– Pope John Paul II has been given the last rites of the Roman Catholic Church as his health deteriorates, a Vatican source tells CNN.
Watch CNN or log on to http://CNN.com for the latest news.
More Americans watch CNN. More Americans trust CNN.
*****************************************************
Tonight, Larry King moderates a LIVE 3-hour event, “LIFE
AND DEATH:AMERICA SPEAKS OUT” starting at 8 p.m. ET.
E-mail us your questions and comments at
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5o.html?10
*****************************************************
To unsubscribe from CNN.com’s Breaking News E-Mail Alert, log on to:
http://CNN.com/EMAIL/breakingnews.html
To sign up for additional e-mail products, go to http://CNN.com/EMAIL
(c)2005. Cable News Network, LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company.
All Rights Reserved.
Yeah well, I TOLD youse They’d be making the Connection, though I did hope it might be done on a less Surly note. Thank the Lord that He chose not to take either of His high-profile servants on Good Friday, some of The Faithful would really be in Sin City, here. :|
But on my own Inappropriate Note :)~ may I proffer the thought that whenever it does become necessary, hopefully still well on Down the Road, to select a new Pope, the College of Cardinals would be Wise (& Bold :) to pick an Irishman.
(HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA yes, it’ll be a Dry day in Dublin an’ isn’t th’ Reverend Paisley concelebratin’ High Mass wit’ Fr. Feeney when THAT kingdom Comes, by Gob… :)
[Some of you may be surprised, but] I agree with David (the second poster); that is extremely disrespectful. Are you actually hoping that the Pope dies, or are you just a jackass?
Brian, I can’t tell for sure if you’re Targeting the First Poster, Dave, or the Third, me.
Presumably the so-cleverly ironic Dave, slamming Michael Schiavo with such subtle sarcasm :), wants the Pope to Live.
Though coming at it from a different perspective, of course so do I. IF (??) perchance I’m your Bullseye (or some other Aspect of the bull’s Anatomy :), I can only plead that I truly Meant it when I wrote, “…whenever it does become necessary, hopefully still well on Down the Road, to select a new Pope…”. Beyond that, obviously (or so I thought) I was just indulging in a wee bit o’ th’ traditional celtic collective Self-deprecation, for to Lighten Up some of the damn Gloom that has lately descended upon This Here Blog. :>
“Are you actually hoping that the Pope dies, or are you just a jackass?”
Again, IF you mean Me: I am (a) Hoping & praying that His Holiness lives ~ cognizantly & without intolerable Suffering ~ a lot longer; accepting, as I trust you do too, that he can no more live Forever than can you or I; and (c) certainly being a Jackass, that’s my Job around here.
My target was the first poster, Dave. I am not Catholic — not religious, really — but I felt that the first comment was rather repugnant, as it seemed to make light of the Pope’s situation, which is significantly different from Terri Schiavo’s.
I’m sure some will disagree with me, but such is life.
I’m not a big fan of the papacy and the centrality of Rome in the Christian religion, but I have had an increasing amount of respect for John Paull II recently. I happened to see a special on the Discovery Channel documenting his involvement in politics when he became Pope, and I have great admiration for how he vocally stood against communism and its oppressiveness. I will not cease to credit Reagan and the more hawkish Cold War policies he posited, but I also will not fail to acknowledge the extremely vital role JPII played in bringing hope and truth to the masses, which helped the communist leadership see that their regimes were ultimately untenable.
You think that the Pope is a swell guy because of his role in working against communist regimes? I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but perhaps the Pope/Church in general should introduce human rights internally if it wants to be credible on an international stage. I think that the role of women in the Catholic Church is shameful. While JP II recognizes the role of women in society (to some extent) he does not recognize their role as extending to the priesthood.
“When women stand up and challenge the current rules, then the iron curtain in the Catholic Church will crumble.”
The male character of the priesthood is hardly a matter of denying women’s rights. JPII didn’t decide that the Catholic priesthood has a male character — he has simply reiterated that doctrinal truth. The idea that women are de-valued or under-valued in the church because the priesthood is a minstry with a specifically male character is mistaken — just as is the idea that priests somehow have more power than everyone else because of their ordination.
Well put Kate. Personally I think that people who view the male priesthood as somehow trying to keep women down really don’t understand the Catholic church and are only trying to belittle something they don’t understand.
btw, whoever posted with the name CNN is a coward and a fool and should be a real woman or man and try and say something more than some snide pathetic comment about a man who has probably done more to advance human dignity and fair treatment of women than you will ever hope to do.
David - perhaps your understanding and my understanding are merely different. In fact I’m very surprised that you would naturally assume that everyone has the same understanding of the Catholic Church. If you truly feel like you have mastered the Catholic Church and religion in general then perhaps some introspection is in order. As far as MY understanding is concerned I simply don’t believe in the infallibility of the doctrine. I do not buy “in persona propria” either for that matter. We disagree. It’s an opinion, not an attack. Free exchange of ideas - get on board.
You accuse the Pope of not believing in human rights within the church and try and pass that off as merely a free exchange of ideas. Then you accuse me of claiming omniscience?
I also fail to see how not letting women be priests is in any way some kind of human rights violation. The church doesn’t advocate treating women in anything less than a respectful manner. Women are involved in the church in so many ways. All of the churches I have been a member of have had strong women leadership as well as the priest. No other church in the world respects Mary the way the Catholic church does.
I suspect the “CNN” poster’s Headline post, albeit tasteless, may have been intended as Satirical of Janice Legally Brunette’s point of view.
With which I essentially agree btw. Not re blaming John Paul II personally ~ and incidentally Andrew is absolutely correct about the Pope’s pivotal role in the collapse of the imperial Soviet tyranny, including its Establishment of Irreligion via compulsory atheism. But as to the desireability of ordaining women, Yes.
However our theological problem, JSD/LB, is that “the infallibility of the doctrine” is part of the Doctrine. I.e. in for a Dime, in for a Dollar: we’re not Supposed to Pick & Choose among the ex cathedrae.
Nevertheless, Church history amply proves that reform is possible. The Immutable, from time to time, Mutates. So.
Oh and David: I agree with you that women’s position in the Church is today much stronger than is often perceived; but I’d go a little easy on the Marianism as evidence thereof. The Blessed Virgin’s unique status, while exalted, is not exactly a role model of gender-egalitarianism. She kind of cuts Both ways. (The Protestants don’t venerate Mary the way we do; but OTOH a lot of them do let women be Ministers.)
David, I have to agree with Legally Brunette here in that people whose interpretations of the Catholic Church differ from yours are not necessarily a) ignorant or b) disrespectful. Just because I believe that women should be priests and that married priests are acceptable does not mean that I’m incapable of understanding some higher truth about the inherent maleness of the priesthood. It just means that I think that having a Y chromosome shouldn’t determine your ability to be a priest.
I guess I think of this issue a bit like I would think about any post. If someone argued with me about the inherent maleness of the presidency, I’d be pretty ticked off. I have a similar reaction to those who contend that the priesthood is a rigidly gendered occupation.
I think we’ve hashed this out a bit before. But I do think Legally Brunette has something to her point that instead of engaging her contention, you have a knee-jerk reaction that she’s attacking Catholicism and spreading vitriole and ignorance about the Church.
No, Becky, but it does mean that you reject at least one fundamental truth of the Catholic faith. And I think it’s not so useful, David (though I suspect it’s not intentional), to talk about “letting women be priests.” No human being or institution “lets” anyone be a priest — male or female. The priesthood is a vocation, not a job — and so its male character is a truth, not gender discrimination.
