who was the Prime Minister of Greece, was an admirer of the fascist militarism of Mussolini and Hitler, and modeled Greek society as best he could under those models. The upshot was that the Greek army was very well-prepared to fend off Mussolini’s invasion of Greece on October 28, 1940 and thus delay Hitler’s secret invasion of Russia by several weeks.
Man’s goodness, like history, is a complicated thing.
I oppose the NAZIs. The people you support repeat their propaganda. I prefer whole truthes not the skimmed truthes you seem to want to use. So I suppose this desperate ruse is the best you can do: silence the truth to empower your hate. Right?
I am not an Eastern Rite foil hat and have nothing to do with ROCOR: I despise ROCOR. I am a loyal Russian party remnant in the OCA. The retired Renovationist, Russophobic Bishop’s comments were addressed in their context. That’s where they can be appreciated. He indeed tends to repeat the propaganda of someone like Herman Goerring. (While his positions have indeed been all over the map over the last decade). Yet you remain unphased?!
You are very confused in defending NAZI rhetoric while looking for a Stalinist windmill to joust. Then you mention Goerring? White governments and traitorous vlasovites are afoot and all so very banal.
I am a Neo Soviet, and while not a Stalinist per se, I have always appreciated the podvig of the peoples of the Soviet Union in the defeat of Adolph Hitler and in the forging of a great nation. I endorse the continuum of Russian Orthodox civilization and have detailed what my political views are.
Indications are Stalin before he died confessed to +Metropolitan Nikolai (Yaroshevich) and died an Orthodox Christian. (Perhaps was murdered by Laverty Beria because of a steering of the Soviet Union into a Russian Orthodox cultural continuum). I won’t say he was an evil man. FDR was a politician who was also rutheless: I wouldn’t say he was a good man.
I have no issues with the Serbian church, but I am of Russian ancestry. I support Serbs and Serbia. But to be clear I believe that the Eastern Rite foil hats, their ROCOR Vlasovite White government in exile progenitors, the Serbs, and, yes, even the Mother Church’s patriarchal parishes have only ONE canonical future: membership in the autocephalous North American local church, the OCA. ROCOR union with the Mother Church was an absurdity which is a part of a larger gambit in which I support the OCA and the Mother Church. I feel the Mother Church was far too generous in its treatment of that White poseur government in exile. I am a Detroit area native and I know well the schismatic absurdity of the Synod and its pathetic White pretensions and claptrap.
Yes, my voting record in American elections does have a bit of buyer’s remorse. My views today are solidly social democratic and Orthodox Christian. For what it is worth, I am very close to endorsing Bernie Sanders.
No, I did not bother myself with the absurdities you are writing about six years ago. But I guess when you don’t have anything else, slander suffices, right?
All too telling is a supposed Serb who endorses the current pope of Rome. So I will leave that incoherence to its own fancifulness.
For the record, the Vichy government was a brutal and repressive NAZI organism which the French resistance with the aid of the allies rightly overthrew.
Sir, I once encountered a German fellow who had come to America, because he felt the Americans had made his nation a colony and that he might as well get his fair share from the master’s table where it was to be found, i.e. in America. He made such comments like “Germany tried to save the world from Stalinism in WWII. Now let Americans die fighting Bolshevik asiatics and their gutter civilization.” He was a self described “National Socialist.” He believed that NAZIism’s inherent good was that it was prepared to self sacrifice its beloved German people in order to defeat the evil of Joseph Stalin.
The presence of a US embassy in Vichy says nothing about the virtues of the regime; one has embassies in all the countries of the world, mostly.
The French did scuttle the fleet at Toulon, but this was after the invasion of Vichy by the Germans in 1942.
It’s not “fashionable nowadays” to be negative about Vichy. Attitudes have been negative for generations. Nowadays, you’d be hard put to find many who have heard of Vichy, much less to discover any “fashions” about it.
Tim, I have never praised Vichy. I cannot as I am not a Nazi sympathizer but on the side of the Allies. As a student of history, I merely look at facts and try to relate them as best I can.
George, on Vichy I was replying to anonymous per Scorilo, but the reply buttons are running out….
George, with more than 20,000 dead in the National Liberation struggle against the Nazis in WWII, I can safely say that the Macedonians were not on the side of Hitler.
My mistake. I was misremembering my father’s reminiscences about the Greek Civil War (when I was a young boy). He told me that some of the communist partisans were Macedonian and were egged on by the Stalinist leadership which promised them an independent state should the communists win that war.
