In this blog post I have put together some of my past blog posts connected with the concepts of Tradition and the development of doctrine. It can be rather frustrating that the Catholic younger generations of today are creating an idolised and idealised version of a past that never actually existed and they are often becoming locked into a mental ghetto. They glamourise certain past eras and ignore the concept of the development of doctrine.
They think that the Church has always been the same and that no change is desired or necessary. They focus often on the exteriors and have a superficial understanding backed up by their apologetical approach. They whitewash or ignore the sins and errors of the past and even often support them. They often are ignorant of the teachings of Vatican II and have actually never even read the documents or any of the other magisterial documents or encyclicals since Vatican II but they speak with great authority on all things Catholic based on their own echo chamber spokesmen who serve them up a diet of distorted and twisted interpretations of the Church's teaching.
They tend to be anti-ecumenical and anti-Jewish and relish eras of the past in which this was reflected in the culture and attitude of those times. Just as some evangelical Protestants and modernist Catholics want to demonise the Catholic Church of the past, they want to ignore the bad and justify every abuse of power and authority. The truth is between these extremes. It is sad to see so many young people who have such potential retreating into ghettos and boutique forms of Catholicism rather than seeking to think and develop with the mind of the Church in obedience to the Pope and his magisterium and seek that new thing God is doing today.
I understand much of this reaction by the younger generations as we have seen often the modernists in the Catholic Church hijack Vatican II for their own nefarious means and distort Vatican II and actually ignore what the documents actually say for a nebulous "spirit of Vatican II" which is in reality their desired Vatican III agenda. However, we have also seen certain traditionalist elements hijack the Church for their own ideologies of what Catholicism should be and led many souls into spiritual danger and away from love and obedience to the Pope. Anyone who accuses others of being "Pope splainers" should be avoided like the plague and if you have become one of these people you need to repent and turn back.
"The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the college of bishops in communion with Him" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 85, 100)
"I will take one more instance. A man is converted to the Catholic Church from his admiration of its religious system, and his disgust with Protestantism. That admiration remains; but, after a time, he leaves his new faith, perhaps returns to his old. The reason, if we may conjecture, may sometimes be this: he has never believed in the Church’s infallibility; in her doctrinal truth he has believed, but in her infallibility, no. He was asked, before he was received, whether he held all that the Church taught, he replied he did; but he understood the question to mean, whether he held those particular doctrines “which at that time the Church in matter of fact formally taught,” whereas it really meant “whatever the Church then or at any future time should teach.” Thus, he never had the indispensable and elementary faith of a Catholic, and was simply no subject for reception into the fold of the Church. This being the case, when the Immaculate Conception is defined, he feels that it is something more than he bargained for when he became a Catholic, and accordingly he gives up his religious profession. The world will say that he has lost his certitude of the divinity of the Catholic Faith, but he never had it."
—Saint John Henry Newman, An Essay in Aid to a Grammar of Assent, p. 240
"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." from Lumen Gentium 25 a dogmatic constitution of the Church.
Jewish Observances, Development of Doctrine and Cardinal Newman
Is there to be no development of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly, there is to be development and on the largest scale.Who can be so grudging to men, so full of hate for God, as to try to prevent it? But it must truly be development of the faith, not alteration of the faith. Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing into another.
The understanding, knowledge and wisdom of one and all, of individuals as well as of the whole Church, ought then to make great and vigorous progress with the passing of the ages and the centuries, but only along its own line of development, that is, with the same doctrine, the same meaning and the same import.
Failure to recognize the distinction between not being acceptable if seen as required, versus acceptable as a means of grace, results in a lot of wasted ink and missed blessings.
This takes us back to the concept of Jewish observances for Hebrew Catholics not being needed for salvation and not being sacraments but rather sacramentals that can witness to God's graces and blessings or place one in the path of grace and His blessings.
In regards to the "power of assimilation" this was done very effectively by the early Jewish Church in adapting the Gentile cultures and assimilating them for the purposes of the Kingdom especially in regard to the formerly pagan cultures of Europe. Today this needs to be re-done in regard to Jewish culture which is the original culture of the Church as rooted in Judaism and the Scriptures. A new assimilation of Jewish culture and ideas into the Body of the Messiah that is the Church will open up the deeper mysteries in a fresh manner that is connected to the light that is the "anticipation of its own future" in Newman's thought. This will shine a greater light on the mysteries connected with the salvation of all Israel and the ingathering and ingrafting of the Jews into the Church, that even in the darkest days of the Church in regard to the relationship with the Jews has remained as an eschatological sign.
Many orthodox Catholics are wary of the deceptions of presentism (progressive modernism) in regards to the development of doctrine but have a real danger of falling into a form of antiquarianism. The Traditionalists can be this way, where they are locked into the Council of Trent or Vatican I, as the definitive period of the Church, or others the first thousand years. Even some of those orthodox Catholics who have accepted Vatican II are becoming antiquarianists when they see the pontificate of Pope John Paul II as their "stopping" point or others the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI. We not only need to embrace any developments of doctrine in the pontificate of Pope Francis but an openness to accept all the future ones as the Holy Spirit guides the Church into a new focus on its deepest mysteries. When it does so, we need to be open to new pastoral policies and evangelical strategies as guided by the ongoing magisterium of the Church in both infallible matters and non-infallible matters. However, we must be very cautious of those trying to force or create developments or understandings that are based on a recreated idealised past or a progressivist idealised future that is more man-made rather than the longing and aspirations of the saints for the coming kingdom where the Divine Will shall be done as it is in Heaven.
