Rome or Israel?

[Cam42]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Oct 9 2005, 01:52 AM']Let me answer my own question, seeing as you refuse to,

In defining relgious Judaism, and all sects derive from these, I accept the following as definitions,

1. Judaism is that faith laid down by Moses to be followed and kept for all time.

2. Judaism renders an opinion and a practical interpretation of the writings of the prophets and the History of Israel in relation to the revelation of God.

3. Judaism is the  connection between the present day and the events written about in the Torah, both culturally and religiously.

These all define religious Judaism, and in which Christianity finds a place.  By saying that Christianity is a sect of Judaism, I am not arguing that we somehow "derive" or are secondary to the Judaism which is held among many of today's carnal Jews, nor that we do not claim an essential change in the application of the Law and the Prophets, nor that we are somehow bound to the Law in all of its specifics (at least in a carnal way).  We are instead the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, just as, in a different way, the Essenes would so claim, the Pharisees would so claim, and today the rabbinical Jews would claim.

To say that we are not the ultimate fulfillment, and therefore, in human terms, a sect and interpretation of the Law, i.e. Judaism, is tantamount to saying that Jesus failed in his mission of saving Israel.  Instead, I say that I am a Jew and God-fearer, though not a Hebrew, circumcised according to the Spirit by my adoption in Christ, grafted into the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 

Remember  that it was partly the enlightenment of St. Augustine concerning the Tanakh which brought about his conversion, and it was, at least partly, the rejection of the law, which is carnal, that led the Manichees into error.  Moreover, Marcion was led even to conclude that the God of the Old Testament was not his God, because he could not find the connection between Judaism and Christianity.

It is true that modern, and even somewhat ancient Judaism, is completely different from Christianity.  It is also true that in every way Judaism has been transformed in Christ, and there is no Judaism besides that which subsists in Him.  Ergo, we are a sect of Judaism.  That we want to claim, whether we have a right to do so or not, special privileges in that regard is of little effect.
[right][snapback]751421[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


And that view is incorrect.

Christianity is the name given to that definite system of religious belief and practice which was taught by Jesus Christ in the country of Palestine, during the reign of the Roman Emperor, Tiberius, and was promulgated, after its Founder's death, for the acceptance of the whole world, by certain chosen men among His followers. According to the accepted chronology, these began their mission on the day of Pentecost, A.D. 29, which day is regarded, accordingly, as the birthday of the Christian Church.

While we can trace preparation through the Jewish people, we can also trace, too, in the world at large, apart from the Jewish people, a similar though less direct preparation. Whether due ultimately to the Old Testament predictions or to the fragments of the original revelation handed down amongst the Gentile, a certain vague expectation of the coming of a great conqueror seems to have existed in the East and to a certain extent in the Roman worlds, in the midst of which the new religion had its birth.

During his whole mortal life on earth, including the two or three years of His active ministry, Christ lived as a devout Jew, Himself observing, and insisting on His followers observing, the injunctions of the Law (Matt. 23:3). The sum of His teaching, as of that of His precursor, was the approach of the "Kingdom of God", meaning not only the rule of righteousness in the individual heart ("the kingdom of God is within you" — Luke 17:21), but also the Church (as is plain from many of the parables) which He was about to institute. Yet, though He often foreshadowed a time when the Law as such would cease to bind, and though He Himself in proof of His Messiahship occasionally set aside its provisions ("For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath", Matt. 12:8), yet, as, in spite of His miracles, He did not win recognition of that Messiahship, still less of His Divinity, from the Jews at large. He confined His explicit teaching about the Church to His immediate followers, and left it to them, when the time came, openly to pronounce the abrogation of the Law. (Acts 15:5-11, 18; Gal. 3:19; 24-28; Eph. 2:2, 14-15; Coloss. 2:16, 17; Heb. 7:12.)

