jump to navigation

How can Judaism be “equivalent” to Christianity when Our Blessed Lord spake thus? April 22, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, Dallas Diocese, disconcerting, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the return.

A commenter in a previous post noted that a priest at a local parish, well known for being one of the more orthodox in the Diocese, stated in the Vigil Mass this Easter that Judaism is essentially equivalent to Christianity.

Such indifferentism is impossible to reconcile with numerous statements made by Our Blessed Lord Himself, who made plain that acceptance of Himself as Messiah was utterly foundational for salvation.  Numerous passages from Scripture support this belief, which has been elementary to the understanding and practice of Christendom since the first Pentecost:

He came into His own, and His own received Him not (Jn I:11)

Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (Jn III:5)

For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.  For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.  And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. (Jn III:16-20)

Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.  If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him. Philip saith to him: Lord, shew us the Father, and it is enough for us. Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, shew us the Father? Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works. (Jn XIV:6-10)

They said therefore to him: Where is thy Father? Jesus answered: Neither me do you know, nor my Father: if you did know me, perhaps you would know my Father also. (Jn VIII:19)

Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word.  You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. But if I say the truth, you believe me not. (Jn VIII:42-45)

Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad.  The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?  Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. [This is one of the most dramatic passages in the entire Bible.  I absolutely love this discourse, it is so brazen in its truthfulness and in its shredding of the conceits of the Judaizers of that time]  They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple. (Jn VIII:56-59)

They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?  Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. (Jn VI:28-29).  [The Jews then demand of Jesus a sign, that they may believe in him.  This was the very same group that the day before witnessed the miracle of loaves and fishes!  And now they ask for another sign!]

 And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day. (Jn VI:40)

I am the living bread which came down from heaven.  If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.  The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?  Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. (Jn VI:51-55) [This is a Dogma Jews found especially repellent, as they viewed Jesus as calling them to cannibalism.  Jews of today still find this doctrine abhorrent. And yet, they are “equal?”]

———-End Quotes———–

I hope I’ve made my point. And this is just the Gospel of St. John.  Basically, you have to throw out almost the entirety of this Gospel to pretend that Judaism and Christianity are somehow equivalent, or, that Jews have “their own path to salvation.”  Maybe, if you are talking about the conversion of the Jews that will happen at the end of time, that may be true, but for Jews who have lived in history and for those who live today, many of which will die in their sins (Jn VIII: 21).

———–Begin more quotes————

Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know:  This same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that he should be holden by it.(Acts II:22-24)

Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified. Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. (Acts II:36-39) [But most Jews rejected the call, and almost all do today]

You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do you also.  Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them who foretold of the coming of the Just One; of whom you have been now the betrayers and murderers:  Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.  Now hearing these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed with their teeth at him.  But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looking up steadfastly to heaven, saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. And he said: Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

And they crying out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and with one accord ran violently upon him.  And casting him forth without the city, they stoned him; (Acts VII:51-57a)


But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. (Gal II:16)

————-End Quote———–

Again, I have really only barely scratched the surface, but this post has already gotten very long.

It is simply not possible to reconcile the rife indifferentism towards Judaism in the Church today with either Sacred Scripture or Tradition.  I was going to post this week about the controversy, now 10 years old, regarding the great The Passion of the Christ movie.  At that time, many Jews just absolutely castigated the movie for allegedly painting them in a bad light, or stirring up the boogeyman of “antisemitism.”  With respect to the Jews, all the movie does is quote Scripture.  They have no problem with Mel Gibson, they have a problem with Jesus Christ.

But all these Jewish groups appealed to Nostra Aetate, the Vatican II document on relations with the Jews, to buttress their arguments.  That’s less an effective argument against Scripture than it is against Nostra Aetate.  Interestingly, these Jewish groups claim that Nostra Aetate/Vatican II changed Church Doctrine. Thank God, that is impossible, but it does point to yet another major area where Vatican II has muddied the waters to a terrific degree, to where even Cardinals now debate what the Church “believes” on subjects that have been clear Dogmas for 2000 years.  Nostra Aetate is one of the most problematic documents in Vatican II.

Anyway, this post is waaay too long, I may come back to this another day.


1. David L Alexander - April 22, 2014

“This was the very same group that the day before witnessed the miracle of loaves and fishes!”