There
are many jewels of theological wisdom in the writings and teachings of
the saints, fathers and doctors of the Church that have been neglected,
as was the insights of St Vincent of Lerins for over a thousand years
before starting to be more appreciated since the 16th century. In St
Lawrence of Brindisi, a Doctor of the Church, we see a theological model
for a rediscovering of the use of the Jewish fathers and doctors in
this theological process of the development of doctrine. This would not
be a theological antiquarian project of going back to the past but an
orthodox Catholic theological and mystical project of taking the Church
deeper into its own mystery of being a Church for and of both the Jews
and Gentiles, with both an orthodox and orthopractic development of
doctrine, devotion and practice leading us to the fullness of the
Kingdom at ever increasing levels of sanctification.
Covenant Theology and Continuity and Discontinuity
David Moss, the President of the Association of Hebrew Catholics, has presented well, Father Elias Freidman's position on why he referred to us as Hebrew Catholics, rather than Jewish Catholics or Israelite Catholics. However, in his book Father Elias did not see the Old Covenant as irrevocable which included Law and Election but that only the Election was irrevocable. When he wrote his book this was still an open question until Pope John Paul II clearly stated that the Old Covenant was irrevocable and then put it in the Catechism.
Father Elias did not see Rabbinic Judaism as having a positive role in the economy of salvation which would later be taught by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Father Elias was only stating the position of many before the 1980's and I am sure he adjusted his position later in life to accord with the Catechism.
"The power of the community to mediate the "election factor" derives from the Election itself. The people of Israel, being the material object of the Election, each of its constituent communities is capable of mediating the "election factor"."
"To sum up, a community is Jewish in the sense of the term fixed by historical convention when it is ruled by rabbinical law; it is Israelite when it is in historical relation with the People of Israel prior to their dispersion from the Holy Land."
"The Christian is perhaps more aware of the catastrophe from which Rabbinism emerged than Chouraqui may imagine. Anyway, Chouraqui would surely agree that if what he says is true and God is in exile from the post-Christic Jewish People, the latter is automatically disqualified from playing a positive role in the economy of salvation. Consequently, we reject the affirmation of Gregory Baum according to which “Judaism continues to exercise a positive role in God’s plan of salvation”. What role did devolve on it we hope to consider later. If post-Christic Judaism were in any way valid, as Fisher pretends, the Jewish convert would be obliged to practice it even after his entry into the Church, which no one would be prepared to concede. The invalidation of Rabbinical Judaism should not be received as an offense. After all, Judaism invalidates Christianity."
"...The Marranos were crypto-Jews who practiced Catholicism in public and Judaism in secret. The majority ended up by being absorbed into the Spanish Church. A handful, especially on the island of Majorca, still keep up Jewish customs, even tending to intermarry. These habits are insufficient to regard them as Israelites. They are Spanish Catholics with judaizing tendencies..."
“...It results from a transcendental relation between the person and the divine will, mediated by the community of the elect. It is because one is born into the Elect People that one is born an Israelite. The ‘election factor’ is irrevocable for the person so born, since the gifts of God are without repentance. It is revocable for his descendants, not by an act of will, but where the descendants have ceased to belong to a community, mediator of the ‘election factor’.
I think it is pretty clear from the writings of Pope Benedict XVI that when the Church and the Catechism speak of the Old Covenant it is the Mosaic covenant as the core Covenant which includes the Abrahamic Covenant (which preceded) and the Davidic Covenant (which came after) the Mosaic Covenant. His comment about "the New Covenant as ratified at the Last Supper... was a prolongation of the Covenant of Sinai, which was not abrogated but renewed" makes that clear.
Cardinal Newman's understanding that with each development of doctrine and each Ecumenical Council of the Church there are elements of continuity and discontinuity can help in understanding Covenant theology. When the Covenant with Abraham was given to him and his seed (that was to become Israel) there was a continuity of the Covenant with Noah but also an element that changed to now include the role of the chosen nation or people from among the other nations.
In the same manner, with the Covenant given to Moses there was a certain continuity with the Abrahamic Covenant (including the Covenants made with the other Patriarchs who descended from him) but a new dimension was added which brought about changes in some outward observances. In the same way with the Davidic Covenant certain promises given in the Patriarchal Covenants were made clearer and clarified and while the Mosaic covenant continued it was in some ways transformed by the Davidic Covenant and new practices and structures occurred to include the role of the Davidic King which later was transformed due to historical circumstances into the role of the Davidic Nasi in the Sanhedrin. The seeds of this Davidic covenant were already found in the Adamic covenant in Genesis 3:15.
Thus the prophetic reflection on the Old Covenant by Jeremiah led him to enrich the tradition with an expectation of a coming future new Covenant and Malachi to a new sacrifice or universal oblation which culminated in the New Covenant made at the Last Supper. Thus, there would be elements of continuity and discontinuity in this regard for those who accepted the Messiah in his first coming. However, just as when God gave the Abrahamic covenant, the Covenant of Noah continued to apply to the Gentile nations- they were unknowingly spiritually enriched in a hidden manner by the coming of the Abrahamic Covenant to which they would be formally linked with their acceptance of the New Covenant in the times of mercy for the Gentiles. In a like manner, the Jews who did not accept the New Covenant did receive, in an unknowing manner, the graces of the redemption which they would fully embrace in the eschatological future with the Ingrafting. That the Jews, after the Temple was destroyed, adapted their observances to that historical reality does not mean they suddenly became something different, just as when the Davidic kings ceasing to reign and the move to the role of the Davidic Nasi didn't mean they were something different.