And, yes, Mr. Loy, there is a history of “reform” in the Church. But the reason that the Pope has said that the subject of women’s ordination is not “open for discussion” isn’t because he doesn’t want to talk about it — it’s because it’s not a decision or a choice but part of a revealed truth. It is the work of the Church to help the faithful live those revealed truths — not to accept or reject them according to the world’s rules and preferences.
And so, Legally Brunette, with all respect for your autonomy and sympathy for your frustration, when David and I say that this isn’t about having “different viewpoints,” what we mean is that this isn’t an issue that’s open for interpretation. The Catholic Church teaches that this is true — not that this is preferential. The cynic would say that that’s a ruse employed to keep women down; but I would hope we could all be more charitable than that, particularly in light of the fact that this particular Pope has been a steadfast advocate of women’s rights and worth. Even Martha Nussbaum has applauded his efforts to defend the rights of women, particularly on the issue of marital rape.
For a really great discussion on the teaching authority of the church, see ND Law prof Rick Garnett’s blog Mirror of Justice
Oh, okay. Well, the best place to start is the Catechism:
“Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.” The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.”
Much has been made of the theory that Jesus selected men only as his apostles because it would have been scandalous for him to choose women as his associates because of social stigma; heck, I used to say this too. But this theory ignores two points: first, Christ maintained deep and profound friendships with women throughout his public life (as we see from the gospel passages on Martha and Mary) and second, Jesus Christ is God. To suggest that a man both human and divine who performed public miracles was constrained in his choice of the apostles by societal convention (when he flouted those same conventions in almost every other aspect of his life) seems ridiculous. We could say that the evangelists themselves were biased and that’s why the stories make all the apostles men; but it seems to me that these pious, sexist evangelists would probably have also edited out the stories about Christ’s association with prostitutes, adulteresses, and other manner of sinners too. And so if we believe, as I do, that the gospel accounts contain truths about Christ’s life and we believe that Christ’s actions on earth were the purposive actions of God, there’s something profound about his choice of twelve men as his apostles and not any of the women with whom he associated — indeed, a revealed truth about God’s plan for the world and the Church.
I, for one, don’t think that this demonstrates that Christ/God/the Church values women any less than men, but that men and women have unique roles to play in the world. Some men are called by God to place a very specific role — but only a relatively few men, really. That call was figured on earth by Christ in his calling of the apostles.
Anyway. For people interested in learning more about JPII’s specific work in theological anthropology and, specifically, his theories about the roles of men and women in the Church and the world, I highly recommend his book Theology of the Body — a book that quite literally changed the way I think about everything.
All of the disciples were likewise Jewish. Should all of the viri therefore be Jewish as well as men? Are we to believe that societal convention held back Jesus from befriending and ordaining non-Jewish messengers of His Gospel? I’m sure at a minimum that there were plenty of, say, Samaritans (not considered Jewish by Sadducees, Pharisees, and other Jewish sects of the time) he could have used, or, say, Roman soldiers who had come to believe in Him. I’d love to hear your (or the Church’s) logic why maleness is important in a bishop or priest but not Jewishness.
Like with Yeshua’s words about the bread and the wine (transubstantiation), I think sometimes the Catholic Church takes things a little too literally and reads too much into the Scriptures. We should take what the Scriptures say and be very careful about adding in our outside assumptions about hidden meanings and such.
Andrew, all of the disciples weren’t Jewish. And thats not a fair comparison regardless.
Backy, the reason I called the argument disrespectful was not because of LB’s view on women as Priest’s but because she accused the Pope as somehow violating basic human rights because of it.
“Andrew, all of the disciples weren’t Jewish. And thats not a fair comparison regardless.”
Oh, gee, that settles it then. David has spoken–no argument or refutation is needed other than his pronouncement that I am wrong, the comparison is unfair. Wonderful.
Seriously, “all of the disciples weren’t Jewish”? That’s news to me! I think what you meant was “NOT all of the disciples were Jewish”, which is slightly different and a less objectionable claim, but a claim requiring proof nonetheless. So, please tell me which disciple was not Jewish. And then tell me why it’s an unfair comparison.
I can’t specifically list which disciples weren’t jewish, as there were an untold number of disciples. All 12 apostles were Jewish but it doesn’t mean they were ethnically Jewish so much as religiously so, which of course makes sense given that Christianity is the continuation/evolution of the teachings of Judaism.
But the purpose of Jesus ministry was to spread a new covenant with the gentiles as well as the Jews. It is not therefore essential that all future priests be Jewish. However in creating the Church Jesus was the bridegroom and the church the bride. Since Priests are continuing the role of Jesus and acting in proxy during holy communion, acting as the bridegroom, its important that they are men.
This is not to say that women can’t serve in the church. They can lead prayer, serve as eucharistic ministers, give readings. They simply can’t consecrate the Eucharist.
“I can’t specifically list which disciples weren’t jewish, as there were an untold number of disciples.”
I was referring specifically to the Twelve, as was Kate, but if that’s your answer, than it’s equally conceivable that some of those “untold number of disciples” were women, since the Gospels never told about them!
“All 12 apostles were Jewish but it doesn’t mean they were ethnically Jewish so much as religiously so….”
Actually, if you knew anything about Judaism, you’d understand that to be religiously Jewish is to be ethnically Jewish, too, and vice versa. You can’t convert to Judaism so simply as you can to Christianity–it’s quite a time-consuming process (you can ask Brendan’s mother about it). And once you’re Jewish, your kids (assuming you’re female) are automatically Jewish (assuming they’re born after you converted). Thus, there are Jews of every race and ethnicity, but they’re all equally Jewish.
“But the purpose of Jesus ministry was to spread a new covenant with the gentiles as well as the Jews.”
…And the spread of His ministry entailed women as well: “For there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor free…” etc.
“It is not therefore essential that all future priests be Jewish.”
Likewise, it is not therefore essential that all future priests be male, according to this particular line of reasoning.
“However in creating the Church Jesus was the bridegroom and the church the bride. Since Priests are continuing the role of Jesus and acting in proxy during holy communion, acting as the bridegroom, its important that they are men.”
I don’t necessarily agree with this argument either, but it at least has a lot more validity to its logic than does the previous argument that Kate and you were using. If you’re going to pin the necessity of priests being male on something, better this argument than the one before it.
Basically it comes down to this. Being Jewish isn’t key to being a Priest because Jesus Jewish-ness wasn’t key to his union with the Church. However his maleness was.
This isn’t an argument prefaced on trying to be as much like Jesus (physically) to be a priest. Otherwise we could ban all people who for example, were black, or asian, or blonde, etc. It goes to the essential relationship between Jesus and his Church.
You say this is not an argument prefaced on trying to be as much like Jesus (physically) to be a priest, but it seems to me that being Jewish is not just a physical trait, but integral to who Jesus was, who he was a decendant of, etc. In my limited understanding I have to take issue with your statement that Jesus being Jewish was not key to his union with the church. Isn’t Jesus being Jewish integral in the sense that the Jews have a covenant with God etc? I think you too easily dismiss Jesus’ “jewishness”.
Ok, so for personal reasons I’m not going to get too much into this, but just to skim a surface (and procrastinate a moment longer)…..=0)
“This is not to say that women can’t serve in the church. They can lead prayer, serve as eucharistic ministers, give readings. They simply can’t consecrate the Eucharist.”
Maybe women can’t consecrate a Eucharist in The Catholic Church. But women most certainly can consecrate a Eucharist in the catholic (small “c”) church.
“Being Jewish isn’t key to being a Priest because Jesus Jewish-ness wasn’t key to his union with the Church. However his maleness was.”
This link (maleness key to union with the church) has not been established, at least not in this comment set. The simple use of “bride” and “bridegroom” doesn’t do it. How can you put a limit on God’s ability to unite with His children?
I wasn’t dismissing his being Jewish at all. I think its important to remember the Jewish roots of Christianity, something I specifically pointed out above. However since his ministry was about extending the convenant to all peoples it doesn’t make sense to preface priesthood on being Jewish (btw Andrew your comments about being Jewish are wrong, but I’ll get to that in the next comment).
Given that I know people who are ethnic Jews who don’t practice Judaism, and I know people who are Jewish but not ethnic Jews your argument rather falls apart.
Well, Jesus was not only Jewish, but was also God.
Additionally, when the apostles left their families and gave up everything to follow Christ, it seems to me that they became Christians. Christ came not to abolish the law but to complete it. For more on the historical Jewishness of Christ, I recommend John Meier’s three-volune masterwork A Marginal Jew. Christ flouted many of the conventions of Judaism, constantly running afoul of the Jewish intelligentia.
Additionally, the biological reality of the two sexes has had a profound impact on the development of the Catholic theology of the human person. To wit, there is a profound theological difference between a person’s Jewishness or Christianness and their maleness or femaleness. This comments box is not an adequate space to extrapolate this; I refer you back to the extraordinary theological anthropology developed by JPII in Theology of the Body.
David, you are going to have to give me more than that to convey to me the role-or non-role–of Judaism in the life of Jesus. Ethnic Jews choosing not to practice Judaism, and people choosing to become practicing Jews, are tangential to what I think we are trying to discuss. So, his ministry is about extending the covenant to everyone, the gentile and the jew, and being male is essential but being Jewish is not. Maybe it does not make sense to you to preface priesthood on being Jewish, but that does not yet make sense to me. I am not arguying that it does make sense, I want to hear what you, or anyone else who wants to pitch in, have to say about it. Like I said, I think being Jewish is integral to who Jesus was, and I have yet to hear the explanation to why this is different that being male, or to why Christian leaders in general and Catholic priests in particular do not have to lead a more “Jewish” lifestyle, like the (I pressume) Jewish orthodox lifestyle Jesus lived by.
I knew you would say that as soon as I posted it :)
Jesus did things different but did he not have a fairly “jewish” life? I do not think you’re going to be able to answer my question, since you have not been able to answer it thus far. And that if fine, I do not think I am succesfully conveying what it is I am wondering/asking about Jesus and the role of Judaism in his life. Why is Jesus being Jewish not essential? Why are things like keeping the Sabbath not essential? Why is Catholicism soo different from Judaism? Because when we incoporated us gentiles, everything changed and we could forgoe the practices and other stuff of the old testament to include the new gentiles, and we created a Christian out of this gentile/jewish fusion?
Judaism is important as a foundation of Christianity, I don’t meant to deny that for a minute. And the fact that Jesus came from God’s chosen people I believe also has significance, especially in terms of fulfilling prophecy. Jesus being Jewish was important in a historical context in other words.
But the role of the priest during the consecration of the Eucharist, acting in proxy for Him isn’t related to Jesus being Jewish, it is related to His being the bridgegroom of the Church.
God created man and woman as two different halves that could come together as a whole. But each has different roles in His plan. This isn’t to say one is more important than the other. And i’m not talking about things like what kind of mundane jobs a person might have, whether a woman can be a firefighter or a man a nurse, but we ARE different and created for different things.
“However since his ministry was about extending the convenant to all peoples it doesn’t make sense to preface priesthood on being Jewish….”
Sure it does. We even have New Testament precedent for it. Who did God choose to be the apostle to the Gentiles? He chose Paul, the Pharisee (i.e. the Orthodox Jewish Rabbi). Can you imagine a Hasidic Jew being the one to preach Christianity to Gentiles today? Because that is essentially what happened with Paul going to Greece and Rome. So by the same logic you use when you point to the maleness of the apostles as precedent for why priests ought to be men, I could point to Paul and argue that evangelists to non-Jews should be conducted by Messianic Jews (Orthodox Jewish Christians).
“Given that I know people who are ethnic Jews who don’t practice Judaism, and I know people who are Jewish but not ethnic Jews your argument rather falls apart.”
David, I am amazed at how often you rely on the argument, “I think, therefore I’m right.” You are only a Jew one of two ways: You are either born of a Jewish woman, or you converted under an Orthodox rabbi. Now, can you be a Jew and not follow Torah? Absolutely. It just means you’re a “bad” Jew. Can you be a Gentile and follow Torah as completely as an Orthodox Jew? Sure, but why would you bother to take on that burden, and either way, that wouldn’t make you Jewish–you still have to officially convert first (in biblical times, Gentiles who kept Torah were called “God-fearing Gentiles” and were often allowed to participate in communal affairs, but were not considered Jews unless they officially converted). You don’t have to ask me, you can go ask a rabbi, he’ll tell you the exact same thing.
“Additionally, when the apostles left their families and gave up everything to follow Christ, it seems to me that they became Christians.”
It seems to me you don’t know your Bible. The term Christians was not used by the apostles, they considered themselves to be Jews. In fact, the first major schism among the early Christians (who were all Jews and saw themselves merely as Jews who were following their Messiah) was between Peter (the supposed founder of the Catholic faith), who argued that Gentiles must become circumsized and hence become Jewish before they can follow Yeshua, and Paul (the Orthodox Rabbi), who said Gentiles were not required to become Jews and keep Torah, they were only required to follow the 5 laws of Noah. Early Christians never saw themselves as a separate people from their Jewish brethren, they saw themselves as simply the branch of Jews who had found the Messiah.
“Christ flouted many of the conventions of Judaism, constantly running afoul of the Jewish intelligentia.”
What a strange way to word that, “Jewish intelligentsia”. I believe you would be talking about the Jewish priesthood and rabbinical leadership (the Sanhedrin). In any case, whenever Jesus “flouted” these “conventions of Judaism”, the rabbis were always ultimately unable to prove he violated Torah. Even Pilate asked what law has he broken, and the Sanhedrin could give him no adequate reply. As you note, Yeshua came not to abolish the Torah but to fulfill it, so by your own admission, you agree that Jesus believed in keeping the law (written law = Torah, oral law = Mishna) and always attempted to live his life in an Orthodox Jewish manner. Did he upset some of the rabbinical thinking of his time? Sure, but he still kept Torah, and any Jewish scholar or rabbi will today admit that Yeshua was a great rabbi, but disagree that he was God.
“Ummm Jesus didn’t lead an orthodox Jewish lifestyle at all.”
Actually he did, but you wouldn’t know it because you don’t know the first thing about Orthodox Judaism.
“But the role of the priest during the consecration of the Eucharist, acting in proxy for Him isn’t related to Jesus being Jewish, it is related to His being the bridgegroom of the Church.”
One could argue the Jewish element is equally important. The Eucharist was in fact a Passover seder dinner, which, if you knew anything about it, you’d understand that the wine and the bread convey very important things. I actually find it ironic that many Christians participate in communion at their church, whether at a Catholic mass or Protestant service, and yet have no idea of the very Jewish foundation that communion represents. When Jesus said those words, he was speaking to a Jewish audience, who understood what the bread and wine represented, and so when he said those things, he was conveying something far more radical than you would otherwise realize because you have to understand the symbolism of the seder to get it.
Actually he did, but you wouldn’t know it because you don’t know the first thing about Orthodox Judaism.
