‘…the Jewish covenant with God is “irrevocable.” ‘
What is the legal status of a covenant with an imaginary being? Nonexistent, I’d think.
‘Sister Mary Ann Walsh, said the San Antonio statement was primarily directed at Catholics, not Jews, and sought to “clarify any misunderstanding” over the earlier document.’
The modern age makes it tough to say one thing to one group and another thing to another group and get away with it.
‘the 2002 statement was produced by the dialogue team and was never an official document of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops “although it was treated that way.”‘
Can you say “incompetent”?
‘Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., who heads the bishops’ doctrine committee, said the Catholic Church believes that the Jewish covenant that began with Moses and Abraham and “that continues to be adhered to by Jews today is fulfilled … in Jesus.”"
Ah, the old bait and switch.
The RCC has a major problem in that they’ve been telling their contributors one thing and recently, due to the incalculable damage their former teachings did to Jews, they’ve been telling Jews something else. And it’s unlikely the twain shall meet. These days the RCC is at a low point of its authority (moral, especially!) and Jews still have some moral suasion due to the Holocaust; it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Fortunately they are arguing over something that just doesn’t exist. But they are also arguing over the right to be left alone rather than be nagged over the details of this non-existent thing.

Quote: 1986 Pope Paul ll stated, “The Jewish covenant with God is irrevocable.” Last year Pope Benedict revised but refused to delete a Good Friday prayer in the Latin Mass that calls for Jews to be converted. Last year the U.S. Bishops deleted a section in the US Catholic Cathecism for Adults that said, “the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.” Little wonder Rabbi Jerome Epstein would like some more clarification on what is transpiring here. It seems the more the Catholics say the more confusing it becomes.

Considering the Jews have been around a lot longer than the RCC. the RCC should listen to history. If indeed there is any god/goddess about, he/she made an agreement with the Jews a long time before the RCC…so the RCC should stop worrying about the “salvation” of anyone, much less the Jews. Seems the RCC can’t keep their story straight…to convert or not to convert(the Jews), that is the question.

Oh, they are arguing over something that indeed exists nnmns, they just won’t leave the Jewish people alone to take care of their covenant with God.
The Latter Day Saints have annoyed me for many years by ringing my doorbell and taking over my time in my home so they could exercise their duty to win my soul into their religion. Overtime I just quit answering the door. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, the same. I understand the Jewish people want to extend cordiality and friendship to all people and also resent being pressured into being converted to the Roman Catholic’s religion.

Henrietta it’s so easy for me; I just explain to them that their god almost certainly doesn’t exist and why; you have to quibble over the details of your gods.

I’ve yet to hear any horror stories of ‘nagging Catholics’ insisting on Jews converting to Catholicism for salvation, but I’ll keep my eyes and ears open. There are worse things that can happen than to have a group of people pray for you once a year, and I can assure that I don’t take offense at others praying for me who happen to think my salvation is in jeopardy.

It seems as if they – in this case the RCC, but it is as true with many other proselytizing churches – think that there is no one left to talk to who has no church, no spiritual center, no need for a positive community. So they feel a need to go to people who have all these things and try to convince them their approach is better.
I believe in the value of “church”, but I guess I am prefer a post-evangelical/post-(19th century)missionary approach. I am glad to open the doors and welcome anyone who is seeking a spiritual center, a positive community, a place of sanctuary and preparation. But I feel no need to tell a person that what is working for them is less than what we have going.
I have a feeling that the RCC needs to actually work with some of its own first (Mel Gibson, Come on Down!!!) and let everyone else offer their own style/flavor/approach. Think of Church Road as a Mall rather with diverse opportunities to find what works, rather than the driveway to some Big Box One Stop warehouse of religion.

You’re right jestfyl, but I don’t think the Jewish people mind having people pray for them and even invite them to leave their Jewish beliefs, they seem to be objecting that the current Pope has deleted some important statements about their salvation that were once there.

I thank God every day for allowing me to be graduated from a Catholic university BEFORE Vatican II and BEFORE the Land O’Lakes Statement of 1967. The Church then had something to say.
After 2000 years, we are still trying to address the Church vis a vis the Jews. They have had neither temple nor prophets for 2,000 years. The answer seems rather clear to me.

If some Jews want to promote that the Jewish covenant with God is “irrevocable.” Then they should take up that banner for themselves. I find that the statement by the RC C is non offensive.

“They have had neither temple nor prophets for 2,000 years. The answer seems rather clear to me.” YN
They have temples in lots of cities, just like the RCC. Prophets…they’re still waiting. JC didn’t cut it…not for lack of trying.

“The answer seems rather clear to me.”
Heck, I’m not even sure what your question is. Does this have something to do with no prophets? Christianity has been without one for about 2,000 years. It keeps expecting the fabled Jesus to come back and somebody predicts it every week or so, but for about 2,000 years it just hasn’t happened.
But y’all sure have built churches; if all that money had been spent for useful purposes think how much better off we’d be.

Speaking of old religions, happy Solstice (or whatever the appropriate greeting is) pagansister!

Thank you, nnmns!!! And a Happy Father’s Day to you!
HAPPY FATHER’S DAY, ALSO, JESTRFYL, if you should read this. It might be a tough one since it will be the first without your Dad. But if I remember, you have a couple(?) of children, yes?

I wasn’t suggesting there was anything “profane” in your comment, Henrietta. I was just questioning your statement that the Jewish people don’t mind people of other religions “inviting them to leave their beliefs.” I think some of them mind very much.

p.s.,
Thanks for your note above. To be honest, it has not really settled in. But my 2 kids will be treating me, each in their own way. Our daughter is in Italy and has sent me an ecard. My son is taking meto lunch. Life is good, even through the changes.
Happy Solstice everyone! Next year – Stonehenge!

“But y’all sure have built churches; if all that money had been spent for useful purposes think how much better off we’d be.”
We consider building houses of worship a useful purpose.
And if you’re not Catholic, don’t worry so much how we spend our money. After all, it’s our private business, just like how you spend your money is your private business.

jestrfyl:
3 years ago I was priviliged to be at Stonehenge, the day after the Solstice. Did, however, witness the Druids during there celebration at noon, June 21, at Stonehenge. It is truly a special, scared place to me and many others. In fact, family history says an ancestor on my paternal Grandmother’s side owned that property for a bit…sold it as he needed money. The person he sold it to, Sir Cecil Chubb donated it to the country. My ancestor tried to SELL it to the country and the powers that be said…no. So I have family connections as well as spritual ones.
I’d go to Stonehenge with you next year! Would be most fun!
Sounds like you will be well taken care of for Father’s Day. It is good.

“We consider building houses of worship a useful purpose.”
Obviously, and I don’t.
“And if you’re not Catholic, don’t worry so much how we spend our money. After all, it’s our private business, just like how you spend your money is your private business.”
Touchy! Defensive?

p.s.
O to be at Stonehenge on the solstice – though I prefer summer to winter. As with so many things — some day.
bob & nnmns,
“We consider building houses of worship a useful purpose.”
There are many communities that are not allowing as many churches to be built as they once did. Also they are not inclined toward allowing larger churches to be built. A church building can be a significant drain on the infrastructure of a community. It has become a challenge to prove how the congregation will benefit the larger community, and there is no assumption that a church will be an automatic benefit. Even as a pastor I think this is good. Churches need to lead by example and model good stewardship. Sadly, not every church does that. So I am all for careful, well considered church construction.

Churches have always been the center of communities helpful and wholesome jest you are the first so-called “pastor” I’ve ever heard speak against churches. Why do people pay you, for real I’m curious?

“Churches have always been the center of communities helpful and wholesome”
Spoken like a true church employee, cknuck. Churches are as churches do, and many churches exist to get bigger. I’ve had friends who felt coerced to go to neighborhood churches. But as for “wholesome”, what about all the children abused by the priests they were told to revere and trust? Not to mention other RCC scandals.
And they take property off the property tax rolls so for every church that goes in, everyone else pays a little more for their garbage collection, police protection and schools.
And on Sunday mornings when decent people are trying to sleep they get active and noisy.

ck
They pay be to be the canary in the coal mine – to chirp when something noxious is floating about.
In the case of churches — I have known a few who abused the privileges afforded them by the community. They have been poor neighbors and arrogant in civic and ecumenical relations. Certainly many, if not most, churches are an asset. But it can no longer be assumed that they are an automatic benefit. Sometimes they are poorly placed or poorly built. Other times they interfere with traffic. Sometimes the leaders simply use the church as a way to enhance questionable resumes. I guess I am protective of the rights and privileges that responsible congregations and clergy enjoy. So when careless clergy or inconsiderate churches insist on having their way I get suspicious.

nnmns even in the cleanest houses one can find dirt, you are like the guest who come to a beautiful house and immediately look for dirt and miss the beauty of the house.
You jest are like someone who owns the same type of house but look for dirt in your neighbor’s house so you can feel like your house is the best.
Never the less both of these types can walk pass the best to find the worse and upon finding the worse spend most of their energy trying to make the worse larger than it is.

A church in a neighborhood isn’t alway “welcome”, especially if they have their bells go off every hour. Example: The RCC school I taught in…the church was across the street. Every hour on the hour, the “recorded” bells, chimed the hour AND also played a bit of a hymn. That can get annoying. The church is 100 years old, not new. Just an example. I felt for the folks that lived in the neighborhood. I expect they tuned it out after awhile…or went crazy!

Just happened to think…do Synagogues’s have tower bells? Perhaps a Synagogue would be more welcome in a neighborhood than some churches…less noise!

ck,
I expect you might not appreciate a Liberal Loud & Proud congregation moving in right next to your church – or your house. We are not all the same, and I appreciate that. It is simply that I have had some experiences with churches – congregations with their pastor leading the way – that have not been good, considerate, amenable naighbors.
p.s.
I know from bells. But I have to tell you, I do NOT like recorded bells. They sound phoney. I served a church that had one of those amplifying systems and we did not play anything when the neighbors would have preferred quiet. Real bells are another matter. My first date with my wife was walking the foggy, misty streets of New Haven one January night listening to the Carillon at Yale. Now THOSE are bells! But even they do not play all the time at the distress of the neighbors.

Agree with you about the recorded bells, jestrfyl. I can most certainly go with real bells, and a Carillon!