The
Vatican under Pope John Paul II confirmed that Judaism over the last
2,000 years had a spiritual fruitfulness. We must remember that Father
Elias wrote his "Jewish Identity" before the deeper discussions on Jews
and Judaism in the light of Nostra Aetate and Vatican II ordered by Pope John Paul II in 1982 bore fruits as reported in the following Vatican document in 1985.
".... We must remember how much the balance of relations between Jews and Christians over two thousand years has been negative. We must remind ourselves how the permanence of Israel is accompanied by a continuous spiritual fecundity, in the rabbinical period, in the Middle Ages and in modern times, taking its start from a patrimony which we long shared, so much so that "the faith and religious life of the Jewish people as they are professed and practiced still today, can greatly help us to understand better certain aspects of the life of the Church" (John Paul II, 6 March 1982). Catechesis should on the other hand help in understanding the meaning for the Jews of the extermination during the years 1939-1945, and its consequences...." (From the 1985 -Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church by the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews)
Tradition, Traditionism and Traditionalism: A Hebrew Catholic Perspective
Richard Harvey
a Messianic Jewish scholar from Israel writes and speaks about the
concepts of Traditionism and Traditionalism in Israeli society and how
it would apply in a Messianic Jewish context. In the Israeli context
Traditionism is a term that is applied to those Israelis who are neither
totally secular or religious but observe certain aspects of Judaism
that they feel are relevant, adapted to their lives as modern people.
Traditionalism is seen in this context to be the strict adherents to
Rabbinic laws and customs.
In
a Catholic context the first group sound like the so-called Cafeteria
Catholics and the others are the strict Traditionalists of a certain
triumphalist mentality. Harvey quotes from the sociologist Edward Shils a
definition of traditionalism as: "Traditionalism, which is a form of
heightened sensitivity to the sacred, demands exclusiveness. It is
content with nothing less than totality ... It is satisfied only if the
traditionalist outlook permeates all spheres political, economic,
cultural and religious and unifies them in a common subordination to the
sacred as it is received from the past. " I am, like Levinas, very wary
of any kind of claims of totality especially in light of the horrors of
the 20th century that led to the Shoah and the Gulags.
Levinas himself despised totalities in all forms as they are closed and dominating systems while himself being a practicing Orthodox Jew. One can be a devout and orthodox Catholic or indeed Orthodox Jew who believes that one's Faith is the fullness of truth but not the totality of truth. This allows us to learn and dialogue with others, rather than a triumphalist monologue with which we seek to bash and condemn the other. This also allows us not to despise or condemn Cafeteria Catholics or traditionist Jews but rather rejoice that they still have an attraction to some of the spiritual riches and traditions of the Church and Synagogue that may be a pathway to embracing the fullness of Truth, who is the Messiah himself, the Living Word, Living Torah and Living Tradition.
Today in the Catholic Church we have Pope Francis who is guiding us to not be either one extreme or the other but true and radical disciples of the Messiah who are truly open to dialogue with others. No matter if it is religion or state that seeks to impose totalities of all kinds on others by force, legal decisions or legislation, the true disciple must stand up for the freedoms and dignity of others.
Matthew 13:5 states "He said unto them: Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, is like to a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old. " Our model is the Jewish family life of the House of Nazareth in which the full richness of traditional Jewish devotional life was lived in the context of the new thing God was doing on earth through the Holy Family's mission to restore the reign of the Divine Will on earth as it is in Heaven by doing every act in Divine Will. "Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, who sanctifies us with His commandments (mitzvot)....".
Old Law and New Law: A Hebrew Catholic Perspective
Recently in response to my blog "Open Questions on Jewish Observances" this discussion was begun.
Mike wrote:
"Jesus Christ ended 'an eye for an eye' for Christians with the New Covenant. How can a Catholic follow both the Old and New Laws and still call themselves a Catholic? The Church does not need to extricate itself from supersessionism when you consider Galatians 3:7, Galatians 3:16, Galatians 3:29 and Galatians 6:12-18."
I responded: I
think you miss the point. There is only One Law of God but an old and
new way of relating to it. Galatians was written to and for Gentiles - I
suggest you read up on the new perspectives of Paul taking into account
his Jewishness. You also seem to miss the point about an eye for a eye.
Jesus is challenging those who take the law into their own hands and use
this verse as a reason for personal vendetta. The original context was
as a justice principal for the justice laws of the Israel state. Jesus
is not attacking the Law recorded in the Old Testament- which is the
Word of God- but he is challenging those who misuse it for their own
selfish ends.
Ben Yachov also responded to Mike and said:
How can a Catholic follow both the Old and New Laws and still call themselves a Catholic? I reply: This way:
I respond: In the Catholic Church we have the belief as expressed by Cardinal Newman of the development of doctrine. We also do not read statements or documents out of context but interpret them in accord with Scripture and the whole Tradition of the Church. For example we have the doctrine of 'there is no salvation outside the Church'. In the past many Catholics in a extremely literal manner interpreted that to mean that everyone who was not a formal Catholic within the visible structures of the Church were damned and go to hell. However over the centuries the Church deepened its understanding of what this meant. When Father Feeney, in the 1950's, taught this interpretation he was excommunicated and told his idea was heretical. The Church, through theological reflection and development, had come to a deeper understanding of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ that was not limited to the visible hierarchical Church on earth. Vatican II clearly clarified this interpretation."it cannot be absolutely asserted that that man judaizes who does something in the Church which corresponds to the ceremonies of the old Law. "If a man should perform acts for a different end and purpose (even with the intention of worship and as religious ceremonies), not in the spirit of that Law nor on the basis of it, but either from personal decision, from human custom, or on the instruction of the Church, he would not sin, nor could he be said to judaize. So when a man does something in the Church which resembles the ceremonies of the old Law, he must not always be said to judaize"."