I don’t really? Wow I’m glad you know everything about me instead of being a pompous jerk. If Jesus had been an Orthodox Jew do you think he really would have been running afoul of the Pharisees all the time? I think not.
The Eucharist was in fact a Passover seder dinner, which, if you knew anything about it
Actually I DO know about the Seder, in fact the Hillel and Newman centers up here co-sponsor one each year in order to help people understand that Jesus was the Passover sacrifice for us all.
But thats ok, you seem to know exactly what I do and don’t know anyway so what does it matter what I say right?
Or maybe your just full of yourself and don’t have a clue. Lets see 2000 years of Church scholars or Andrew Long, which one should I listen to…
“If Jesus had been an Orthodox Jew do you think he really would have been running afoul of the Pharisees all the time? I think not.”
That’s pretty dumb logic. That’s like saying if I disagree with the Church infant baptism, transubstantiation, and eating meat on Good Friday, I must not be Catholic. I happen to not be Catholic, but I know many Catholic intellectuals who nevertheless disagree on certain doctrines with the Church.
In any case, Jesus kept the Sabbath, he ate only kosher food, he performed and participated in all the Jewish rituals and sacrifices, and celebrated all of the holidays. You tell me, what did he do that was not Orthodox?
Lets see, he performed miracles on the Sabbath, kept company with people who were considered sinners, touched the sick and the dying. None of those were things that an Orthodox Jew of the time would do. Heck that was the whole point of the story of the Good Samaritan.
In addition I am not claiming that just because I say it, I’m right about the two kinds of Jewish thing. I’m saying it because its factually true. You can be ethnically Jewish, religiously Jewish OR both.
You two need to stop fighting over who knows more about Jesus! I do not think Jesus meant for people to argue like you two over this, but to actually have a dialouge. I know politics is confrontational, and talking about religion can be too, but listen to yourselves! The two of you are Christians! And you are fighting over who knows about Jesus more! I think Andrew has a good point about the general ignorance of Judaism’s role in the life of Jesus, because really a lot of people do not know much about it, and perhaps David does know more than we speculate on this subject, but we wouldn’t guess it from statements like, well Jesus hung out with sinners so he must not have led an orthodox life etc. So, why don’t the both of you actually talk to each other and not at each other on this one? Or stop arguying over Jesus, you look dumb.
I am going to church now, to hear about the everlasting covenant that I think Andrew is talking about..? :)
Next time you try and play peacemaker Bea you might want to try and hide your bias. Complementing Andrew and then insulting me doesn’t exactly do much for your point.
Hide my bias? You think I have a bias towards Andrew? hahahhaha, he wishes, believe me, sometimes he wishes I was biased towards him :)
Complimeting Andrew? Look at my posts, I have been asking you to convey to me why Jesus being Jewish is not essential, and it is a valid question and I think you are not really answering my question, nor do I expect you to, so I am going to a talk on Judaism and Catholicism at my local church tomorrow night. Do not dismiss me as siding with my boyfriend to spite you or something (forgive me if I am wrong, but that is what this sounds like to me).
I happen to agree with Andrew’s general point that the role of Judaism in Jesus’ life is important and often overlooked. I agree with him, but not because he is my boyfriend. God knows we disagree on plenty :) I already had my conversation last night with Andrew on this whole thing. And I was not complimenting him then–or now.
Insulting you? All I said is comments like “(Jesus) kept company with people who were considered sinners” do not say much about whether Jesus lead an orthodox life or not, since, well, everyone is a sinner, so sure he hung out with sinners. I was looking for the Bible explanation on it, if you will (again, this is why I am going to that talk tomorrow).
Peacemaker? Hardly. I am not asking you two kiss and make up, but to realize how un-Jesus-like it is to argue over this instead of having a real dialouge. Yeah, maybe I did insult you, and Andrew too, by calling you dumb for fighting over who knows more about Jesus. But dude, if you cant see that, well, that sucks. It seems one of the few things the three of us have in common is being Christian, so if we cannot talk about that without you two getting all confrontational and you accusing me of being biased when all I want is some answers, and to point out how unnecesarry it is to fight over who knows more about Jesus, well, I guess we are just about done here. Seriously David, can we talk?
“Lets see, he performed miracles on the Sabbath, kept company with people who were considered sinners, touched the sick and the dying. None of those were things that an Orthodox Jew of the time would do. Heck that was the whole point of the story of the Good Samaritan.”
Ask any Orthodox rabbi today about those issues, and he will find nothing there that disqualifies Jesus from being an Orthodox Jew.
“In addition I am not claiming that just because I say it, I’m right about the two kinds of Jewish thing. I’m saying it because its factually true. You can be ethnically Jewish, religiously Jewish OR both.”
Again, ask an Orthodox Jew, or ask Leanna Loomer. You cannot be religiously Jewish and ethnically not-Jewish unless you convert, but by the Jews’ very own definitions, you’re henceforth ethnically Jewish too once you convert, as all the kids you bear from that point on (if you’re female) are automatically Jewish. You simply do not know what you’re talking about.
Sorry Andrew, but you just can’t declare someone to be part of an ethnic group.
And the position of an Orthodox Rabbi today is irellavent, if you want to prove your point you need to consider what an Orthodox Rabbi in Jesus time would have taught.
Um, actually, you can. Once again, I give you Merriam-Webster:
“Main Entry: 2ethnic
Function: noun
: a member of an ethnic group; especially : a member of a minority group who retains the customs, language, or social views of the group ”
That would seem to indicate that what you are at birth doesn’t control your ethnic affiliation for life. It does seem to act as a counterargument to the idea that Jewish people who follow no Jewish traditions, rituals, language, or social customs are nonetheless Jews, however.
More generally, ethnic identity is not fixed upon birth, but can be influenced heavily by one’s environment. One of my old choir/schoolmates was of Chinese descent, but ethnically she wasn’t Chinese–being adopted at birth by a white couple in the US, and raised in a completely English-speaking setting with no particular attention paid to any Chinese customs or celebrations in among the least racially-diverse suburbs known to mankind, Wendy has pretty much the same ethnicity that I do: White-Bread Amercian Suburbian. I can probably get some references for this type of thing from some of my anthropology friends, if anyone’s interested.
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
March 31st, 2005 at 7:34:33 pm
And in breaking news, Michael Schaivo is on a plane to Rome asking his feeding tube to be removed.
March 31st, 2005 at 7:53:32 pm
What a pathetic, disrespectful, and utterly arrogant comment.
March 31st, 2005 at 8:32:18 pm
Yeah well, I TOLD youse They’d be making the Connection, though I did hope it might be done on a less Surly note. Thank the Lord that He chose not to take either of His high-profile servants on Good Friday, some of The Faithful would really be in Sin City, here. :|
But on my own Inappropriate Note :)~ may I proffer the thought that whenever it does become necessary, hopefully still well on Down the Road, to select a new Pope, the College of Cardinals would be Wise (& Bold :) to pick an Irishman.
(HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA yes, it’ll be a Dry day in Dublin an’ isn’t th’ Reverend Paisley concelebratin’ High Mass wit’ Fr. Feeney when THAT kingdom Comes, by Gob… :)
March 31st, 2005 at 8:35:50 pm
[Some of you may be surprised, but] I agree with David (the second poster); that is extremely disrespectful. Are you actually hoping that the Pope dies, or are you just a jackass?
March 31st, 2005 at 9:22:42 pm
Brian, I can’t tell for sure if you’re Targeting the First Poster, Dave, or the Third, me.
Presumably the so-cleverly ironic Dave, slamming Michael Schiavo with such subtle sarcasm :), wants the Pope to Live.
Though coming at it from a different perspective, of course so do I. IF (??) perchance I’m your Bullseye (or some other Aspect of the bull’s Anatomy :), I can only plead that I truly Meant it when I wrote, “…whenever it does become necessary, hopefully still well on Down the Road, to select a new Pope…”. Beyond that, obviously (or so I thought) I was just indulging in a wee bit o’ th’ traditional celtic collective Self-deprecation, for to Lighten Up some of the damn Gloom that has lately descended upon This Here Blog. :>
“Are you actually hoping that the Pope dies, or are you just a jackass?”
Again, IF you mean Me: I am (a) Hoping & praying that His Holiness lives ~ cognizantly & without intolerable Suffering ~ a lot longer; accepting, as I trust you do too, that he can no more live Forever than can you or I; and (c) certainly being a Jackass, that’s my Job around here.
~ Joe
March 31st, 2005 at 9:48:00 pm
My target was the first poster, Dave. I am not Catholic — not religious, really — but I felt that the first comment was rather repugnant, as it seemed to make light of the Pope’s situation, which is significantly different from Terri Schiavo’s.
I’m sure some will disagree with me, but such is life.
March 31st, 2005 at 9:50:40 pm
Desperately trying not to post “I’m not quite dead yet” … guess it didn’t work…
March 31st, 2005 at 10:43:21 pm
I’m not a big fan of the papacy and the centrality of Rome in the Christian religion, but I have had an increasing amount of respect for John Paull II recently. I happened to see a special on the Discovery Channel documenting his involvement in politics when he became Pope, and I have great admiration for how he vocally stood against communism and its oppressiveness. I will not cease to credit Reagan and the more hawkish Cold War policies he posited, but I also will not fail to acknowledge the extremely vital role JPII played in bringing hope and truth to the masses, which helped the communist leadership see that their regimes were ultimately untenable.
March 31st, 2005 at 11:10:40 pm
You think that the Pope is a swell guy because of his role in working against communist regimes? I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but perhaps the Pope/Church in general should introduce human rights internally if it wants to be credible on an international stage. I think that the role of women in the Catholic Church is shameful. While JP II recognizes the role of women in society (to some extent) he does not recognize their role as extending to the priesthood.
“When women stand up and challenge the current rules, then the iron curtain in the Catholic Church will crumble.”
-Janice Sevre Duszynska
March 31st, 2005 at 11:19:21 pm
The male character of the priesthood is hardly a matter of denying women’s rights. JPII didn’t decide that the Catholic priesthood has a male character — he has simply reiterated that doctrinal truth. The idea that women are de-valued or under-valued in the church because the priesthood is a minstry with a specifically male character is mistaken — just as is the idea that priests somehow have more power than everyone else because of their ordination.
March 31st, 2005 at 11:44:41 pm
“Sexist Pope nears death”
March 31st, 2005 at 11:54:17 pm
Well put Kate. Personally I think that people who view the male priesthood as somehow trying to keep women down really don’t understand the Catholic church and are only trying to belittle something they don’t understand.
March 31st, 2005 at 11:55:46 pm
btw, whoever posted with the name CNN is a coward and a fool and should be a real woman or man and try and say something more than some snide pathetic comment about a man who has probably done more to advance human dignity and fair treatment of women than you will ever hope to do.
April 1st, 2005 at 12:07:35 am
David - perhaps your understanding and my understanding are merely different. In fact I’m very surprised that you would naturally assume that everyone has the same understanding of the Catholic Church. If you truly feel like you have mastered the Catholic Church and religion in general then perhaps some introspection is in order. As far as MY understanding is concerned I simply don’t believe in the infallibility of the doctrine. I do not buy “in persona propria” either for that matter. We disagree. It’s an opinion, not an attack. Free exchange of ideas - get on board.
April 1st, 2005 at 12:09:42 am
Side Note - I am not the individual posting as CNN.
April 1st, 2005 at 12:48:21 am
You accuse the Pope of not believing in human rights within the church and try and pass that off as merely a free exchange of ideas. Then you accuse me of claiming omniscience?
I also fail to see how not letting women be priests is in any way some kind of human rights violation. The church doesn’t advocate treating women in anything less than a respectful manner. Women are involved in the church in so many ways. All of the churches I have been a member of have had strong women leadership as well as the priest. No other church in the world respects Mary the way the Catholic church does.
April 1st, 2005 at 7:17:10 am
I suspect the “CNN” poster’s Headline post, albeit tasteless, may have been intended as Satirical of Janice Legally Brunette’s point of view.
With which I essentially agree btw. Not re blaming John Paul II personally ~ and incidentally Andrew is absolutely correct about the Pope’s pivotal role in the collapse of the imperial Soviet tyranny, including its Establishment of Irreligion via compulsory atheism. But as to the desireability of ordaining women, Yes.
However our theological problem, JSD/LB, is that “the infallibility of the doctrine” is part of the Doctrine. I.e. in for a Dime, in for a Dollar: we’re not Supposed to Pick & Choose among the ex cathedrae.
Nevertheless, Church history amply proves that reform is possible. The Immutable, from time to time, Mutates. So.
April 1st, 2005 at 7:32:51 am
Oh and David: I agree with you that women’s position in the Church is today much stronger than is often perceived; but I’d go a little easy on the Marianism as evidence thereof. The Blessed Virgin’s unique status, while exalted, is not exactly a role model of gender-egalitarianism. She kind of cuts Both ways. (The Protestants don’t venerate Mary the way we do; but OTOH a lot of them do let women be Ministers.)
April 1st, 2005 at 8:42:06 am
David, I have to agree with Legally Brunette here in that people whose interpretations of the Catholic Church differ from yours are not necessarily a) ignorant or b) disrespectful. Just because I believe that women should be priests and that married priests are acceptable does not mean that I’m incapable of understanding some higher truth about the inherent maleness of the priesthood. It just means that I think that having a Y chromosome shouldn’t determine your ability to be a priest.
I guess I think of this issue a bit like I would think about any post. If someone argued with me about the inherent maleness of the presidency, I’d be pretty ticked off. I have a similar reaction to those who contend that the priesthood is a rigidly gendered occupation.
I think we’ve hashed this out a bit before. But I do think Legally Brunette has something to her point that instead of engaging her contention, you have a knee-jerk reaction that she’s attacking Catholicism and spreading vitriole and ignorance about the Church.
April 1st, 2005 at 10:16:06 am
No, Becky, but it does mean that you reject at least one fundamental truth of the Catholic faith. And I think it’s not so useful, David (though I suspect it’s not intentional), to talk about “letting women be priests.” No human being or institution “lets” anyone be a priest — male or female. The priesthood is a vocation, not a job — and so its male character is a truth, not gender discrimination.
And, yes, Mr. Loy, there is a history of “reform” in the Church. But the reason that the Pope has said that the subject of women’s ordination is not “open for discussion” isn’t because he doesn’t want to talk about it — it’s because it’s not a decision or a choice but part of a revealed truth. It is the work of the Church to help the faithful live those revealed truths — not to accept or reject them according to the world’s rules and preferences.
And so, Legally Brunette, with all respect for your autonomy and sympathy for your frustration, when David and I say that this isn’t about having “different viewpoints,” what we mean is that this isn’t an issue that’s open for interpretation. The Catholic Church teaches that this is true — not that this is preferential. The cynic would say that that’s a ruse employed to keep women down; but I would hope we could all be more charitable than that, particularly in light of the fact that this particular Pope has been a steadfast advocate of women’s rights and worth. Even Martha Nussbaum has applauded his efforts to defend the rights of women, particularly on the issue of marital rape.
