Grace and peace, Dawn,

My old father forthrightly says he "came to salvation" because of fear of hell. It was only later that his motivation swung to following the Lord out of love and devotion as a Protestant pastor for 37 years.

Catholics, however, also spend quite a bit of time and ink on the subject of hell and damnation, referring to recent remarks by the Holy Father.

I still think Bailie's remarks on God's "wrath" and hell being the free choice of one who refuses God's forgiveness to be operative. Didn't C. S. Lewis say somewhere that there are no locks on the gates of hell?
Athos | Homepage | 03.31.07 - 6:34 am | #

I think Matthew 5:23-24 apply very aptly here. It is a great gift to grant, and to ask for, forgiveness. Have a Blessed Holy Week.
uncle jim | 03.31.07 - 7:16 am | #

I always wonder about valid and invalid reasons for following Jesus. This being the beginning of Holy week, the masses waved palms for Jesus but when the times changed so did their Hosannas into cries for crucifiction. Later those same ones may have been added at Pentecost. The disciples followed Jesus for 3 years before receiving the Holy Spirit but when Jesus summoned them, they dropped everything and followed him. I think faith can start with fear or desire before God graces us with a deeper faith.

Dawn I let someone borrow my copy of your book and I just got it back so I'm excited about finally getting into it.
Aaron da Fish | Homepage | 03.31.07 - 8:49 am | #

OK, I forgive you.
Robert N G | Homepage | 03.31.07 - 9:31 am | #

I think arrogance in ministers of the gospel is inexcusable. And this guy has no pastoral sensitivity if he's telling a 20 year old young woman that her grandmother is probably in hell. Part for the course in some parts of the evangelical world.

To be clear, the recent comments by the Holy Father emphasize the real existence of Hell, that it is not a theory or a conjecture, but a truth of the Faith. Who is there and who is not something we judge with certainty.

In my experience it's the assurance-of-salvation evangelicals who also have the assurance-of-damnation. NO THANK YOU on both counts.

May the souls of the faithful departed by the mercy of Christ rest in peace.

Warren
warren | Homepage | 03.31.07 - 10:26 am | #

Amen. We're not called to judgment; God has that department covered already, and doesn't require our assistance. If we as Christians took the time and energy we spend worrying about where other people go...
Robert | Homepage | 03.31.07 - 11:37 am | #

To be clear, the recent comments by the Holy Father emphasize the real existence of Hell, that it is not a theory or a conjecture, but a truth of the Faith.

It should be noted that this was stated in passing during a homily on the adulteress at the parish of St. Felicity and Sons, martyrs, in Rome.

Dear friends, concrete indications for our life emerge from the word of God that we heard today. Jesus did not get into a theoretical discussion with His interlocutors. He was not interested in winning a dispute over the interpretation of Mosaic law. His objective was to save a soul and to reveal that salvation is only found in God's love. That is why He came to earth, why he would die on the Cross, and why the Father would resurrect Him on the third day. Jesus came to tell us that He wants us all in Paradise, and that Hell - of which very little is spoken these days - exists, and is eternal for those who close off their hearts to His love.

Even in this episode, we understand that the true enemy is attachment to sin, which can lead us to the failure of our existence. Jesus sends off the adulterous woman with the advice, "Go, and sin no more." He grants forgiveness so that "from now on", she would no longer sin.

Hell was not his main point, but we digress.
Bender | 03.31.07 - 11:38 am | #

As far as judging the state of another person's soul, whatever Hell is, whether it is fire and physical pain, or it is the coldness and darkness of eternal separation from God, we can be certain of what Heaven is. It is eternally being with God. That is to say, it is eternally being with, not only God the Father, but God the Son, i.e. Jesus Christ. And if someone does not want to be with God, He will not force Himself on that person.

God will not force salvation on anyone. He will not compel anyone to be with Him in Heaven if they do not want to be with Him fully, completely, and eternally.