"4. But others remarked wisely that some, surely, of the ceremonial rites of the old Law could be observed under the new Law if only they were not done as obligations of the old Law, which was abrogated, but as a custom, or lawful tradition, or as a new precept issued by one enjoying the recognized and competent authority to make laws and to enforce them, as Vasquez observes (vol. 3, in the 3rd part of the Summa, disp. 210, quest. 80, art. 7)." Ex Quo- Pope Benedict XIV March 1, 1756J"
As for this statement (quoted above by Ben Yachov) by Benedict XIV we need to know how to read this in the light of the development of doctrine as renewed in its biblical roots in the original deposit of Faith. Firstly we need to understand what a Judaiser is- there are two kinds of Judaisers. The Gentile kind of Judiser is one who believes and teaches that the particular Torah observances appropriate for Jews are obligatory for Gentiles and are a necessary means of salvation. The Jewish kind of Judaiser is those Jews that also teach that the particular Torah observances appropriate for Jews are obligatory for Gentiles as a necessary means of salvation.
Benedict XIV is here not addressing Jewish Catholics but
Gentile Catholics. It is thus interesting that he should say that
Gentiles may keep those ceremonies of the Law appropriate for Jews for
three reasons- 1. for a personal decision (ie as a personal spiritual
devotion) 2. from human custom and 3. instructed by the Church. If then a
Gentile may observe a Jewish ceremonial such as Passover out of a
personal devotion or because it is a custom of his community- then how
much more the Jews in the Church. If one may observe them as a human
custom then how much more the Jews for whom these are the customs of
their own people and culture. Of course both Jew and Gentile in the
Church observe with a New Covenant intention and not as a means to
salvation. We Hebrew Catholics also await the day when we can observe
our tradition in the Church with the specific permission and instruction
of the Church at the highest level.
We
also need to know what the Church means by the Old Law and the New Law-
with this Cardinal Lustiger helps us by stating that there is only One Law
of God but the newess is the deeper penetration of the Law in the
Messiah. Thus the Old Law ( a term commonly used in Church documents)
refers to the intention of observing the Law before the coming of the
Messiah as Promise and the new Law refers to the deeper messianic
interpretation and intention of observing the Law as reality of the
Promise. Thus the old intention based on Promise alone passes away and
is subsumed into its mystical fulfilment and reality. How one does this
in the practical, differs depending on whether one is a Jew or Gentile,
male of female, child or adult, Roman or Byzantine, priest or lay.
However in the realm of salvation there are no distinctions - we are all
one in the Messiah and all saved by Grace working through Faith and
manifesting in good works. Even Judaism teaches of the coming of a New
Torah with the revelation of the Messiah. By this they do not mean a new
novelty but a new way of understanding and relating to Torah that is
revealed by the Messiah.
Benedict XIV states:
"...the ceremonial rites of the old Law could be observed under the new Law if only they were not done as obligations of the old Law, which was abrogated, but as a custom, or lawful tradition, or as a new precept issued by one enjoying the recognized and competent authority to make laws and to enforce them..."
What does the word 'abrogate' refer to here. It is not the abrogation of the Law but the abrogation of the need for Gentiles who enter the Church to be obligated to observe the Law as Jews. This is the abrogation (dispensation) for Gentiles discussed in Acts 15. We can be assured that Pope Benedict XIV was not speaking of the abrogation of the Sinai Covenant but of the need for Gentiles to be obligated to the specifically Jewish observances, by the words of Benedict XVI when he was the Cardinal in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He wrote:
“With regard to the issue of the nature of the covenant, it is important to note that the Last Supper sees itself as making a covenant: it is the prolongation of the Sinai covenant, which is not abrogated, but renewed” (Many Religions, One Covenant, p. 62).
Even
for the Jewish Catholic, one is not obligated to the old way but
observes the customs and ceremonies in the light of the New Covenant
with a Messianic, Eucharistic and Marian intention. We do this to more
fully adhere to the Will of God and to grow in intimacy with God
according to our Election and calling as physical Israelites in the
Mystical Body of Christ. Many Hebrew Catholics are drawn to observe as
Our Lady and the Apostles and all the first Jewish Catholics of
Jerusalem did after Pentecost with zealousness for the Torah (see Acts
21) which we wish to pass to our children and grandchildren.
There
is some theological discussion about exactly what the term used in the
Church of 'Old Law' refers to. Some say it means the Law or Covenant of
Moses, others the Covenant with Abraham and others that it includes all the
covenants made with Israel. It would seem the term is usually not
actually referring to the Torah as such but the terms Old Law and New
Law may be the equivalent to the terms Old Covenant and New Covenant,
according to others. Once again some believe the term 'Old Covenant'
refers to the one made at Sinai and others that it refers to all the
covenants made with Abraham and the Patriarchs. Pope John Paul II taught
that the Old Covenant is irrevocable so the question of what exactly
the term Old Covenant refers to becomes a question of debate. Even though
most in the past assumed the Old Covenant referred to the one made at
Sinai, now some try to see it as the Covenant with Abraham that is
irrevocable. This is because many Catholics have assumed that the
Covenant at Sinai was revoked or abolished but now a Pope was saying
that it is irrevocable. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (121) also
teaches this:
"The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked."The USCCB Catechism stated:
“Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.”