And you know this because you were there? How could it be the “very same group”? Maybe the big wigs in the temple weren’t the same ones hanging with the hoi polloi in the middle of nowhere. Personally, I think it highly unlikely. Not their kind of people; dirty, unkempt, unsophisticated, unwashed, you name it.

What did the speaker mean by “equivalent”? He could have meant anything. He could have meant that Jews are the same as Catholics and do not need saving through the Catholic faith (which is NOT true), or he could have meant the the Catholic faith is the fulfillment of Judaism (which IS true). The statement itself begs questions. But oh no, you’re too busy giving answers to ask them. Sort of like a discussion with yourself in the mirror (which is only a problem late in the day when the meds wear off, and I should know).

“Nostra Aetate is one of the most problematic documents in Vatican II.”

Only if not understood in the context of the constant tradition and teaching of the Church. If it was not a dogmatic council, then no new dogma was defined, and any statement that might appear to do so … doesn’t.

You’re welcome.


tantamergo - April 22, 2014

John 6 makes pretty clear that the same “multitude” that received the loaves and fishes “took shipping, and came to Capharnaum, seeking for Jesus. And when they had found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to him ‘Rabbi, when camest thou hither?'”

It’s pretty widely understood that those who ask Jesus for a sign in 6:30 are those who just received a magnificent sign earlier in John 6.

What do most people think when they hear something is equivalent, or equal? Do they maintain siginificant hedges in their minds based adherence to Dogma? How many self-professed Catholics even believe in the Resurrection or Real Presence anymore?

At a minimum, it’s a signally inadvisable turn of phrase to use. It’s far too easy for such language to morph into indifferentism. Recall the episode with the “US Catholic Catechism for Adults,” which stated directly that the Jews have a special covenant with God outside Jesus Christ which remains valid for them – before this document attracted heavy criticism and was revised under Vatican pressure.

I don’t disagree with your last paragraph, but that reference to arguing cardinals was made specifically because cardinals do sharply disagree on how much authority documents like Nostra Aetate have:


2. TG - April 22, 2014

Good post. Agree with you. (The Pharisees did hang around Jesus to spy on him.) I watched The Passion of the Christ this past week. The Hallmark channel showed it. It really helps me with the Sorrowful Mysteries. Also, I saw the best movie about the Blessed Mother. It was not Protestant like. The birth seemed like a miracle – no labor, she felt the pains of the scourching and at the end it shows her in Heaven with Jesus. I don’t know what the name was. It was on Telemundo. It was in Spanish but I think it’s an English speaking movie. it is not the latest movie about her that Ignatius Press is promoting. I have to find out the name.

3. David L Alexander - April 22, 2014

“Rabbi, when camest thou hither?”

I wish I were used to reading more archaic forms of English, then I’d know what in heaven’s name these people were saying, and by extension, your point. Sorry.

“At a minimum, it’s a signally inadvisable turn of phrase to use.”

Precisely, which is why it begs questions. It can “morph” one way or the other. We cannot say that God would not keep His promise to His people, for that would not be in His nature, so we have to render a distinction between promises made, and whether the recipients of that promise knew it when it was being kept. “He came to his own, and his own received him not.” God did keep His promise, but the chosen ones had expectations of something other than what He meant, hence the illuminating conversation on the road to Emmaus.

“… because cardinals do sharply disagree on how much authority documents like Nostra Aetate have.”

For the reasons I stated, if only in part.

tantamergo - April 22, 2014

OT, but are you in Dallas? You seem familiar……

Brian E. Breslin - April 23, 2014

Mr. A., twice you use the expression,” begs questions.” Please, it may raise questions, but not beg questions. How often this construct is used incorrectly is incredible.