[b]It was not so much, then, by propounding the dogmas of Christianity as by informing the Old Law with the spirit of Christian ethics that Christ found Himself able to prepare Jewish hearts for the religion to come.[/b]

The death and resurrection of Jesus fulfilled the ancient types and prophecies concerning Him (cf. Luke 24:26-27), and the visible bestowal of the Holy Ghost upon His assembled followers on Pentecost Day gave them the light to realize this fulfilment (Acts 3:15) and the courage to proclaim it even in the hearing of those Jewish authorities who thought that they had by the stigma of the Cross put an end forever to the Messianic claims of the Nazarene.

From this moment the Church which Jesus had silently organized during His mortal life with Peter as its head and the other Apostles as his fellow-rulers, took the independent attitude which it has maintained ever since. Conscious of their Divine mission, its leaders boldly charged the Jewish rulers with the death of Jesus, and freely "taught and preached Christ Jesus", disregarding the threats and injunctions of men whom they considered as in mad revolt against God and His Christ (Acts 4).

But Christ claimed to fulfil the Law by substituting the substance for the shadow and the gift for the promise, and, the end having been reached, all that was temporary and provisional in Judaism came to a conclusion. Still, a direct divine intervention was necessary to bring this about, just as, in any rational account of the theory of evolution, recourse must be had to supernatural power to bridge the gulf between being and non-being, life and non-life, reason and non-reason. "God, who, at sundry times and in divers manner, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, least of all in these days hat spoken to us by his Son" (Heb. 1:1-2), the message growing in clearness and in content with each successive utterance till it reached completion in the Incarnation of the Word.

Much as in these early days the infant Church was Jewish in external appearance, it even then caused Judaism to feel threatened in its whole system of civil and religious life (Acts 6:13-14). Hence followed a severe persecution against the Christians, in which Saul (Paul) took and active part, and in the course of which he was converted miraculously.

As I said earlier:

[quote name='Cam42']The Christianity, then, which the Apostles preached on the day of Pentecost was entirely distinct from Judaism, especially as understood by the Jews of the time; it was a new religion, new in its Founder, new in much of its creed, new in its attitude towards both God and man, new in the spirit of its moral code.[/quote]

"The Law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). St. Paul, as was to be expected, is our clearest witness on this point. "If any man be in Christ", he says, "he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold all things are new" (2 Cor. 5:17).

You have offered your opinion, and that is fine. However, your opinion is erroneous. The Church, Sacred Scripture and Tradition do not support your position. Christianity and ulitmately Catholicism, are not compatible with ancient Judaism. Christianity is a separate and complete religion from Judaism. There is no proof so show that the contrary exists.

There was a heresy in the early Church that was concerned with this thinking was the Ebionite Heresy. It was put down early, and showed that Christianity was a separate and distinct religion from the Church.

[photosynthesis]

what? new york city isn't the center of the universe????
that's news to me.

[Cam42]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Oct 9 2005, 01:46 PM']what?  new york city isn't the center of the universe????
that's news to me.
[right][snapback]751662[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I know, but yes, we must come to accept that Yankee Stadium is not the center of the universe....

[son_of_angels]

You absolutely missed my point by the terminology I am using. What I am saying has nothing to do with the Ebionite heresy, nor a requirement to obey the Law of Moses, or anything else (except in the spiritual sense advocated especially by Paul and Augustine).

As such, I suppose I have nothing to add. I am not advocating any position different from that which is commonly believed and within the realm of Orthodoxy. I am only offering a new way to look at Catholicism, which has been described by many Hebrew Catholics as "synagogue with the Eucharist." The Mass itself is drawn from Jewish practices.

Again, though, if you wish to look at it as a completely new religion that is your prerogative, so long as it doesn't lead you to becoming a Marcionite. My perspective will not lead me into the Ebionite heresy, because it has nothing to do with the prescriptions of the Law. Indeed the Law is no longer required, but it subsists and survives in the revelation of the New. No, ancient Judaism and Christianity are not "compatible" in the way you use the term. The only Judaism is Christianity, in the same way the only Church is the Holy Catholic Church, etc. That doesn't keep Catholicism from being described by others, or even by ourselves, as a sect of Christianity.