Recently
it was proposed to remove this sentence from the Catechism due to the
Catholic faithful misunderstanding of what this statement meant. Some
were using it to say that there are two equal and independent ways to
salvation. The phrase is referring to sanctification not salvation and
to the unique call of the Jews in salvation history. The Bishops'
spokesman assured us that it was not being removed because it was wrong
but because of the misunderstanding that it could cause which wasn't
appropriate in a Catechism for common use. It would need greater
explanation that wasn't able to be done in the Catechism. However the
Anti-Semites in the Church saw this as a victory for their opposition to
this phrase.
Of
course there are those in both the Catholic and Jewish communities that
are opposed to Jewishly Torah observant Hebrew Catholics. Many on the
Catholic side feel it might upset the Jewish and Catholic dialogue.
However, one of the most interesting and brilliant Orthodox Jewish
philosophers and theologians of the last century, Michael Wyschogrod, puts
forth a case for just such Jewish observance by Jews in the Church. He
also wrote a letter to Cardinal Lustiger on this very point.
It
is time that Gentile Catholics encouraged the Catholics of Jewish
background and ancestry to embrace their Jewish heritage and
spirituality. It is also time that the Jewish community accept those
Jews who follow their Rebbe Yeshua, who they believe is the Mashiach ben
Joseph and God, just as they accept the Lubavitch Chabad Chasidim, some of whom
believe that their Rebbe Menachem is Mashiach ben Joseph and God. The
Messiahship and divinity of Jesus should not be the problem in accepting
Jewish believers in Jesus as part of Orthodox Judaism but Torah
observance. When I was in a Yeshivah in Jerusalem I was taught that the
four main signs of whether someone is an Orthodox Jew is belief in the
One God, belief in the Written Torah as given by God to Moses on Sinai,
belief in the oral Torah and belief in the observance of the mitzvot by
Israel. As I believe in all four of these by this definition I am closer
to orthodox Judaism than those in the Conservative or Reform
synagogues.
However
we need to be patient and form an observant Chasidic Jewish Catholic
Community and maybe after a hundred years or so the rest of the Jewish
community may accept that we are here to stay just as they did with the
original Chasidim. Of course with the Holy Spirit on the job things
could also be resolved at a more rapid pace. Of course we believe that
in the fullness of time all Jews will one future day be part of our
observant Chasidic Jewish Catholic community- however we leave the
details up to God. Some old Catholic prophecies state that the Jews will
one day all be Catholics without ceasing to be Jews- and I for one pray
for that day but I will be happy to see just a small observant Chasidic
Catholic community established. The Association of Hebrew Catholics has
been an important part of this growing awareness of Jewish Identity in
the Church as a signpost to the future dream.
Tzel and Tzelem: Shadow and Form
Many
Christians believe that all the rituals of Judaism and especially the
Covenant with Moses are no longer relevant because they were a shadow of
the New Covenant. They base this on their reading of Hebrews 10:1 in
the New Testament.
Hebrews 10:1(Margoliuth Translation)כִּ֣י הַתּוֹרָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֤ר יֵֽשׁ־לָהּ֨ צֵ֚להַטּוּב֣וֹת הָֽעֲתִיד֔וֹת לֹ֕א עֶ֖צֶם צֶ֣לֶםהַדְּבָרִ֑ים לְעוֹלָ֞ם לֹ֤א תוּכַל֨ לְהַשְׁלִ֣ים אֶת־הַקְּרֵבִ֔ים בִּזְבָחִ֨ים הָהֵ֜ם אֲשֶׁ֨ר הֵ֤ם מַקְרִיבִים֨ תָּמִ֔יד מִדֵּ֥י שָׁנָ֖ה בְּשָׁנָֽה ׃
Hebrews 10:1 - For in the law there was a shadow of the good things to come; not the substance of the things themselves. Therefore, although the same sacrifices were every year offered, they could never perfect those who offered them.
The word for shadow in the Greek is skian, in Aramaic it is tellanita, in Hebrew it is tzel and in Latin it is umbram. An important thing to notice about this idea of a shadow or promise (tzel) in the Law as a pointing towards a future taking form or fulfilment of this shadow or promise, is that it is not saying that this is what the whole purpose of the Law is or was. It is not saying that the Law or Torah is only this shadow but it is saying this prophetic shadow is present pointing to the future goal or destination (telos/ takhlit) of the Law or Torah.
The word for Law or Torah in Greek is nomos and in Aramaic it is namusa. Did nomos or namusa come first? I believe that both nomos and namusa come
from the same source. Aramaic was the language of the Northern Tribes
of Israel and some of the Ancient Greek's were of Israelite origin. This
word for law came from the Egyptian word for nome meaning an allotment or portion which in Greek became nemo (to allot or dispense). Thus the words nome Muse in Egyptian meaning the allotment of Moses became the Law of Moses. This developed among the Greeks as nomos and among the Lost Tribes as namusa meaning law or written law. That this Nome Muse was chanted with musical cantillations was preserved in the Ancient Greek culture as a word for the
traditional melody types used by the singer for the recitation of the
epics. The musical inheritance of chanting both Scripture and the
liturgy sadly has been lost in recent years in much of the Western
Church.