4. ajmacdonaldjr - April 22, 2014

Do you want the short answer to your question: “How can Judaism be “equivalent” to Christianity when Our Blessed Lord spake thus?” The short answer is “The Holocaust”. The longer answer is Judeo-Masonic forces spent many years infiltrating the Church in order to cause her to begin teaching a new, false religion, which would be religious indifferentism. The post-Vatican 2 Church praises Jews and apologizes for centuries of “being mean to Jews”. But the Bible, as you say, has nothing to do with this strange new teaching from the Church, and, as you point out, actually contradicts this strange new teaching, which also contradicts centuries of Church teachings. AUDIO – Vatican II Chess_Knight Takes cRook Hugh Akins – http://youtu.be/Z7nizgcVjUk

5. Fr Anselm Marie - April 22, 2014

To properly compare Judaism to Christianity, a distinction needs to be made between Old Testament religion as it existed until Gospel times and modern religion that developed from rabbinic Judaism after the destruction of the Temple around 70 AD.

The former was rooted in Abrahamic tradition that included ritual sacrifice, hieratic mediation, personal revelation and conversion that matured into liturgy, temple priesthood, scripture and morality, prefiguring Christian sacraments and doctrine.

The latter concentrated on texts and commentary, including the Mishnah and the Talmud, becoming a religion “of the book”.

In a sense, claim could be made that the Old Testament religion is “equivalent” to Christianity, insofar as it prefigures Christianity in significant analogs, such as, for example, a caste of priests offering upon an altar propitiatory sacrifice to God actually present in the Holy of Holies, chanting psalms at set hours of the day, etc.

If there is an equivalent to Modern Judaism, it would be Protestantism, which has similarly forsaken sacrifice, priesthood, propitiation, real presence, etc. and to focus on words: scripture, commentary, sermons, hymns, debates.

tantamergo - April 22, 2014

Interesting points. I perhaps should have been more specific and parsed my words more, but I left things general due to the length of the quotes. The main point was to refute those who proclaim that Jews have some special channel to supernatural Grace outside belief in Jesus Christ. There seem to be more and more of those around in the Church these days. Or maybe such is just my erroneous perception, but I think others share it.

Regina - April 22, 2014

Is it true that Catholicism is the fulfillment of Judaism and that you can’t be more Jewish than to be Catholic? These are two things I hear very often.

tantamergo - April 22, 2014

No, that’s true. I wouldn’t take the analogy too far, but it is true that Catholicism is the perfection of Judaism. The Old Covenant was protean, and I don’t think it wrong to say, imperfect. It was certainly being practiced imperfectly. Christ founded a new religion upon much of the old, but perfected it in radical new ways.

You could write a book on this, and many have. I think Taylor Marshall has, in fact.


Fr Anselm Marie - April 22, 2014

Yes, Christianity is the logical (and theological) fulfillment of the Old Testament religion. (The -ism terms are less precise.) Saint Paul may be the earliest in a long list of writers to expound on this.

The converse is also true: modern Judaism and Protestantism are logical and theological devolutions of the Old Testament religion and Christianity, respectively. These, and their younger cousin modernism, dissimulate the fact by nostalgically staking claim to an inauthentic “pristine” antiquity.

tantamergo - April 22, 2014

Good points!

discipleofthedumbox - April 23, 2014

Thank you, Father. This is how I have understood the relationship between Judaism, which the name itself implies something far more significant especially as it relates to the faith handed down to all 12 tribes and not solely to the tribe of Judah, and Christianity for quite some time now. If I understood correctly the author’s insinuation concerning the source of this inspired post, it is how I interpreted said priest’s statements as well. You’d have to know the priest through the years in order to place his comments in the proper context, in my opinion.

discipleofthedumbox - April 23, 2014

Oh, never mind concerning the priest. I don’t know the man on Kenwood Ave. But then again, I wasn’t there when the statements were made so I can’t responsibly comment on them.

6. skeinster - April 23, 2014

At that time, many Jews just absolutely castigated the movie for allegedly painting them in a bad light, or stirring up the boogeyman of “antisemitism.”

Except that if people have been, you know, actually killing you b/c you’re a Jew, repeatedly, over the centuries, I’m not sure you can call it a bogeyman.
Just like because President Obama plays the race card to extremes, it doesn’t mean that there aren’t still real racists in America.

It’s complicated.

I take your points, and Fr. Anselm Marie does a very good explication. But, and none us like to admit this- there still remains a distinct streak of anti-Jew sentiment among some groups of Trads.

It seems the reasoning may go like this: Vat II is bad and problematic and I reject it and all its works. Which includes Nostrae Aetate. So, it is perfectly acceptable for me to be anti-Jew, just like St. John Chrysostom or (insert anyone else here you like). Because that’s Tradition.