[son_of_angels]

I thought the center of the universe was Arkansas anyway.....

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Oct 9 2005, 02:49 PM']I know, but yes, we must come to accept that Yankee Stadium is not the center of the universe....
[right][snapback]751666[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
WHAT??? say it ain't so....

[Cam42]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Oct 9 2005, 02:01 PM']WHAT???  say it ain't so....
[right][snapback]751676[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I know it is hard to believe.......it is so, though.

[photosynthesis]

*sobs* i thought it was new york all along...

p.s. i went to the opus dei headquarters and it was AWESOME

[Cam42]

I have been there.....it is quite a place.

It makes me sad too....but I am ok with the idea of Rome being the center of the world/universe. At least the Catholic one.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Oct 9 2005, 04:10 PM']I have been there.....it is quite a place.

It makes me sad too....but I am ok with the idea of Rome being the center of the world/universe.  At least the Catholic one.
[right][snapback]751719[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
i am too

[uruviel]

The church has no "earthly" home. I suppose it would be Rome if you had to say, because the vatican and the pope are there. But the church has no home on earth.

[Cam42]

I think that people are confusing the the Kingdom of God with the Church.

I would wholeheartedly agree that the Kingdom of God has no earthly home or realm. However, the Church as an earthly confederation is based out of Rome.

It is right and proper to say that the home of the Church is Rome. It is right to say that where Peter is, there is the Church. For the Church must have a tangible-ness to it, so that, by definiton she can serve the people whom she serves.

The Church is an earthly insitiution. Insofar as that is the case, Rome is the home of the Church. Israel may be where the man Jesus resided, but his Vicar created the See of his Church in Rome, Italy.

It is neither incorrect nor is it improper to express this.

Again, the Kingdom of God is a totally different matter, altogether.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Oct 7 2005, 06:34 PM']Avignon! Avignon! Avignon!

:
[right][snapback]749920[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
troublemaker...

[avemaria40]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Oct 9 2005, 03:55 PM']I know it is hard to believe.......it is so, though.
[right][snapback]751708[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Go Yankees!

[tojo]

Pshaw! Independence, Missouri is the center of the Universe! Everyone knows that. After all that's where God has revealed to the Mormons that Christ is going to come back! Duh!

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Oct 9 2005, 04:20 PM']I think that people are confusing the the Kingdom of God with the Church.

I would wholeheartedly agree that the Kingdom of God has no earthly home or realm.  However, the Church as an earthly confederation is based out of Rome.

It is right and proper to say that the home of the Church is Rome.  It is right to say that where Peter is, there is the Church.  For the Church must have a tangible-ness to it, so that, by definiton she can serve the people whom she serves.

The Church is an earthly insitiution.  Insofar as that is the case, Rome is the home of the Church.  Israel may be where the man Jesus resided, but his Vicar created the See of his Church in Rome, Italy.

It is neither incorrect nor is it improper to express this.

Again, the Kingdom of God is a totally different matter, altogether.
[right][snapback]751821[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I cannot reconcile this ecclesiology with what I have learned of the Church's official ecclesiology, as it makes a rift between the Church as a purely temporal institution and what the Faith teaches the Church is.

The Church is on earth, in purgatory, and in heaven, because the Church [i]is[/i] the Mystical Body of Christ, no "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s. To say that the "heart" of the Church or the "Home" of the Church is Rome seems to me to be patantly false.

If you want to say that the heart of the Church Militant is Rome, I would still have my reservations, though I think your case for this would be stronger. However, to say that the "home" of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is Rome simply does not ring. The Church would not lose its home if Rome was destroyed today, for the Church is a wanderer.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Guest JeffCR07]

oh, and by the way, St. Peter also created the See of Antioch. It is by virtue of Most Holy Tradition that the Universal Pontiff resides in Rome, not by virtue of something intrinsic to the place.

As I said, the Church proper would not be "bereft of a home" if Rome, or Israel, were destroyed tomorrow.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Oct 12 2005, 07:46 PM']oh, and by the way, St. Peter also created the See of Antioch. It is by virtue of Most Holy Tradition that the Universal Pontiff resides in Rome, not by virtue of something intrinsic to the place.

As I said, the Church proper would not be "bereft of a home" if Rome, or Israel, were destroyed tomorrow.
[right][snapback]756239[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
yeah, but God chose that place because it has always been the center of the world.

[Cam42]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Oct 12 2005, 07:46 PM']oh, and by the way, St. Peter also created the See of Antioch. It is by virtue of Most Holy Tradition that the Universal Pontiff resides in Rome, not by virtue of something intrinsic to the place.

As I said, the Church proper would not be "bereft of a home" if Rome, or Israel, were destroyed tomorrow.
[right][snapback]756239[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, he did create the See of Antioch, but he moved on. That is the key in that thought.

I still think that you are confusing the Kingdom of God with the earthly Church. Where does the Church look for it's guidance? It looks to the Vicar of Christ. What was the statment made in Latin before?

[quote]Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia[/quote]

There is a reason that Peter chose Rome to be the primatial See. Why is that? That is the ultimate question here. While it is most certainly not inappropriate to say that the Church resides, to a greater or lesser degree, in all baptized Christians, the home of the Church is Rome.

Why isn't it Antioch or why isn't it Jerusalem? Jerusalem was the first See and Antioch the second. It is because Peter chose Rome to be the temporal home of the Church.

This can be traced back as far as Irenaeus (c. 180AD) when he said:

[quote name='Against Heresies' date='3:3:2']Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.[/quote]

Optatus of Mileve (c. 367AD) states:

[quote name='The Schism of Donatists' date='2:2-3']You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter,sat ... in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one.[/quote]

Jerome (c. 375AD) confirms:

[quote name='To Pope Damasus' date='Epistle 15:1-2']Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, woven from the top throughout,' since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover the sealed fountain' and the garden inclosed,' I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. The wide space of sea and land that lies between us cannot deter me from searching for the pearl of great price.' Wheresoever the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together.' Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact. The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold; but here the seed corn is choked in the furrows and nothing grows but darnel or oats. In the West the Sun of righteousness is even now rising; in the East, Lucifer, who fell from heaven, has once more set his throne above the stars. Ye are the light of the world,' ye are the salt of the earth,' ye are "vessels of gold and of silver." Here are vessels of wood or of earth, which wait for the rod of iron,and eternal fire. Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist."[/quote]

So Jeff, we can see that my understanding of the ecclesiology of the early Church is quite on the mark. Rome is the temporal home of the Church and this is confirmed by many of the early Church leaders, Fathers and Popes.

Finally, I think that this sums it up, as Chrysostom said circa 391AD:

[quote name='Epistle to the Romans' date='Homily 32:24'] Or rather, if we hear him here, we shall certainly see him hereafter, if not as standing near him, yet see him we certainly shall, glistening near the Throne of the king. Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he loved men so, that when he had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, and its antiquity, and its beauty, and its populousness, and for its power, and its wealth, and for its successes in war. But I let all this pass, and esteem it blessed on this account, that both in his lifetime he wrote to them, and loved them so, and talked with them whiles he was with us, and brought his life to a close there. Wherefore the city is more notable upon this ground, than upon all others together. And as a body great and strong, it hath as two glistening eyes the bodies of these Saints. Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, from thence Peter. Just bethink you, and shudder (frixate) at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. (1 Thess. iv. 17.) What a rose will Rome send up to Christ! (Is. xxxv. 1) what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, not for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church. (1 Cor. xv. 38.) Would that it were now given me to throw myself round (pericuqhnai) the body of Paul, and be riveted to the tomb, and to see the dust of that body that "filled up that which was lacking" after "Christ" Col. i. 24), that bore "the marks" (stigmata,) (Gal. vi. 17) that sowed the Gospel everywhere yea, the dust of that body through which he ran to and fro everywhere![/quote]

[photosynthesis]

we should all do a phatmass pilgrimage to Rome!