In this verse from Hebrews (10:1) it speaks about the shadow (tellanita/ tzel) and the essence or substance or emanation or form (Kenoma/tzelem) of the Torah. The pun between tzel and tzelem
is missing in the Greek and the Aramaic demonstrating the Epistle to
the Hebrews was probably originally written in Hebrew. Thus the addition
of the Hebrew letter mem to tzel (Tzaddi Lamed) makes tzelem. The two mems of mem for the Hebrew Catholic represents the messianic (Mashiach) and Marian (Miriam) dimensions of reading the Torah that turns shadow (promise) into form or substance (fulfilment).
The Tzelem or Image of God is also the Sefirotic array and the Aramaic word kenoma is a cognate of sefirah. Adam was made in the Tzelem of God and thus the first Adam was the shadow (tzel) and the Second Adam (the Messiah) was the Tzelem. Thus every Tzelem has a tzel. In Catholic tradition St Joseph is also known as the Shadow (tzel) of the Father. It is only in the divinity (divine unity) of the Tri-une God that there is no Tzel with its Tzelem as this Divinity is the Eternal Sun of the Divine Will and God the Father is never a tzel (see James 1:17). In the person of the Messiah we could say that his Divinity is the tzelem and his humanity the tzel. Thus, the term "In the Shadow of the Almighty" (betzel Shadai)
refers to Messiah as the God-Man (Adam Kadmon) the second person of the
Thrice-Holy God in whom we are called to dwell. Thus the Messiah can be
a tzel of the Father and the Holy Spirit in his humanity but in his divinity he is co-equal and co-eternal.
In
mythology a vampire has no shadow and thus an object or reality or form
without its shadow is not fully alive but the living dead. Thus,
without the shadow of the Jewish rituals our understanding of the
Catholic rituals are not fully alive and cannot fully attain the level
of light that they were created for. They end up as a form of
pseudo-Gnostic spirituality cut off from its roots and types in Judaism.
Those roots and types are the tzel (shadow). However, some
Christians are satisfied with only reading about the types or shadows in
the written text rather than experiencing them in their fullness of
lived reality. I suspect one of the Divine reasons for preserving
Judaism outside the Church was to preserve this lived reality of Judaism
at a time when Gentile intolerance did not allow it to be preserved in
the Church. Another reason was to allow the Church to spiritually renew
itself in its Judaic and Biblical roots by interaction with lived
Judaism and its spiritual and mystical traditions and teachings.
Betzelel who was the major craftsman of the Temple furnishings has a name which means "in the Shadow of God". Rebbe Nachman of Brelsov in the Likutey Moharan associates this name of Betzelel (in the image/form of God) with the concept of the supernal Joseph who is one of the four minds in the Jewish Temple. Thus when Jesus made his comment about being in his father's house when he was in the Temple, he was alluding to the fact that the Temple and its rituals was also part of Joseph's House just as he lived in Joseph's House in Nazareth. Thus the Temple was the tzel of the tzelem of the Holy House of Nazareth. The concept of Tzelem is like the word template in English and it was the God-Man Messiah (Yeshua) in his attributes (sefirot) who was the template for the first Adam (Adam ha Rishon). Thus St Joseph was the tzel (shadow) of the Father but his human masculine nature was the tzelem for the male characteristics of the Messiah, just as Our Lady was the demut (likeness) of Divinity and the dam (blood) or human biological nature for the Messiah.
That St Joseph was the Shadow of the Father does not mean that when the Messiah came as the Tzelem that Joseph lost his importance or relevance. No! his importance and relevance increased and were given a new light of understanding. In a sense the Holy House of Nazareth was a tzel (hidden shadow) on the earthly level but in Eternity is the Tzelem of which both the Covenant with Moses and the New Covenant on earth are shadows. Just as CS Lewis described this world (in his children's novel "The Last Battle" of the Narnia series) as the shadow-lands in contrast to Heaven. Thus, the Covenant with Moses receives a new and deeper light with the revelation of the Messiah.
In a sense, the first coming of the Messiah, who lived according to the Temple law and ritual, was the tzel (shadow) of his second coming which is the Tzelem of the Kingdom. Hebrews 9 speaks about the Messiah's first coming to the Jews to deal with sin but states that at a second appearing he will be bringing salvation to those who are still waiting for it. This second appearing to the Jewish people (Judaism) is not what many call the Second Coming or Final Coming of the Messiah in power to earth physically but a second appearing or manifestation of the Messiah (as a hidden or shadow Thief in the Night) to those Jews (Rabbinic Judaism) who did not receive salvation at his first coming but were still expecting it.
"So also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; the second time he shall appear without sin to them that expect him unto salvation." (Hebrews 9:28 Douay Rheims)They will in this second appearing receive him as the Messiah and Judaism will enter into the very heart of the Church as its Mother (see St Bernard of Clairvaux). Many seem to forget that this Letter to the Hebrews was addressed to Jewish Christians and on the plain reading of the text it is dealing with issues relevant to Jews. That we can get other more universal and mystical insights from this text doesn't remove its original and first meaning. Just as the fulfilment of the Jewish feasts in the Messiah does not take away the original and first meanings of these feasts. It is also interesting that the Greek text uses the Greek word for salvation but the Peshitta Aramaic does not use the word salvation. This once again seems to point to a Hebrew original of this Epistle to the Hebrews as it is only in Hebrew that one has the play on words of Yeshuah meaning salvation as well as alluding to the Messiah Yeshua.