For a really great discussion on the teaching authority of the church, see ND Law prof Rick Garnett’s blog Mirror of Justice
April 1st, 2005 at 10:26:33 am
Kate:
Excuse my ignorance, as a non-Catholic: how is “only men can be priests” a “revealed truth”?
(I’m not trying to be a dick, I really want to know)
April 1st, 2005 at 10:35:57 am
“Agree to disagree.” - Ron Burgandy
April 1st, 2005 at 10:50:39 am
Oh, okay. Well, the best place to start is the Catechism:
“Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.” The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.”
Much has been made of the theory that Jesus selected men only as his apostles because it would have been scandalous for him to choose women as his associates because of social stigma; heck, I used to say this too. But this theory ignores two points: first, Christ maintained deep and profound friendships with women throughout his public life (as we see from the gospel passages on Martha and Mary) and second, Jesus Christ is God. To suggest that a man both human and divine who performed public miracles was constrained in his choice of the apostles by societal convention (when he flouted those same conventions in almost every other aspect of his life) seems ridiculous. We could say that the evangelists themselves were biased and that’s why the stories make all the apostles men; but it seems to me that these pious, sexist evangelists would probably have also edited out the stories about Christ’s association with prostitutes, adulteresses, and other manner of sinners too. And so if we believe, as I do, that the gospel accounts contain truths about Christ’s life and we believe that Christ’s actions on earth were the purposive actions of God, there’s something profound about his choice of twelve men as his apostles and not any of the women with whom he associated — indeed, a revealed truth about God’s plan for the world and the Church.
I, for one, don’t think that this demonstrates that Christ/God/the Church values women any less than men, but that men and women have unique roles to play in the world. Some men are called by God to place a very specific role — but only a relatively few men, really. That call was figured on earth by Christ in his calling of the apostles.
Anyway. For people interested in learning more about JPII’s specific work in theological anthropology and, specifically, his theories about the roles of men and women in the Church and the world, I highly recommend his book Theology of the Body — a book that quite literally changed the way I think about everything.
April 1st, 2005 at 2:43:34 pm
Kate/David,
All of the disciples were likewise Jewish. Should all of the viri therefore be Jewish as well as men? Are we to believe that societal convention held back Jesus from befriending and ordaining non-Jewish messengers of His Gospel? I’m sure at a minimum that there were plenty of, say, Samaritans (not considered Jewish by Sadducees, Pharisees, and other Jewish sects of the time) he could have used, or, say, Roman soldiers who had come to believe in Him. I’d love to hear your (or the Church’s) logic why maleness is important in a bishop or priest but not Jewishness.
Like with Yeshua’s words about the bread and the wine (transubstantiation), I think sometimes the Catholic Church takes things a little too literally and reads too much into the Scriptures. We should take what the Scriptures say and be very careful about adding in our outside assumptions about hidden meanings and such.
April 1st, 2005 at 5:34:39 pm
Andrew, all of the disciples weren’t Jewish. And thats not a fair comparison regardless.
Backy, the reason I called the argument disrespectful was not because of LB’s view on women as Priest’s but because she accused the Pope as somehow violating basic human rights because of it.
April 1st, 2005 at 5:49:27 pm
“Andrew, all of the disciples weren’t Jewish. And thats not a fair comparison regardless.”
Oh, gee, that settles it then. David has spoken–no argument or refutation is needed other than his pronouncement that I am wrong, the comparison is unfair. Wonderful.
Seriously, “all of the disciples weren’t Jewish”? That’s news to me! I think what you meant was “NOT all of the disciples were Jewish”, which is slightly different and a less objectionable claim, but a claim requiring proof nonetheless. So, please tell me which disciple was not Jewish. And then tell me why it’s an unfair comparison.
April 1st, 2005 at 7:49:13 pm
I can’t specifically list which disciples weren’t jewish, as there were an untold number of disciples. All 12 apostles were Jewish but it doesn’t mean they were ethnically Jewish so much as religiously so, which of course makes sense given that Christianity is the continuation/evolution of the teachings of Judaism.
But the purpose of Jesus ministry was to spread a new covenant with the gentiles as well as the Jews. It is not therefore essential that all future priests be Jewish. However in creating the Church Jesus was the bridegroom and the church the bride. Since Priests are continuing the role of Jesus and acting in proxy during holy communion, acting as the bridegroom, its important that they are men.
This is not to say that women can’t serve in the church. They can lead prayer, serve as eucharistic ministers, give readings. They simply can’t consecrate the Eucharist.
April 1st, 2005 at 8:10:12 pm
“I can’t specifically list which disciples weren’t jewish, as there were an untold number of disciples.”
I was referring specifically to the Twelve, as was Kate, but if that’s your answer, than it’s equally conceivable that some of those “untold number of disciples” were women, since the Gospels never told about them!
“All 12 apostles were Jewish but it doesn’t mean they were ethnically Jewish so much as religiously so….”
Actually, if you knew anything about Judaism, you’d understand that to be religiously Jewish is to be ethnically Jewish, too, and vice versa. You can’t convert to Judaism so simply as you can to Christianity–it’s quite a time-consuming process (you can ask Brendan’s mother about it). And once you’re Jewish, your kids (assuming you’re female) are automatically Jewish (assuming they’re born after you converted). Thus, there are Jews of every race and ethnicity, but they’re all equally Jewish.
“But the purpose of Jesus ministry was to spread a new covenant with the gentiles as well as the Jews.”
…And the spread of His ministry entailed women as well: “For there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor free…” etc.
“It is not therefore essential that all future priests be Jewish.”
Likewise, it is not therefore essential that all future priests be male, according to this particular line of reasoning.
“However in creating the Church Jesus was the bridegroom and the church the bride. Since Priests are continuing the role of Jesus and acting in proxy during holy communion, acting as the bridegroom, its important that they are men.”
I don’t necessarily agree with this argument either, but it at least has a lot more validity to its logic than does the previous argument that Kate and you were using. If you’re going to pin the necessity of priests being male on something, better this argument than the one before it.
April 1st, 2005 at 8:35:52 pm
Some day I’ll isolate the gene on the Y chromosome that encodes the “revealed truth” and end this nonsensical debate for good!
[joke, people. it’s a joke.]
April 1st, 2005 at 9:02:22 pm
Basically it comes down to this. Being Jewish isn’t key to being a Priest because Jesus Jewish-ness wasn’t key to his union with the Church. However his maleness was.
This isn’t an argument prefaced on trying to be as much like Jesus (physically) to be a priest. Otherwise we could ban all people who for example, were black, or asian, or blonde, etc. It goes to the essential relationship between Jesus and his Church.
April 1st, 2005 at 9:35:01 pm
You say this is not an argument prefaced on trying to be as much like Jesus (physically) to be a priest, but it seems to me that being Jewish is not just a physical trait, but integral to who Jesus was, who he was a decendant of, etc. In my limited understanding I have to take issue with your statement that Jesus being Jewish was not key to his union with the church. Isn’t Jesus being Jewish integral in the sense that the Jews have a covenant with God etc? I think you too easily dismiss Jesus’ “jewishness”.
April 1st, 2005 at 11:00:24 pm
Ok, so for personal reasons I’m not going to get too much into this, but just to skim a surface (and procrastinate a moment longer)…..=0)
“This is not to say that women can’t serve in the church. They can lead prayer, serve as eucharistic ministers, give readings. They simply can’t consecrate the Eucharist.”
Maybe women can’t consecrate a Eucharist in The Catholic Church. But women most certainly can consecrate a Eucharist in the catholic (small “c”) church.
“Being Jewish isn’t key to being a Priest because Jesus Jewish-ness wasn’t key to his union with the Church. However his maleness was.”
This link (maleness key to union with the church) has not been established, at least not in this comment set. The simple use of “bride” and “bridegroom” doesn’t do it. How can you put a limit on God’s ability to unite with His children?
April 1st, 2005 at 11:14:51 pm
I wasn’t dismissing his being Jewish at all. I think its important to remember the Jewish roots of Christianity, something I specifically pointed out above. However since his ministry was about extending the convenant to all peoples it doesn’t make sense to preface priesthood on being Jewish (btw Andrew your comments about being Jewish are wrong, but I’ll get to that in the next comment).
April 1st, 2005 at 11:16:33 pm
Andrew,
Given that I know people who are ethnic Jews who don’t practice Judaism, and I know people who are Jewish but not ethnic Jews your argument rather falls apart.
April 1st, 2005 at 11:37:11 pm
Well, Jesus was not only Jewish, but was also God.
Additionally, when the apostles left their families and gave up everything to follow Christ, it seems to me that they became Christians. Christ came not to abolish the law but to complete it. For more on the historical Jewishness of Christ, I recommend John Meier’s three-volune masterwork A Marginal Jew. Christ flouted many of the conventions of Judaism, constantly running afoul of the Jewish intelligentia.
Additionally, the biological reality of the two sexes has had a profound impact on the development of the Catholic theology of the human person. To wit, there is a profound theological difference between a person’s Jewishness or Christianness and their maleness or femaleness. This comments box is not an adequate space to extrapolate this; I refer you back to the extraordinary theological anthropology developed by JPII in Theology of the Body.
April 1st, 2005 at 11:56:11 pm
David, you are going to have to give me more than that to convey to me the role-or non-role–of Judaism in the life of Jesus. Ethnic Jews choosing not to practice Judaism, and people choosing to become practicing Jews, are tangential to what I think we are trying to discuss. So, his ministry is about extending the covenant to everyone, the gentile and the jew, and being male is essential but being Jewish is not. Maybe it does not make sense to you to preface priesthood on being Jewish, but that does not yet make sense to me. I am not arguying that it does make sense, I want to hear what you, or anyone else who wants to pitch in, have to say about it. Like I said, I think being Jewish is integral to who Jesus was, and I have yet to hear the explanation to why this is different that being male, or to why Christian leaders in general and Catholic priests in particular do not have to lead a more “Jewish” lifestyle, like the (I pressume) Jewish orthodox lifestyle Jesus lived by.
Please explain or direct me to an explanation :)
April 2nd, 2005 at 12:12:35 am
Ummm Jesus didn’t lead an orthodox Jewish lifestyle at all. That was kinda the whole point, he changed things.
April 2nd, 2005 at 12:42:08 am
I knew you would say that as soon as I posted it :)
Jesus did things different but did he not have a fairly “jewish” life? I do not think you’re going to be able to answer my question, since you have not been able to answer it thus far. And that if fine, I do not think I am succesfully conveying what it is I am wondering/asking about Jesus and the role of Judaism in his life. Why is Jesus being Jewish not essential? Why are things like keeping the Sabbath not essential? Why is Catholicism soo different from Judaism? Because when we incoporated us gentiles, everything changed and we could forgoe the practices and other stuff of the old testament to include the new gentiles, and we created a Christian out of this gentile/jewish fusion?
Maybe I need to take a religion class :)
April 2nd, 2005 at 2:28:28 am
Judaism is important as a foundation of Christianity, I don’t meant to deny that for a minute. And the fact that Jesus came from God’s chosen people I believe also has significance, especially in terms of fulfilling prophecy. Jesus being Jewish was important in a historical context in other words.
But the role of the priest during the consecration of the Eucharist, acting in proxy for Him isn’t related to Jesus being Jewish, it is related to His being the bridgegroom of the Church.
God created man and woman as two different halves that could come together as a whole. But each has different roles in His plan. This isn’t to say one is more important than the other. And i’m not talking about things like what kind of mundane jobs a person might have, whether a woman can be a firefighter or a man a nurse, but we ARE different and created for different things.
April 3rd, 2005 at 4:29:00 am
Oy vey, where do I begin?
“However since his ministry was about extending the convenant to all peoples it doesn’t make sense to preface priesthood on being Jewish….”
Sure it does. We even have New Testament precedent for it. Who did God choose to be the apostle to the Gentiles? He chose Paul, the Pharisee (i.e. the Orthodox Jewish Rabbi). Can you imagine a Hasidic Jew being the one to preach Christianity to Gentiles today? Because that is essentially what happened with Paul going to Greece and Rome. So by the same logic you use when you point to the maleness of the apostles as precedent for why priests ought to be men, I could point to Paul and argue that evangelists to non-Jews should be conducted by Messianic Jews (Orthodox Jewish Christians).
“Given that I know people who are ethnic Jews who don’t practice Judaism, and I know people who are Jewish but not ethnic Jews your argument rather falls apart.”
David, I am amazed at how often you rely on the argument, “I think, therefore I’m right.” You are only a Jew one of two ways: You are either born of a Jewish woman, or you converted under an Orthodox rabbi. Now, can you be a Jew and not follow Torah? Absolutely. It just means you’re a “bad” Jew. Can you be a Gentile and follow Torah as completely as an Orthodox Jew? Sure, but why would you bother to take on that burden, and either way, that wouldn’t make you Jewish–you still have to officially convert first (in biblical times, Gentiles who kept Torah were called “God-fearing Gentiles” and were often allowed to participate in communal affairs, but were not considered Jews unless they officially converted). You don’t have to ask me, you can go ask a rabbi, he’ll tell you the exact same thing.
“Additionally, when the apostles left their families and gave up everything to follow Christ, it seems to me that they became Christians.”
It seems to me you don’t know your Bible. The term Christians was not used by the apostles, they considered themselves to be Jews. In fact, the first major schism among the early Christians (who were all Jews and saw themselves merely as Jews who were following their Messiah) was between Peter (the supposed founder of the Catholic faith), who argued that Gentiles must become circumsized and hence become Jewish before they can follow Yeshua, and Paul (the Orthodox Rabbi), who said Gentiles were not required to become Jews and keep Torah, they were only required to follow the 5 laws of Noah. Early Christians never saw themselves as a separate people from their Jewish brethren, they saw themselves as simply the branch of Jews who had found the Messiah.
April 3rd, 2005 at 4:41:10 am
“Christ flouted many of the conventions of Judaism, constantly running afoul of the Jewish intelligentia.”
What a strange way to word that, “Jewish intelligentsia”. I believe you would be talking about the Jewish priesthood and rabbinical leadership (the Sanhedrin). In any case, whenever Jesus “flouted” these “conventions of Judaism”, the rabbis were always ultimately unable to prove he violated Torah. Even Pilate asked what law has he broken, and the Sanhedrin could give him no adequate reply. As you note, Yeshua came not to abolish the Torah but to fulfill it, so by your own admission, you agree that Jesus believed in keeping the law (written law = Torah, oral law = Mishna) and always attempted to live his life in an Orthodox Jewish manner. Did he upset some of the rabbinical thinking of his time? Sure, but he still kept Torah, and any Jewish scholar or rabbi will today admit that Yeshua was a great rabbi, but disagree that he was God.
“Ummm Jesus didn’t lead an orthodox Jewish lifestyle at all.”