Surely you are aware of his laudatory letters to the Croatian cardinal and Rome’s an forte preparation of Uniate missionaries at the Russicum and control over Slipy with the advent of the NAZI regime so that it could “fulfill our Lady’s directives given at Fatima”? Already Sheptitsky had contacted the Reich for a Ukrainian legion of sorts and Slipy was instrumental in collaboration with Hitler in the creation of the Galician SS and in pastoring it, blessing its work, providing it chaplains.
And the Fatima propaganda was one of Plus XII’s motivational agendas, wasn’t it? Unia was administered and directed by Rome during this era as a primary emphasis and the disdain for “Eastern schismatics” like the Serbian Orthodox in the Vatican was no secret.
Seems to be a bit of papist holocaust denial afoot.
Sorry, Michael, no idea what you’re talking about here. Forgive me.
Chalk it up to a poor American education–though it was light-year’s ahead of what my students get today.
lxc
Pius XII congratulated the Croatian cardinal and blessed Ukrainian Uniate activities in their collaboration and atrocities for the Reich.
Anthony comments: “Pope Pius XII was not sympathetic to the Nazis. That smear against him has been discredited years ago. It is only the anti-Catholic intelligentsia that perpetuates it.”
I recommend two books that support Anthony’s point.
The first is Before the Dawn by Eugenio Zolli, the former chief rabbi of Rome, who became a Roman Catholic after the war.
The second is a more recent work, Church of Spies: The Pope’s Secret War Against Hitler,
by Mark Riebling.
Both, in my opinion, are must read.
Then why did the Russicum work overtime with the coming of Hitler to power to send Uniate Priests to send to “godless and schismatic Russia”?
Did Plus XII not hold to the Fatima mythology now?
The “Fatima mythology” did not necessitate the conversion of Russia to Catholicism but Christianity. This may have been a Latin misunderstanding. Consider: Pope John Paul II indicated late in his pontificate that redemption of Christian civilization will come from Russia. Given his fondness for the “two-lung” theory, it seems obvious to me that in his eyes at least, the validity of Orthodoxy is a given.
Regardless, in my opinion, the prophecy of this apparition is in the process of being fulfilled.
As an Orthodox Christian, I patently reject everything to do with the Fatima mythology.
Every blue knight will tell you that the “virgin instructed the pope to consecrate Russia to her immaculate heart for its conversion.” Apparitions beginning in 1918 when Russia was (and still is) a predominantly Orthodox, christianized nation. It spurred the Vatican to double up on Uniate activities. So a general Christian ambiguity here is a stretch.
No, I am not much of a fan of JPII either for numerous other reasons, not the least of which he was a strident supporter of Unia. Two lungs is ecumenist branch theory and Rome’s intent is to realize its fulness with a neo unia.
While Christendom may receive its rally cry from Russia, I don’t see that as a confirmation of anything to do with Fatima.
MW:
They’ve got Fatima and Guadalupe. We’ve got “myrrh-streaming icons” and all kinds of other DUBIOUS miracles. These don’t concern someone who is confident in his faith.
Since I have venerated Myrrh Streaming icons and been anointed with their myrrh, I can attest to their authenticity. Which I would never put them in the ranks of Uniate propaganda or imply they were a fraud to achieve some cynical, political amusement: that is simply crass and irreligious.
I am sorry I don’t recognize a “we” between us. You don’t believe in Orthodox Christianity and all indications with comments like this are is you don’t live it. So, no. Orthodox Faith and practice and piety is not a fraud a liberal, russophobic renovationist can morally equate to Uniate agitprop. No.
MW:
MW, I have a bridge to sell, REAL CHEAP.
Pathetic.
OOM–whoever you are and whatever “religion” you claim–anti-Orthodox sacrilege and juvenile hectoring are neither enlightening nor appreciated. Pick up your toys and go home to mama.
Ah, OOM, I am sure you are unshaken in your faith, but what is your faith in?
George-
I would respectfully disagree. Fatima is most popular among the traditionalist wing of the RCC and anything less then a wholesale conversion of the “Russian Schismatics” to the RCC would not be a fulfillment of this prophecy. I used to swallow that hook, line and sinker being a trad-Cat. One must remember that prior to Vatican II the RCC was very clear on who was and who was not in the Church. Although the “Eastern Schismatics” were very close they still were hellbound since it is “necessary for every living creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation” – Unam Sanctam 1302
I’ve come to regard Fatima as a demonic sham. Especially when you consider such strange actions of “Our Lady” in showing 3 small children the pit of Hell, that devotion to Her “Immaculate Heart” be made widespread, She stating that “Only She could help us” and the statement that She could “Not hold back the Hand of Her Son much longer.”