So, does that mean that all non-Christians are going to hell? Well, from a perspective of justice, it is perfectly just and proper for those who do not want to be with Christ to not be with Him. They do not want to be with Him in the first place, so on what grounds are they complaining? However, this assumes that such "non-Christians" have made a free choice, in the sense that it is knowing, intelligent, and understanding of the nature and consequences of such decision. Some non-Christians know the truth in the totality of their being, and yet they purposely and intentionally reject it. Other "non-Christians" do not know the truth intellectually, but they know it in their heart or spirit, or at least they want to know the truth. In a sense, although they deny Christ in their heads and on their lips, because they accept Him in their hearts, they are approaching something of being a Christian. So, perhaps their hearts will permit them to attain salvation after all?

On the other hand, will all professing Christians avoid Hell and go to Heaven? Well, there are some who insist that merely accepting Jesus as your Lord and Personal Savior will get you a guaranteed ticket to Heaven. However, Jesus Himself said that there will be many calling out "Lord, Lord" who will be turned away because they never truly loved Him. There are some who accept Christ in their heads and proclaim Him on their lips, but He is a stranger to their hearts. And such people are, in a very real sense, more non-Christian than the "non-Christians" are. So, since they kept Christ out of their hearts and spirit while here on earth, why should they expect that Christ will force Himself into their hearts after they are dead?

In either case of Christian or non-Christian, God gave us free will for a reason -- to freely choose to love Him or not love Him. He wants a love relationship with us and it isn't love if it isn't freely given. And He will respect the choice that we make -- to be with Him or to not be with Him. Now, of course, our mere choice is not the cause of salvation. We are not our own saviors (that is the error of the fruit of the tree). Only Christ is our Savior. But salvation, like love and forgiveness, is not a unilateral action. It is a transaction. Salvation and forgiveness are something that is offered and given, but to be complete, they must be accepted. We must choose to accept and then actively accept forgiveness and the salvation of being with God eternally. If someone is disposed to reject what is offered, and not make that choice of being with God, then they have necessarily chosen to be apart from God. And He will respect and grant that choice.
Bender | 03.31.07 - 11:44 am | #

Sorry to hijack the com-box here, but one last point --

Selman insisted I promise to ask God for something I wanted that I didn't believe was possible

In college, I was associated with some Evangelical group on campus (I think it was Evangelical. Even though I'm Catholic, they had some nice people there, and fellowship is a good thing, etc.). Anyway, they had this preacher/speaker come and give a talk, and he said pretty much the same thing -- if you don't believe, if you are having doubts, ask God to do something and He'll prove Himself.

I gotta tell ya, such things just make me wince. Have they not read the Gospels? Do they not know that Satan suggested the same thing to Jesus? Do they not realize that Jesus said "Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test"? Argh!!

Either believe or don't believe. But don't have the audacity to tell God that you will not believe in Him -- that He will not exist for you -- unless He performs some miracle to your satisfaction. God has proven Himself enough already.
Bender | 03.31.07 - 12:02 pm | #

I agree wtih you last paragraph, Bender. At the same time, forget not such passages as Isaiah 7 and John 16:23-24. 'Thous shalt nto put the Lord thy God to the test' oft applied to broadly.

Sincerely in Christ,
Hidden One | Homepage | 03.31.07 - 8:24 pm | #

Sometimes, fear does the job in giving a person a jolt and making him look up to Heaven for a change. Then it can put him on the road to wanting to know and love God more. But if it's always an unhealthy fear that motivates him to "stay on God's side" I don't think he's going to be very happy and stable.

I agree that people who seem so certain and adamant about who's saved and who's not are the biggest turn-off (at least for me).

A blessed Holy Week to you, Dawn, and to everyone else.

Sunny
Sunnyday | Homepage | 03.31.07 - 9:23 pm | #

May God bless you, Dawn, for your openness about your journey and your humbleness. Your story has been very inspiring to me as a fellow convert (it will be 8 years this Easter) who has let herself get "comfortable" in the ritual and routines of Catholic life. I have been praying for my deceased grandparents who for all I know never "accepted Jesus" (my grandfather claimed to be an atheist), and will continue to pray for them until the end of my life. We can't know, and so we pray.
May all of you have a good Holy Week.
Pam
pam | 03.31.07 - 9:44 pm | #

"...it is wrong for me to ever claim certainty about the state of another person's soul. Only God knows the hearts."