You can’t evangelize people who don’t trust you- and it’s hard to gain that trust when portions of your group are everlastingly in “It’s the Joooos!” mode.

discipleofthedumbox - April 23, 2014

Good observation, skeinster. I have detected this anti-semite tendency in some of the ‘rad trad’ Catholic population perhaps due to the reason you have noted. It has always unsettled me not more than a little.

tantamergo - April 23, 2014

Certainly, the Holocaust (which killed 6 million Jews, 3 million Catholics, 1 million Gypsies and assorted other groups, and over 3 million at least nominal Eastern Orthodox) has served as a kind of trump card for minimizing if not mitigating almost any Christian practice/belief some Jewish organizations find objectionable. We should not forget that in the sad history of internecine religious warfare, the sword has cut both ways – there have been Jewish pogroms against Christians, although, for over 1000 years in Europe and the West generally, Christians have so had the upper hand that such attacks have tended to flow only one way. But earlier, there were incitements to violence on both sides.

The core problem is this: memory of the Holocaust and other attacks against Jews is being used as a powerful weapon to force Christians, and the Church in general, to apologize for their beliefs, and often to so minimize them that we wind up with a rank indifferentism viz a viz Christianity and Judaism. That was the point I was making about the Passion movie, the dialogue was almost entirely straight out of Scripture, and yet numerous militant Jewish organizations lambasted it as beyond the pale. That ties in with my earlier comment about throwing out the entire Gospel of John, that, from the perspective of some of these organizations, is exactly what they want. They want the fact that Christianity is the fulfillment and replacement for Judaism more or less expunged from the public discourse.

None of this is to say or imply that I have any general animus towards Jews, or even a bias. To tell the absolute truth, I am part Jew. My mother’s grandfather on her father’s side was a German Jew who married a Lutheran Norwegian girl and more or less converted.

I know there is a lot of Jew hatred among trads, and I don’t like it. I generally write people off who subscribe to such. But we also don’t want to go too far the other direction, which I think many in the Church have (including that leadership mentioned in the post), where we are so afraid of offending Jews because of the Holocaust or whatever reason that we expunge inconvenient beliefs of our own Faith.

The pathetic aspect of Gibson’s fall is that his drunken tirade a few years after The Passion came out only seemed to confirm for those who already hated the film (most of the entire film industry, critics, allied organizations, etc) that he did it out of antisemitic bias. I don’t think that’s the case at all, but it’s more difficult to refute those arguments now.

skeinster - April 23, 2014

No, I agree, up to a point. There has to be balance, but I’m not sure how to achieve that.

Have to disagree about Gibson, though. In 2004, I warned my message board to be cautious and that they did not want him for a Trad poster boy .My thoughts were not colored by the film- I had not seen it at that time.

My reasoning was that he never disavowed his father’s blatant and vocal anti-Jew pronouncements. Some argued that he skirted the subject out of respect for his parent, following the Commandment.
But there were ways around that:

“While I love my father very much and am grateful for everything he’s done for me over the years, I have to say that that is one area in which we disagree.” Easy peasy.

Which is why, years later, his drunken tirade surprised me not at all. Because those were his actual sentiments.

My .02

PT - April 24, 2014

“although, for over 1000 years in Europe and the West generally, Christians have so had the upper hand that such attacks have tended to flow only one way.”

Debatable if you consider US entrance into WWI…

7. Kim - April 23, 2014

As a convert this has always confused me. Jp2 said it privately, Benedict publically and Francis put it in a document. So am I free to leave the Catholic Church, deny Christ and become a Jew? Do Jews get to persist in their denial of Christ’s deity in heaven? Most Jewish denominations these days accept homo marriage and abortion. Is Judaism still salvific for those Jews?

tantamergo - April 23, 2014

Yes, as a convert, it is particularly troubling for me, too.

And the state of Israel has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world, permitting abortion up to the moment of delivery (for those last minute changes of mind, I guess), and does not require parental notification for abortions on those under 17.

1/4 of the Israeli population has been aborted over the past 50 years. 2 million abortions out of 8 million present population. That is a significantly higher rate than the US.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: