Promised land? What promised land? Chosen people? Not anymore.
So sayeth the Synod of Middle Eastern Bishops.
In the closing statement of the Synod on the Middle East, the Bishops issued a statement. That statement said (among other things)…
n a separate part of the document — a section on cooperation with Jews — the synod fathers took issue with Jews who use the Bible to justify settlements in the West Bank, which Israel captured in 1967.
“Recourse to theological and biblical positions which use the Word of God to wrongly justify injustices is not acceptable,” the document said.
Many Jewish settlers and right-wing Israelis claim a biblical birthright to the occupied West Bank, which they call Judea and Samaria and regard as a part of historical, ancient Israel given to the Jews by God.
NO PROMISED LAND
Asked about the passage at a news conference, Greek-Melchite Archbishop Cyrille Salim Bustros, said:
“We Christians cannot speak about the promised land for the Jewish people. There is no longer a chosen people. All men and women of all countries have become the chosen people.
“The concept of the promised land cannot be used as a base for the justification of the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of Palestinians,” he added. “The justification of Israel’s occupation of the land of Palestine cannot be based on sacred scriptures.”
Discuss.
October 27, 2010 at 11:36 pm
Yes Rick, priests aren't the only ones who wear a Roman collar. Some Protestants also wear a Roman collar. But if you're not an ordained priest, you're committing sacrileige by wearing it.
October 27, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Is it not clear that the people of Israel no longer live under the covenant of the Old Testament? The covenant of the OT was given in preparation for and in hope of the Redeemer. That promise was fulfilled in the person of Christ. God does not repent of his promises, which is why he gave us his Son. Todays Jews certainly remain part of the Chosen People by race or ethnicity, but not by religion. Although they have a special place in the history of salvation, I do not see how we can consider today's Jewish religion salvific in itself. Invincible ignorance is not intrinsically salvific.
In reference to Rick above, having respect for someone's honestly held opinion or viewpoint is not the same as objective truth. While we should respect the Jews because of their ancestors, because of Christ, and because of their human dignity, respecting a faulty reading of Scripture, even if honestly held, does not create rights for them.
October 28, 2010 at 12:55 am
@juscot: Some ordained laymen and unordained religious wear the Roman collar in the Latin Rite. And it is not sacrilegious.
You may want to follow the link where the Vatican Curia distances itself from the subject of this post. It is futile for me to exhaust the subject further with you at this point. Hope that helps.
October 28, 2010 at 1:31 am
Hi Rick: what is an 'ordained layman'?
October 28, 2010 at 1:33 am
Deacon – in a manner of speaking. Technically, he becomes part of the clergy at that point, but is not a priest.
October 28, 2010 at 2:47 am
Rick –
What is a deacon "in a manner of speaking." Do you do homilies, or baptisms, or weddings?
October 28, 2010 at 2:54 am
Rick,
Lombardi is correct to say the patriarch speaks for himself. Notice that they did not say he was wrong. Exclamation point!
October 28, 2010 at 2:54 am
Covenants can't be broken. How dare the bishops (small b emphasis) state that Jewish people can't use theological reasoning. Oh, I guess we Catholics have the corner on that… Seriously, Christ clearly states he comes to fulfill the Law, not abandon it. This land is the promised land for Jews and Christians. They need to realize that, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Stuff like these bishops statements make me cringe about my conversion. What must Christ think?
October 28, 2010 at 2:57 am
I think it's time to read Hosea again. What a Bride.
October 28, 2010 at 5:52 am
Are you sure the Vatican said this OFFICIALLY? Please balance your views that with the Church..
Thank you.
October 28, 2010 at 6:27 am
@9:54 pm
The point is precisely that the old law is fulfilled; it is fulfilled in the person of Christ. It isn't that the covenant is broken as much as it was superceded by the promises of Christ. If the covenant were still in effect in exactly the same way as before Christ came, then what was the point of him taking on a human nature?