Hi Dawn:

You are right on target here. And how sad that your entry into the Christian faith was waylaid by such a thoughtless remark.

The Church does tell us who is in heaven - there are countless canonized saints, and saintly people that we certainly hope and pray are now before the throne of God.

But the Church doesn't tell us who is in hell. Any one of us can probably come up with a list of infamous souls who might occupy the place of eternal damnation, but we have to always remember that God does not judge by our standards.

We have no idea the souls that have turned to God in their last seconds on earth, and we also have no idea how many hearts we may change in our lifetime just by saying a simple prayer. There are many, many souls who never hear about Christ through no fault of their own. It is up to us to be the hands and voice of Christ in the world.

God is merciful beyond anything we can comprehend.

I wouldn't characterize your chastity lectures as a judgement on anyone. You are speaking from the heart so that others might hopefully discover the Love that you have found.

Of the many who have thanked you for your message personally, there are so many others who have thanked you in the silence of their hearts - and there are so many seeds planted that you may never know about.

Since you are thoroughly immersed in Fulton Sheen these days, you will appreciate one of his sayings that is a favorite of mine.

He used to say that there are three surprises when you get to heaven - who's there, who's not there, and the fact that you're there.

Keep sowing those seeds Dawn.
June | 03.31.07 - 10:06 pm | #

And, of course, does the Father of the Prodigal Son really look like the harsh, vindictive judge of popular lore?

Jesus' listeners must have nodded when they heard him say the son was practicing his well rehearsed speech. But when the Father ran - turban falling off, dogs barking and small children running beside him, losing a sandal in his haste, making a fool of himself out of love for the returning son - they must have shook their heads. What kind of a father is this?

Jesus redefined the nature of human fatherhood and God's fatherhood in one fell swoop (or "swell foop" as a friend once said to uproarious appreciation).

It is we humans who are bloodthirsty and demanding of sacrifice and lex talonis. Not the God revealed by Jesus Christ.
Athos | Homepage | 04.01.07 - 5:51 am | #

Back in the 1950's, when I was in my single digits, we used to take time out of public school to be lead to someone's nearby garage with benches to learn our catechism. Among others, I remember being taught of two things: Baptism by Fire and Baptism by Desire. The basic thrust, reinterpreted by this adult, is the Catholic community is not coterminous with the membership roles of all Catholic parishes in the world. Indeed, even in my single digits, the distinction taught between mortal and venial sin made that clear. Reach for God and He'll be there. The Catholic church helps you to reach better than any other institution or so I believe. Others must choose for themselves.
Mike Melendez | 04.01.07 - 8:26 am | #

I will pray that anyone on your list to whom you are reaching out will find it in their hearts to forgive.

To jump back into the discussion, let's face it. Even in the Year of Our Lord 2007 there are people on this planet who will never hear His name. Does a just and merciful God condemn those who've never met Him? I would have an extremely difficult time believing that.

This is nobody's doctrine, but I just personally have to believe that all souls are -- in some mysterious way -- given an opportunity to meet Jesus at some point in their lives, and are able to make a free will decision whether to accept or reject Him.

The death row conversion is a well known fact, starting with the thief at Calvary. The idea of Ted Bundy in heaven is unthinkable in human terms, but we're dealing with the power of God here, not that of us mere mortals. For all we know, Ted could be with Jesus.

We just don't know the state of anyone's soul -- including the Catholic politicians who vote pro-choice and are targeted by those want to expel from the church. Key to any recognition of sin is a properly formed conscience, which again is something none are privy to besides the individual in question and God. We simply do not know.

We can certainly judge actions -- our society would be anarchy if we did not. But we cannot judge souls.
C.J. | 04.01.07 - 9:49 am | #

I think 'fear' is always the beginning of faith. It's fear not love that makes us look carefully before crossing a busy street.