Hebrews 9:28 (Margoliuth Translation)כֵּ֣ן ׀ גַּ֣ם הַמָּשִׁ֗יחַ הַמָּקְרָב֨ פַּ֣עַם אַחַ֔ת לְמַ֥עַן שֵׂ֖את חַטֹּ֣אות רַבִּ֑ים יֵֽרָאֶ֣ה שֵׁנִ֗ית בִּבְלִ֥י חַטָּ֛את אֶל־הַמְּצַפִּ֥ים ל֖וֹ לִֽישׁוּעָֽה ׃
That the Jewish Passover and the other table rituals of Judaism is the tzel of the Eucharist (which is the Tzelem) does not mean they cease to exist or have relevance and importance. The Eucharist now shines a greater light on their relevance. However, the Eucharist is a tzel (shadow) of the Kingdom of God that is Coming (Tzelem of the Kingdom of the Divine Will done on earth as it is in Heaven). This does not mean that the Eucharist or the other sacraments will lose their relevance and importance but we will enter into a deeper Eucharistic penetration called in the writings of the servant of God Luisa Piccarreta the Bread of the Divine Will. The Kingdom of the Divine Will on earth is the tzel of the Kingdom of the Divine Will in Heaven (which is then the Tzelem). In moving from tzel to Tzelem there seems to be a transformation and renewal which may transfigure some of the outward forms of the tzel due to the greater light that the Tzelem shines on the tzel.
One who enters into the gift of Living or Dwelling in the Divine Will (a higher form of sanctification) begins to perceive both the Eucharist and the Jewish Passover and Jewish Shabbat in a deeper and new or renewed light than those who only perceive them in the light of following the Divine Will. Judaism's orthopractic concern with blessings and mitzvot (acts) starts to make more sense to those Catholics who are desiring to live in the Divine Will, who now see Judaism in a new light. In this sense, Hasidic Judaism is a tzel of the future Hebrew Catholic or Catholic Jewish community, just as the Gentile Church is a tzel of this anticipated future Kehilla. This is also the concept of "deep calling to deeper" and "going from glory to glory". This concept of tzel and tzelem and the idea of continuity and discontinuity also applies to the concept of the development of doctrine in the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The Sleeping Church of the Circumcision: A Hebrew Catholic Discussion
Today we have been having an interesting conversation on the Association of Hebrew Catholics page on facebook. This discussion is with two Hebrew Catholics, Dave and myself (Br Gilbert) and Jason who is a matrilineal Jew who is studying to become a Catholic. We are discussing the perennial question of Jewish Identity.
This discussion began when Jason posted a link to an article about Jon Ossof who had patrilineal Jewish ancestry and not maternal.
Jason wrote:
Mixed
feelings about this article. Hebrew Catholic (Universal!) is the
appropriate welcoming identity for all people of Jewish extraction no
matter how remote—because of The Life, Christ. Yet I also find it
frustrating that a "patrilineal" Jew is not seen as a Jew by the
Orthodox and yet would be just as much at risk as any Jew in Nazi
Occupied Europe (for example). However, I also respect the deep reasons
for this ancient ruling (even if I only have limited understanding of
them.) Jewish actually describes a physical nation (secular), ethnicity
AND spirituality, and one is still considered totally Jewish as long as
they meet the legal requirements which only require they fall within one
of these categories. My mixed feelings stem from the fact that often
the Jewish categories are not in unity and work against each other. The
secular Jew demands acceptance from the religious where it's not
possible. It's like a lay person wanting to be Catholic but actively
working to change the magisterium before he joins. At least for my own
kids who are Catholic "patrilineal", there's a careful distinction to be
made that their religion is not Jewish, it is Christian/Catholic, and
those who follow Judaism would not consider them so. But they are
Hebrew Catholics AND Jewish in the secular sense. I still have not
worked out how to articulate this complicated identity! I kind of think
if someone like Ossoff really demands acceptance from Orthodox Jews he
should respect it and do a full orthodox (not reform) conversion. I have
heard many do.
Interesting. You know the passage when Paul circumcised Timothy on account of his gentile father because of the Jews? In this light it was to actually convert Timothy who wasn’t considered a Jew even though his mother was. Does that make sense? I always looked at it backwards but this makes more sense to me.
"The power of the community to mediate the "election factor" derives from the Election itself. The people of Israel, being the material object of the Election, each of its constituent communities is capable of mediating the "election factor"."
"To sum up, a community is Jewish in the sense of the term fixed by historical convention when it is ruled by rabbinical law; it is Israelite when it is in historical relation with the People of Israel prior to their dispersion from the Holy Land."
"The Christian is perhaps more aware of the catastrophe from which Rabbinism emerged than Chouraqui may imagine. Anyway, Chouraqui would surely agree that if what he says is true and God is in exile from the post-Christic Jewish People, the latter is automatically disqualified from playing a positive role in the economy of salvation. Consequently, we reject the affirmation of Gregory Baum according to which “Judaism continues to exercise a positive role in God’s plan of salvation”. What role did devolve on it we hope to consider later.If post-Christic Judaism were in any way valid, as Fisher pretends, the Jewish convert would be obliged to practice it even after his entry into the Church, which no one would be prepared to concede. The invalidation of Rabbinical Judaism should not be received as an offense. After all, Judaism invalidates Christianity."