October 28, 2010 at 6:30 am
@ David–
You're missing the point. The bishops aren't holding up Israel to higher standards. They are the ones claiming divine right to this land. The US does not make a claim that its current boundaries are pre-ordained by God. If it were to do so, then the bishops would also condemn the US for such an argument.
October 28, 2010 at 11:51 am
@Blackrep: A deacon is an "ordained layman" but that is not accurate because once ordained one ceases to be part of the laity. But since he is not a priest, then the deacon is commonly thought of as an ordained layman.
October 28, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Listen, Rick. Enough with the verbal trickery. You are a dude who is married and has five kids. You don't have any official capacity providing any kind of sacramental service to the church (or you probably would have said so instead of avoiding my question). So, stop pretending you are a priest with the picture. If I was your wife I would be weirded out and a bit offended that you're hanging on the the vestiges of a former life. Why would you wear it otherwise? Maybe to lend your comments some sham authority, but that's not you, Rick. Let it go, man. Let it go.
October 28, 2010 at 7:01 pm
@Blackrep: We are our past, present and future. If the garb let's people reflect on eschatological values and realities beyond the here and now, then they may live accordingly. You sound like a learned man so "Nolite iudicare ut non iudicimini."
October 28, 2010 at 7:23 pm
ANON @1:30 am,
Three points:
1) The religous claim may be unique , granted and on that narrow point there may be reason for a statement. The term "Chosen people" has always rubbed gentiles the wrong way.
2) Even assuming the bishop is correct, the bishop is making his point based on New Testament proving He's either tone deaf to Jews or simply disinterested in being understood or charitable. Seriously would you accept and argument made from the Book of Mormon or the Koran as it pertained to Catholicism?
3) Only Israel is called to defend itself continuously in this way. I defy you to give a counter example that even comes close. Even the poorest student of history knows of the grossly out of proportion worldwide hostility to Jews that has existed for millennia and still exists (and not exclusively outside the Church). When you consider that this tiny little country is the only Jewish nation in the world it's hard to conclude that anti Jewish hatred is not a part of the uniquely hostile environment Israel must endure.
October 29, 2010 at 6:10 am
The Church is Israel, not the modern state of Israel. Period.
October 29, 2010 at 2:58 pm
@anon110: Perhaps at a theological level. From a sociological, geo-political level, the Hebrews has a right to have a homeland. It is unconscionable for any person of goodwill to simply let them be driven back to the sea by their Muslim neighbors. As a Semitic people, they have as much right to live in the Middle East just as any Semite does. The Bible is not only a theological book but a historical one as well. If the spoils of war doctrine entitles them to land ownership then their kingdom will span a lot more territory than what they have now.
October 29, 2010 at 11:53 pm
I would love to know if this synod ever declared that Israel has a right to defend itself from being obliterated by Islamic imperialists, such as Iran. We all know that Ahmadinejad has publicly declared his intention to use nuclear weapons to obliterate the "Zionist entity." Yet this same synod allowed an Iranian ayatollah to speak. Given Iran's position and its status as a Shiite theocracy, the Vatican has no business allowing any Iranian ayatollah to speak at one of its synods! Yet the same people who condemned the Iraq War as "unjust" find no problem with Iran's stated foreign policy? This is why Catholicism is becoming more and more irrelevant morally, if not morally bankrupt. It strains at gnats and swallows camels. Whether the Old or New covenants are still in force is quite beside the point, comparatively speaking.
October 31, 2010 at 11:52 pm
I'm going to go off-topic here, and defend Rick. He identifies himself as a deacon. If he is married (and also has children), he is likely a permanent deacon. That is to say, his diaconate is not a step to the priesthood, which does not make him any less a deacon. However, if this is so, he incorrectly describes himself as an "ordained layman," as this is an oxymoron. A deacon is a recipient of Holy Orders, therefore not a layman, even though he is married, even though he has a job and a suit with a tie.
So, Blackrep, deacons are ordained, deacons are not laymen, and married men can be ordained to the diaconate (and in rare cases, especially in the East, even the priesthood). No tricks here, champ, just the facts. Don't believe me, look them up.