I may have told this story here before so forgive me if you've heard it before. When I was nine years of age, a rather aggressive Irish priest came into our convent classroom one day and in the course of things declared that outside the Catholic Church there was absolutely no Salvation. I went home both puzzled and disturbed and finding my mum in the kitchen demanded to know if Mr P, (a very special non Catholic family friend) was headed for Hell. For a long minute my Mum kept at her work before turning to me and firmly saying "No".

Several years ago a priest friend I related this to said that with that question I had probably saved both my Mum's and my own Faith. Certainly I could never have stuck with a God as unmerciful as that and of course that priest's attitude was totally at variance with the Gospel message. And then of course there is the famous case of Fr Fr Feeney in Boston in the early 1950s who also publicly taught that same unmerciful doctrine until after repeated warnings, Archbishop Cushing removed him from the priesthood.
Stephen Sparrow | 04.01.07 - 6:14 pm | #

".... It's fear not love that makes us look carefully before crossing a busy street."

I've just realised I'm a little wrong about that. The primary reason to look carefully before crossing a busy street is a 'love' to be on the other side. The fear involved is in not loving the other side of the road enough. ;-)
Stephen Sparrow | 04.01.07 - 8:09 pm | #

"Outside the Church there is no salvation" always has been and still is doctrine and, properly understood, is not at all unmerciful, just as "Outside Christ there is no salvation" is not unmerciful, but a matter of the One Truth in the One God. Buddha isn't going to save you; Allah isn't going to save you; Zeus isn't going to save you; the pagan fertility gods are not going to save you; being a child of Abraham is not going to save you; only the crucified Jesus Christ will save you.

The God of infinite Divine Mercy could, if He wished, give salvation to a non-Catholic or non-Christian, and we pray for the souls of such people. But if someone is saved, be he a so-called "Catholic" or "non-Catholic," "Christian" or "non-Chrisian," then it is still necessarily by Christ and through His Church. There is no other way.

See CCC 846-48 and Dominus Iesus
Bender | 04.01.07 - 8:18 pm | #

"847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."

There is Salvation outside of the earthly visible bulwark of the Church. That's the important part when it comes to the 'no Salvation-outside-of-the-Church' issue, in my mind.
Hidden One | Homepage | 04.01.07 - 9:47 pm | #

Bender, I'm perfectly well aware of that but I go with Hidden One and also St Therese of Liseux (Doctor of The Church no less) and if you peruse the first three pages of her autobiography, you'll find where she says exactly what Hidden One says.
Pax
Stephen Sparrow | 04.01.07 - 9:56 pm | #

I'm sorry, but "believe or go to hell" is not an enticement for me. So basically everyone who lived before Christ is condemned and no matter how good you are, unless you believe in the 'right' G-d, you're doomed. Doesn't make sense.
NeilC | 04.02.07 - 3:12 am | #

NeilC--

Re: everyone who lived before Christ is in Hell. The answer is no.

In the Apostle's Creed and the Epistle of Peter, it's mentioned that Christ, between dying and rising, descended to Hell. From there (from a Dantesque outer ring called the "Limbo of the Fathers"), he set free the patriarchs and matriarchs and everyone who had faithfully waited for him. The event was the basis for some fantastic medieval dramas.

So those who never knew Christ, because they lived before he did, still made it to Heaven. It was only through Christ that they did so, however. They were faithful to their covenant without knowing Christ, and were saved.

Likewise, in the catechism passage cited by Hidden One, knowledge of Christ after he lived may not be necessary. Those who follow their consciences--the covenants they know--can make it. We believe it's only through the power of Christ's sacrifice that they can (without that, no one can, so outside Christ there is indeed no salvation), but salvation may not be dependant on their knowing Christ. What's more, since "God is Love" and Christ is God, those who try to love are following Christ, knowingly or unknowingly, and may be saved by him. So the only "right G-d" to believe in is love.

I mention all this, not to lecture, but to try to make more sense of this; I hope it helps.