Actually he did, but you wouldn’t know it because you don’t know the first thing about Orthodox Judaism.
“But the role of the priest during the consecration of the Eucharist, acting in proxy for Him isn’t related to Jesus being Jewish, it is related to His being the bridgegroom of the Church.”
One could argue the Jewish element is equally important. The Eucharist was in fact a Passover seder dinner, which, if you knew anything about it, you’d understand that the wine and the bread convey very important things. I actually find it ironic that many Christians participate in communion at their church, whether at a Catholic mass or Protestant service, and yet have no idea of the very Jewish foundation that communion represents. When Jesus said those words, he was speaking to a Jewish audience, who understood what the bread and wine represented, and so when he said those things, he was conveying something far more radical than you would otherwise realize because you have to understand the symbolism of the seder to get it.
April 3rd, 2005 at 5:10:50 am
Actually he did, but you wouldn’t know it because you don’t know the first thing about Orthodox Judaism.
I don’t really? Wow I’m glad you know everything about me instead of being a pompous jerk. If Jesus had been an Orthodox Jew do you think he really would have been running afoul of the Pharisees all the time? I think not.
The Eucharist was in fact a Passover seder dinner, which, if you knew anything about it
Actually I DO know about the Seder, in fact the Hillel and Newman centers up here co-sponsor one each year in order to help people understand that Jesus was the Passover sacrifice for us all.
But thats ok, you seem to know exactly what I do and don’t know anyway so what does it matter what I say right?
Or maybe your just full of yourself and don’t have a clue. Lets see 2000 years of Church scholars or Andrew Long, which one should I listen to…
April 3rd, 2005 at 5:31:21 am
“If Jesus had been an Orthodox Jew do you think he really would have been running afoul of the Pharisees all the time? I think not.”
That’s pretty dumb logic. That’s like saying if I disagree with the Church infant baptism, transubstantiation, and eating meat on Good Friday, I must not be Catholic. I happen to not be Catholic, but I know many Catholic intellectuals who nevertheless disagree on certain doctrines with the Church.
In any case, Jesus kept the Sabbath, he ate only kosher food, he performed and participated in all the Jewish rituals and sacrifices, and celebrated all of the holidays. You tell me, what did he do that was not Orthodox?
April 3rd, 2005 at 3:45:53 pm
Lets see, he performed miracles on the Sabbath, kept company with people who were considered sinners, touched the sick and the dying. None of those were things that an Orthodox Jew of the time would do. Heck that was the whole point of the story of the Good Samaritan.
In addition I am not claiming that just because I say it, I’m right about the two kinds of Jewish thing. I’m saying it because its factually true. You can be ethnically Jewish, religiously Jewish OR both.
April 3rd, 2005 at 6:19:32 pm
You two need to stop fighting over who knows more about Jesus! I do not think Jesus meant for people to argue like you two over this, but to actually have a dialouge. I know politics is confrontational, and talking about religion can be too, but listen to yourselves! The two of you are Christians! And you are fighting over who knows about Jesus more! I think Andrew has a good point about the general ignorance of Judaism’s role in the life of Jesus, because really a lot of people do not know much about it, and perhaps David does know more than we speculate on this subject, but we wouldn’t guess it from statements like, well Jesus hung out with sinners so he must not have led an orthodox life etc. So, why don’t the both of you actually talk to each other and not at each other on this one? Or stop arguying over Jesus, you look dumb.
I am going to church now, to hear about the everlasting covenant that I think Andrew is talking about..? :)
April 3rd, 2005 at 7:48:57 pm
Next time you try and play peacemaker Bea you might want to try and hide your bias. Complementing Andrew and then insulting me doesn’t exactly do much for your point.
April 3rd, 2005 at 8:43:57 pm
Urgh David.
Hide my bias? You think I have a bias towards Andrew? hahahhaha, he wishes, believe me, sometimes he wishes I was biased towards him :)
Complimeting Andrew? Look at my posts, I have been asking you to convey to me why Jesus being Jewish is not essential, and it is a valid question and I think you are not really answering my question, nor do I expect you to, so I am going to a talk on Judaism and Catholicism at my local church tomorrow night. Do not dismiss me as siding with my boyfriend to spite you or something (forgive me if I am wrong, but that is what this sounds like to me).
I happen to agree with Andrew’s general point that the role of Judaism in Jesus’ life is important and often overlooked. I agree with him, but not because he is my boyfriend. God knows we disagree on plenty :) I already had my conversation last night with Andrew on this whole thing. And I was not complimenting him then–or now.
Insulting you? All I said is comments like “(Jesus) kept company with people who were considered sinners” do not say much about whether Jesus lead an orthodox life or not, since, well, everyone is a sinner, so sure he hung out with sinners. I was looking for the Bible explanation on it, if you will (again, this is why I am going to that talk tomorrow).
Peacemaker? Hardly. I am not asking you two kiss and make up, but to realize how un-Jesus-like it is to argue over this instead of having a real dialouge. Yeah, maybe I did insult you, and Andrew too, by calling you dumb for fighting over who knows more about Jesus. But dude, if you cant see that, well, that sucks. It seems one of the few things the three of us have in common is being Christian, so if we cannot talk about that without you two getting all confrontational and you accusing me of being biased when all I want is some answers, and to point out how unnecesarry it is to fight over who knows more about Jesus, well, I guess we are just about done here. Seriously David, can we talk?
April 4th, 2005 at 1:33:39 am
“Lets see, he performed miracles on the Sabbath, kept company with people who were considered sinners, touched the sick and the dying. None of those were things that an Orthodox Jew of the time would do. Heck that was the whole point of the story of the Good Samaritan.”
Ask any Orthodox rabbi today about those issues, and he will find nothing there that disqualifies Jesus from being an Orthodox Jew.
“In addition I am not claiming that just because I say it, I’m right about the two kinds of Jewish thing. I’m saying it because its factually true. You can be ethnically Jewish, religiously Jewish OR both.”
Again, ask an Orthodox Jew, or ask Leanna Loomer. You cannot be religiously Jewish and ethnically not-Jewish unless you convert, but by the Jews’ very own definitions, you’re henceforth ethnically Jewish too once you convert, as all the kids you bear from that point on (if you’re female) are automatically Jewish. You simply do not know what you’re talking about.
April 4th, 2005 at 3:36:50 am
Sorry Andrew, but you just can’t declare someone to be part of an ethnic group.
And the position of an Orthodox Rabbi today is irellavent, if you want to prove your point you need to consider what an Orthodox Rabbi in Jesus time would have taught.
April 4th, 2005 at 4:19:35 am
Um, actually, you can. Once again, I give you Merriam-Webster:
“Main Entry: 2ethnic
Function: noun
: a member of an ethnic group; especially : a member of a minority group who retains the customs, language, or social views of the group ”
That would seem to indicate that what you are at birth doesn’t control your ethnic affiliation for life. It does seem to act as a counterargument to the idea that Jewish people who follow no Jewish traditions, rituals, language, or social customs are nonetheless Jews, however.
More generally, ethnic identity is not fixed upon birth, but can be influenced heavily by one’s environment. One of my old choir/schoolmates was of Chinese descent, but ethnically she wasn’t Chinese–being adopted at birth by a white couple in the US, and raised in a completely English-speaking setting with no particular attention paid to any Chinese customs or celebrations in among the least racially-diverse suburbs known to mankind, Wendy has pretty much the same ethnicity that I do: White-Bread Amercian Suburbian. I can probably get some references for this type of thing from some of my anthropology friends, if anyone’s interested.