"...The Marranos were crypto-Jews who practiced Catholicism in public and Judaism in secret. The majority ended up by being absorbed into the Spanish Church. A handful, especially on the island of Majorca, still keep up Jewish customs, even tending to intermarry. These habits are insufficient to regard them as Israelites. They are Spanish Catholics with judaizing tendencies..."
“...It results from a transcendental relation between the person and the divine will, mediated by the community of the elect. It is because one is born into the Elect People that one is born an Israelite. The ‘election factor’ is irrevocable for the person so born, since the gifts of God are without repentance. It is revocable for his descendants, not by an act of will, but where the descendants have ceased to belong to a community, mediator of the ‘election factor’..."
Traditions of the Sages in Mark 7: A Hebrew Catholic Perspective
In a course I am studying (in 2008) I was asked this question. I thought some of you would be interested in my response.
Question: If the Sages which came before Yeshua could not be trusted in their teaching, why cannot the teaching of the Sages of the Talmud, which came after Yeshua, be trusted?
Answer: I do not like this question. I do not think Yeshua intended to discredit the traditions of the Sages of Israel. He did criticise a group of Pharisees and Scribes who were placing the teachings of the Elders above the Biblical commandments and interpreting them in a way that distorted both the Sages teachings and Scripture. Mark in chapter 7 verses 3-4 is not criticising the Jewish customs but explaining them to the Gentile audience he is writing to. Yeshua goes on in Mark 7 to give some examples of this misuse of Scripture and tradition. These Pharisees and Scribes appeal to the authentic ‘traditions of the Elders’ but Yeshua never criticises this tradition only the twisted reasoning of this group who have misused the ‘traditions of the Elders’ to create their own man-made tradition that actually undermines the Torah and its interpretation by the Sages. Yeshua very pointedly calls it “your tradition” to distinguish it from the “tradition of the Elders”.
Yeshua using the commandment of “Honour thy mother and father”, as an example, demonstrates this unspiritual approach. Yeshua is not criticising the idea of a korban or the setting aside of gifts for God’s service. What he is criticising is this group's perverted use of tradition to justify their evil desire to not help their parents and thus by their twisted use of tradition they undermined the written Torah and make the mosaic tradition of no value. When they criticised others for not performing n’tilat yadaim (washing of hands), Yeshua saw that it was from a hypocritical heart of judging others on secondary matters that at this time was not even a universal custom. Unfortunately this has been confused by the Greek of the text which has translated the Hebrew word ‘kol’ as ‘all’ when in Hebrew it can also mean ‘many’. The text should read in English ‘and many of the Judeans’ rather than “and all the Jews”. The Jews of the Galil had a different minhag (custom) but it is obvious that Yeshua himself observed the Judean and Pharisee minhag as they did not criticise him for eating without doing n’tilat yadaim, only some of his talmidim (disciples). The reason for this is that Yeshua’s family originally came from Judea and observed this greater stringency of washing before eating ordinary food (chullin/common) that many of the Pharisees practiced at that time. This stringency is not what Yeshua condemned when done in the right spirit of enhancing the spiritual sanctity in ordinary acts, but when this stringency was used as a judgement of how pure another Jew was, he was indignant.
We must also never take Scripture out of context. Matthew 23 states that the Pharisaic authorities sit in the chair of Moshe and that their teaching of the Mosaic tradition is correct and must be followed. Yeshua warns them however not to follow the distorted interpretation of this Tradition that leads certain groups of them to live out in their lives in a hypocritical manner. Everything is done for show not from kevanah (heart devotion).
As for the Sages of the Talmud they also teach with Mosaic authority and their opinions should be respected and the consensus of the Sages followed by all Jews. Of course Gentile believers are not bound to adhere to the particular Jewish Torah-observances or to the Mosaic authorities, they live out Torah at the universal level and follow Yeshua according to their own particular ethnic minhaggim (customs) under the teaching of the New Covenant authorities who sit in the chair of Peter.
Jewish believers in Yeshua while respecting the chair of Moshe and adhering to its teachings on Jewish relevant issues are also under the New Covenant chair of Peter and its teaching authority on faith and morals. Those of us in the New Covenant should also be aware of distorted interpretations of the New Covenant Scripture and Tradition by many priests, theologians and bishops of the New Covenant. We must be aware that Yeshua is criticising certain groups and trends within the Pharisee movement who had distorted Torah. The Talmud itself criticises five different groups of fanatical Pharisees. I believe when Yeshua speaks of the ‘yeast of the Pharisees’ he is referring to a small but powerful group within the broader body of the Pharisee movement. It is obvious Yeshua is not speaking of those Pharisees who are sincere like Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea and Gamaliel. Even today in Orthodox Judaism (the Modern Pharisees) we see certain groups that are a dangerous yeast that tends towards fanaticism and burdensome and unloving stringency, but this does not represent the bulk of Orthodox Jewry or the consensus of Rabbinic teaching.
Also the Sages of Israel compare the holy vessels of the Temple with the vessels of ones tongue and heart. It is forbidden to comment on the level of observance of another Jew in a negative way this is lashon hara (evil talk). This is why Yeshua is so upset with these Pharisees, that they should be committing the sin of lashon hara which is much worse than putting non-kosher food on holy vessels. To speak lashon hara pollutes the inner man and the temple and domestic purity of dishes is only a sign alluding to this spiritual purity/impurity of the inner heart and tongue.
Note: When I speak of stringencies I am not referring to stringencies one does out of Kevanah (heart devotion) which one does not burden other groups or individuals with their level of stringency.