Re: Fear vs. Love.
Fear is a valid step on the road to God--imperfect contrition, anyone?
Kate B. | Homepage | 04.02.07 - 9:16 am | #

Kate B., thanks for the respectful answer, though I will continue to believe in my religion. I guess we'll all find out what's true in the end. :)
NeilC | 04.02.07 - 10:55 am | #

NeilC--
By all means. I have no intention of converting you, just of clarifying my own religion's stance on the issue.
Kate B. | Homepage | 04.02.07 - 11:38 am | #

NeilC, I second what Kate B. said above. I pray for the salvation of non-believers all the time. I think it is one of the most important things I can pray for.

Note that this is a different thing than praying for their conversion - which is something I pray for, too. But hoping for your conversion (which is highly unlikely, IMO, to occur just as the result of an intellectual exchange) is to hope that you receive all possible benefits of Christ available to you on earth before you die. The benefits that we receive and how they will be manifested in heaven is very mysterious, but from a Catholic pov, we know it is of immense importance.

Praying for your salvation, however, is the hope that you will be saved with the greatest possible benefit of your earthly existence - without the benefit of the fuller relationship with God and the sacraments that we Catholics enjoy. (That's a very simplistic way of putting it, and there is much more to it than that, but I hope it conveys the perspective okay.)

But the "benefits" (whatever that really means in the context of heaven) that you can acheive without believing is not something that I as a Catholic can fathom or compare to the benefits a Catholic receives. (For all I know, a non-Catholic responding fully to the grace of God he is given can achieve greater benefits than a Catholic who responds poorly to the graces of God. The Eucharist makes me think not in a fairly dramatic way, but - ...for all I know...)

There is a lot of confusion these days because there is a dominant Protestant way of thinking that even affects the way a lot of Catholics think. I reckon that the great majority of Protestant churches believe in this idea of "believe or go to hell," so when non-Christians consider Christianity, it is something that sticks out regarding their impression of all of Christianity. But Orthodox Christianity (Catholicism being the major part of it) does not believe this.

In fact - we are forbidden from judging that others will go to hell for any reason. (Fundamentalists who use Holy Scripture to do so are simply using their personal interpretations of a particular passage as their *criterion* for placing themselves on the judge's bench. And for some reason they believe they can hold the Holy Spirit bound for their personal interpretations.)

So there is no "believe or go to hell" in Catholicism that should discourage you from being "enticed." You don't have to assume all American Indians before Columbus were damned, and you don't have to even assume that the athiest friend that you might have is going to hell if he dies without converting.

It is all up to God - and Jesus Christ offered himself in love and sacrifice so that all may be redeemed according to God's judgement, which is a judgment of unfathomable love and mercy. I pray that you, and my atheist friend, and the Muslims, and the Hindus, and the Buddhists - including L's husband, and the Jews, and anyone else who is not Christian - are all saved by the Blood of Christ - whether or not you come to know him.
Silly Interloper | 04.02.07 - 2:52 pm | #

So there is no "believe or go to hell" in Catholicism that should discourage you from being "enticed.">>>

While the sentiments are nice, this Jew is sure that he's not going to be enticed. I'm quite happy with my beliefs, but am interested in why people believe the way they do.I don't mock people who believe if it gives them comfort, but only when they start preaching. My hackles get raised when I'm told my beliefs are 'wrong' without concrete proof.
NeilC | 04.02.07 - 4:27 pm | #

"...this Jew is sure that he's not going to be enticed."

Right. But now "believe or go to hell" is nothing to which you should object on a Catholic blog. It is nonsense to say that about Catholicism - and now you are aware of it. *And*, you provided one more opportunity to make that clear to whoever might be reading. It is such a common misconception, I am happy you brought it up.
Silly Interloper | 04.02.07 - 9:02 pm | #

There's a discussion on belief on another message board. Would I be allowed to link to it?
NeilC | 04.03.07 - 10:13 am | #

"I don't mock people who believe if it gives them comfort, but only when they start preaching."