Fatima has become a cult obsession among many trad-cats since they can clearly see that nothing is ever going to turn the clock back to 1958 save a miracle from God. They have pinned all of their hope on this and other supposed prophecies and revelations which are outside the official public teaching and Faith Deposit of the Church. It’s sad really.
JMC says, “I would recomend “Hitler’s Pope” by John Cornwell.”
Oh dear God, this is terrible!
Right again, dear and most esteemed Father.
lxc
Why is evidence disproving papist holocaust denial negative?
I had a superb Christmas, as the Only Holy One restored an ability I thought I had lost. I also can make sense of the scripture, 1 will be left, and 1 will be taken. No one will be able to make sense of this scripture, unless they have actually experienced it. Peace be unto you.
Synchronicity at its very best. You starting to see a pattern?
Rabbinic Statement on Christianty.
Wow!
Peter
Peter, FYI: this link went to 404 never-never land. Is it available elsewhere?
Yes. I will resend with a better link. Sorry about that.
Peter
http://cjcuc.com/site/2015/12/03/orthodox-rabbinic-statement-on-christianity/
Peter
The Orthodox are not like the RCC ready to throw away Jesus Christ and His Holy Gospel, and the Jewish People do not like us for being faithful to Jesus.
Orthodox-Jewish relations still fragile.
Good for the Church of Greece staying faithful to Jesus Christ and His Gospel.
Peter
Maybe some, but most Jews I know hate the Orthodox – and us Prots – for centuries of pogroms, denial of basic human and civil rights, the sort of stupid racism as reflected above, a double standard regarding Israel and the Arab nations, etc, ad nauseam. If they only hated us for fidelity to Christ, we’d have reason to be encouraged.
When they stop their system of apartheid and support of Islamist terrorists and of rogue neo-fascist regimes, we will talk. When they do something about the racism and intolerance of Zionist settlers in Palestine we will talk.
Another thing, last I checked Christians acted to stop pogroms and liberate concentration camps and stop NAZI Germany. So blaming us all for the crimes of some just seems like a convenient excuse for bad, sometimes monstrous, behavior.
Michael, thank you for pointing out the racialism that is intrinsic to Zionism. Not that it’s a bad thing per se, all nationalisms must needs be exclusionary, but we all must get over our post-Holocaust reticence if we are to honestly critique all nations.
Nowhere in my post did I make any anti-Semitic remarks, and in fact welcome and encourage better relationships between Christians and Jews. So please forgive me for not seeing the racism you reference. Again, stop drinking the SJW kool-aid about Antisemitism and accept the Gospel for what it is – The Truth Of God! I cannot and will not cheapen the truth so as to avoid some perceived notion of racism. You may do that, I will not.
Further, if you want to see what a cheapening of the faith looks like take a look here: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/1219/Why-these-Americans-are-done-with-church-but-not-with-God
Peter A. Papoutsis
So, what would be the demeanor we should assume in persona Christi to assuage the hatred and overcome it? Turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, do as one would be done by, be careful of the measure one uses? Your experiences and mine are not congruous. I wonder why that could be . . .
Christ is in our midst.
lxc
How about doing something about Palestinian children being gun downed in their apatheid ghettos to start?
This is a nice summation of the heresy of synchronicity:
Orthodox Rabbis Say Christianity Is God’s Plan, Vatican Says Stop Evangelizing Jews
Peter A. Papoutsis
2 Thess.Ch.2:3 – “Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition.” – RSV
Peter one thing that lept out at me from the Rabbi’s statement: “Both Jews and Christians share a common covenntal mission to perfect the world….”
For Christians such a belief is heretical on its face. It is inherently nihilist and redolent of the Anti-Christ.
I agree. Unfortunately many people who are not Christians have a vested interest in this ecumenism and religious sychronicity. As we saw with the Pope’s heretical ecumenical video released by the Jesuits all religions are the same and there is nothing special about Jesus Christ that would make us continue to evangelize the world.
We have betrayed the Great Commission and are now witnessing the formation, politically and religiously, of a One World Government and Religion that is quickly preparing for the Antichrist, the son of perdition.
Our Childhood is at an end. (Pun intended).
Peter A. Papoutsis