First, let me wish you a blessed Pesach, NeilC.

I cannot speak for Catholics as a whole, but the comfort is a consequence of belief, not the reason for it. I am not infrequently unhappy with my beliefs, because they call me to change my life radically on a daily basis, and I am by nature a lazy and selfish man. I believe because the world changed dramatically for me, unexpectedly and for the better; the Scriptures and Sacraments were the only thing that could accurately describe what happened. I believe because I cannot do otherwise.

In light of that, I, and other Christians, am called to preach and to pray and to make disciples of all nations. The Beatitudes remind me that I should expect to be mocked in the process, but that I should not be deterred by the rejection of others.

I cannot force you to believe anything, nor would I wish to (not least because it defies the very faith I've been given), but I would be neglecting my calling if I did not at least tell you about what has happened. After all, I am called to invite you to spend eternity with me....It would be inhospitable and unloving of me not to do so.
Fallen Sparrow | Homepage | 04.03.07 - 10:55 am | #

And I repeat, thanks, but no thanks for the invitation.
NeilC | 04.03.07 - 11:50 am | #

Another message board tackles this subject. Warning it can get bitter and nasty (I don't post there, though :))
http:// www.sportsjournalists.com...ic,39348.0.html
NeilC | 04.03.07 - 8:04 pm | #

Neil - you may find that living faithfully brings you to the wedding feast without an invitation (Matthew 22:2-14). ;)
Nightfly | Homepage | 04.04.07 - 6:04 pm | #

Nightfly, I'm already married, but thanks for playing!
Neil C | 04.04.07 - 10:44 pm | #

And to a nice Jewish girl!
Neil C | 04.04.07 - 10:45 pm | #

Congratulations!

She can come too; after all, you would be a guest, not the bridegroom.
Fallen Sparrow | Homepage | 04.05.07 - 10:00 am | #

From time to time in my life, others have wrongly judged my soul. Sometimes it has been someone I loved, and it has hurt me deeply. With Holy Week upon us, if you are reading this and I have, at some point, tried to make myself the expert on your heart's purity, I would like to take this opportunity to say that I am truly sorry.

I forgive you, Dawn. I'm sorry, too, and I hope someday you can forgive me, too. But if you can't, I'll understand.
n/a | 04.05.07 - 10:02 am | #

N/a, thank you for your forgiveness. I'd like to respond, but I have no idea who you are. Please e-mail me — or. if you've written me recently and have gotten no reply, send me the message again, as I was having e-mail problems (now fixed). I have been praying to forgive those who have hurt me, especially during this Holy Week, when God sheds special graces to help us unite ourselves to his suffering and resurrection.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.05.07 - 11:36 am | #

She can come too; after all, you would be a guest, not the bridegroom.>>

No. Thank. You.
NeilC | 04.05.07 - 4:45 pm | #

Newsflash: The Jews have their own covenant with the Lord, and don't need to be worried about being saved by any other covenant.

Bigger Newsflash: I have never seen a combox convert anybody.

I'm just sayin'.
Kate B. | Homepage | 04.05.07 - 5:32 pm | #

Thanks, Kate B. for that. Have a good holiday!
NeilC | 04.05.07 - 5:38 pm | #

Thank you!
Kate B. | Homepage | 04.05.07 - 5:51 pm | #

Kate B.,

What of those Jews who consider Christianity the fulfillment of the covenant? The invitation does not place one in an either/or conundrum: God is great enough to honour his covenant and give Jews a place at the the Wedding banquet.

And too, what you have seen combined with what I and others have seen, is so small compared with what actually exists and happens.
Drusilla | Homepage | 04.05.07 - 6:02 pm | #

Drusilla--

The Jews who are faithful to their original covenant already have a place at that banquet, because God honors that original covenant. If they want to follow the next covenant, well and good, but not necessary for their salvation.

I'm willing to grant that God can use even comboxes to convert people, but that's not what I saw here. I saw NeilC being hounded after he had courteously declined the offer. The conversation should have ended there. If combox conversions happen--which is rare, if ever--they don't happen by hounding.
Kate B. | Homepage | 04.06.07 - 9:18 am | #

Who I am doesn't matter. When you're ready to forgive someone, you'll know how to find them. Just know you're forgiven. Happy Easter.
n/a | 04.06.07 - 9:19 am | #

Kate, I'm not sure how you got the idea that dual-covenant theology is an article of faith. It is a heresy. Roy Schoeman addresses it in an interview:

"Both sides [Catholics and Jews] have an interest in establishing ground rules that enable the dialog to move forward in an atmosphere that minimizes tension and conflict. One of those rules seems to have been an initial understanding that there would be no attempt on the Catholic side to evangelize the Jews. This 'understanding' seems to have evolved into the theology that the Catholic Church now understands that such evangelization is inappropriate -- that Jews have their own way to God, the Old Covenant, and the Catholics theirs, the New.

"This 'dual covenant' theology seems to have been adopted to avoid the intrinsic, basic conflict at the heart of the Jewish-Catholic dialog. That is that either the Catholic Church is itself the continuation of Judaism after the coming of the Jewish Messiah – i.e., the Church is post-Messianic Judaism – or it is nothing at all. After all, according to the Catholic Faith, Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Jesus was the point of Judaism, the fulfillment of all its hopes, for which the Jews had prayed for millennia. When He came, He came to the Jews as a Jew, to bring the Jews themselves first into the new relationship between God and Man that we know as the Catholic Church. A Jew who does not recognize this is fundamentally missing the central point of his own religion, however beautiful the accoutrements are.

"Naturally, such a view openly expressed would immediately torpedo the goodwill and collegiality of the dialog group, yet without it there is not much Catholic Faith left. So the hard Truth must be replaced either by meaningless verbal meanderings, or outright heresy such as the "dual covenant" theory. Such a theory poses no threat to the Jews, since according to it Jesus came only for the Gentiles, not for the Jews, and never intended for the Jews to convert. This preserves the convivial atmosphere and enables the meetings to continue year after year, but at the cost of negating the Faith. It was just such heresies taking root in ecumenical circles that necessitated the basic restatement of the Faith in 'Dominus Iesus', and the firestorm that that document produced in Catholic-Jewish dialog circles is evidence of how sorely it was needed."
Dawn Eden | 04.06.07 - 11:24 am | #

From the Catechism, paragraph 839:
"When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, "the first to hear the Word of God." The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ", "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." "

From Lumen Gentium:
"In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues."

From Nostra Aetate:
"Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder." "

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but if the Jews already have a convenant honored by God (a covenant, Christ says specifically, that he did not come to destroy) then they have salvation. God does not renege on his covenants. If, on the other hand, it is necessary convert the Jews for their salvation, why is it not necessary to convert absolutely everybody? If we must convert the world to the new covenant, then all non-Christians go to Hell, don't they? It's been acknowledged that, although Christ is necessary for salvation, it may not be necessary to believe in him because "with God, all things are possible." Why, then, is there one group who must get down on their knees and convert in spite of their existing covenant?

It's very easy to say, "But we've got their long-awaited Messiah! If they don't convert, they're denying their own covenant!" And yet, how easy is it to spot a Messiah? After all, claiming to be the Son of God really IS a frighteningly blasphemous act. In Christ's case, it was true, but if someone shows up today claiming to be the Son of God and the Second Coming, how much credence do we give him? HOw can we blame the Jewish officials for reacting in exactly the way we would've?

When we try to convert people, we make an awfully large assumption about their relation with God--about the state of their souls. We do exactly what Selman did to Dawn, as related in the post we're all chatting about. This is why the only way--THE ONLY WAY (go ask St. Francis if you don't believe me)--to preach the Gospel is to live it. Getting online and telling people something that sounds very much like, "Abandon everything you've ever known or believed and we'll let you come to our tea-party" ("the wedding banquet" is a phrase to be spoken by believers to believers if it is to be understood) just garners the result of a bunch of NeilCs ever more firmly entrenched in their belief that we're a bunch of well-meaning a**holes.

When asked how to get into Heaven, Christ first responded with, "Follow the Commandments." Then he says, "Sell what you have and give it to the poor." Only after then does he say, "Follow me." The Old Covenant is still good--it still merits what the rich young man asks for: eternal life. The other two steps beyond that are perfection. http://www.biblegateway.com/ pass...context=chapter
Kate B. | Homepage | 04.06.07 - 12:44 pm | #

Kate B., with all due respect, it's a heresy. The text you use do not point to two covenants.
Dawn Eden | 04.06.07 - 1:05 pm | #

But the Catechism says, "The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant." Am I misreading this in thinking that the use of the phrase "Old Covenant" implies the existence of a "New Covenant"? In other words, yes, the documents I cite do point to two covenants.

If this is a heresy, can you please point me to an official Church document stating that it is such? I have no idea who Roy Schoeman is or why I should listen to him in matters of faith and morals.

Also, if I'm wrong, why isn't your grandmother in Hell?
Kate B. | Homepage | 04.06.07 - 1:18 pm | #

Leave my grandmother out of it, Kate. There are two covenants, but only one can save.

As a Catholic, I believe in Purgatory, and also believe that the Church has never declared that a single soul in particular is in hell. So, I have far more reason to believe that any deceased non-Christian is in heaven than I did when I was a Protestant. In addition, we do not know whether Jesus gives a person at the point of death the opportunity to accept Him. God says He will save whom He will save. This in no way removes our personal responsibility to share the faith.
Dawn Eden | 04.06.07 - 1:26 pm | #

So there ARE two covenants.

Anyone getting to Heaven is the action of Christ. We know Abraham is in Heaven. So a Jew faithful to his covenant is saved by Christ. Schoeman castigates those who imply that Christ "never intended for the Jews to convert." This implies that Christ meant for the Jews to convert. Why, then does he tell the rich young man that the way to eternal life is to obey the Commandments? Why didn't he say, "Convert and follow me" first?

I believe in Purgatory as strongly as you do. I believe in the necessity of sharing our faith as strongly as you do. Is brow-beating a professed Jew over the Internet a legitimate way to do this? I think not. Perhaps I'm wrong. Someone please point out to me where I am--I don't want to be in error or in disobedience to the Church.

I apologize if I have been harsh or offensive on this thread--that is not my intention.
Kate B. | Homepage | 04.06.07 - 1:51 pm | #

Why, then does he tell the rich young man that the way to eternal life is to obey the Commandments? Why didn't he say, "Convert and follow me" first?

Jesus didn't tell everyone to convert and follow him -- in fact, he never told anyone to "convert." When Jews had their Messiah in front of them, there was no "new religion" to which to convert. It was only after they rejected their Messiah that, in order to accept Jesus, they had to leave their established faith.
Dawn Eden | 04.06.07 - 2:12 pm | #

In order to accept Jesus, yes. In order to be saved? I argue no--I may be wrong.
Kate B. | Homepage | 04.06.07 - 2:38 pm | #

Kate B., check out part two of today's prayer for the Jews in Magnificat (not online, sorry). I think your answer is in the part about praying for them to see the "fullness of redemption" -- emphasis on fullness. There would be no need for such a prayer if the Jews, rejecting Christ, nonetheless had everything they needed for redemption.
Dawn Eden | 04.06.07 - 4:50 pm | #

I'll have to see if I can track down a copy, then, as I don't have a subscription to Magnificat.

I won't be online over the weekend, so if anyone else responds to my questions, please don't be offended if I don't answer until Monday.

In the meantime, Happy Easter to those who celebrate it. Have a nice weekend to those who don't.
Kate B. | Homepage | 04.06.07 - 5:04 pm | #

Thanks, Kate -- happy Easter to you too! You may find the prayer for the Jews in your church's missal as well -- it's part of the USCCB's official prayers for Good Friday.
Dawn Eden | 04.06.07 - 5:17 pm | #