|
1) Jewish Converts
2) Concluding Thoughts
Note: There are many "links" interspersed throughout these pages. By clicking on a link, you will be connected with background or source material regarding the text that directly precedes it. There are also many links that are underlined words, phrases or numbered footnotes.
Jewish Converts to Catholicism
In addition to the problematic statements and sources listed above, Bob has taken an unnecessarily suspicious, adversarial and sometimes condemnatory approach to Jews, even when they convert to Catholicism.
Link1, Link2, Link3, Question 18, Link5
In these links and other places, Bob criticizes and condemns Jewish “converts” Roy Schoeman, David Moss, Rosalind Moss and Marty Barrack for many things. However he has particularly singled out Schoeman and Moss, unfairly lumping them in with the “Covenant and Missions crowd.” (This refers to the document, Reflections on Covenant and Mission issued by a committee of the USCCB back in 2002)
Unfortunately, as I have documented below, Bob began criticizing Schoeman’s work before he had even read any of it. In fact, he began criticizing Schoeman based on a review written by E. Michael Jones. 14 I am still unsure if Bob has actually read his work completely now or not. Regardless, it is clear that Bob approached Schoeman’s book with a strongly negative predisposition, searching for things to condemn rather than reading the book with any semblance of fairness and objectivity.
Candidly, after reading his reviews, I wondered if we had read the same book. To Bob, it appears to be just short of the Satanic Bible for the grave dangers it poses (“one of the most pernicious and nefarious heresies the Church has ever faced”, as he puts it, below). While I do not intend to deny the possibility that certain things may need clarification (or even modification), or that a Catholic may legitimately disagree with certain ideas (which may be true of good and worthwhile books, I might add); Bob’s approach certainly does not evince confidence and trust in his objectivity and good intentions. And again, this should be seen in a larger context. It seems clear that Bob adopts a notably different standard for certain topics or people. This practice has been evidenced before in regard to criticisms he and/or his colleague Chris Ferrara have made against Dr. Scott Hahn 15 and Pope John Paul II (clear illustrations of the latter can also be provided, if necessary).
The following are samples of Bob’s writing in regard to Jewish converts to Catholicism:
1) Sungenis: “We even have Jewish converts to Catholicism today, like Roy Schoeman and David Moss, who propagate these same sentiments by claiming that the Old Covenant is still in force, and that the Jews are going to take over Palestine under divine mandate and offer sacrifices in Jerusalem again, and all this in fulfillment, they claim, by the words of Jesus Christ. This is total nonsense, and it is one of the most pernicious and nefarious heresies the Church has ever faced.” [link]
Note: Neither Schoeman nor Moss believe or teach that Jews do not need Christ because they have their own salvific covenant with God apart from Christ. Bob’s statement about Palestine and Jewish sacrifices offered there is also very misleading (this is explained further below).
2) R. Sungenis: "CAI has consistently taught the Church’s traditional teaching: (a) that the Old Covenant has been abolished and there is only one covenant of salvation today, the New Covenant in Jesus Christ, and (b) that the Jews must convert to Christianity in order to be saved."
"Below you will see that both these teachings have been confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI in his Wednesday morning address of March 16, 2006. In one of his paragraphs the pope states:"
'By their mere existence, the twelve – called from different backgrounds – have become a summons to all Israel to conversion and to allow themselves to be reunited in a new covenant, full and perfect accomplishment of the old.'”
"As we would expect for a message that disagrees with the current consensus among 2002 'Covenant and Missions' authors (e.g., Cardinal Keeler and Jewish rabbis) and various Jewish converts (e.g., Roy Schoeman and David Moss), the only place this address was publicized was L’Osservatore Romano." End Sungenis quote [link]
Note:
1) The quote from the Pope does not quite say what Bob says that it does. Bob is extrapolating.
2) Bob again unfairly lumps both David Moss and Roy Schoeman in with “the RCM crowd" that believes there are two, separate salvific covenants with God and that Jews need not accept Christ.
In addition, he harshly criticizes Marty Barrack and Rosalind Moss. However, I am not really acquainted with what they have written and so have not attempted to address them here (however, this link at least makes clear Barrack's reaction to RCM). Nonetheless, in light of what Bob has written about Schoeman, Moss and Jewish issues in general, I believe his charges in their regard should be viewed with healthy skepticism. Below are a few examples:
a) (Sungenis): “The problem, however, is that in most cases these Jewish converts have not let go of their Judaism, and worse, they are systematically trying to integrate it with Christianity and convince other Catholics they should do the same. The attempt at integration can range anywhere from advocating the celebration of Jewish holy days to anticipating the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem for the purpose of ritual sacrifices. Regardless of the form, the substance is the subject of this essay -- Judaizing the Catholic faith.” [link]
Note: Here, Bob seems to clearly imply an almost nefarious conspiracy: "and worse, they are systematically trying to integrate it with Christianity and convince other Catholics they should do the same."
b) (Sungenis): “…(Moss) is against bringing Jews into Catholicism by means of direct evangelism.” [link]
Note: Moss and his sister are against “targeting” Jews for conversion, as is apparent in their statements quoted in the article written by Bob. If one contacts them, they will verify this. What do they mean by “targeting”? They oppose aggressive means to single Jews out (or any group, not just Jews, for that matter). They believe such practices are imprudent and ineffective, especially today.
Personally, I found that none of the Jewish people I have helped into the Church were reached by blatantly treating them as in league with the Devil, as Bob does. He seems to think that continually referring to Jews who do not accept Christ in such harsh, damning terms is a dogmatic requirement rather than mutable pastoral judgment. I doubt that the Holy Spirit intends for Catholics to broadly consider Jews in such ways today any more than the Church considers Protestants of today in the same as the fathers of Protestantism: Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.
Never did I treat any of these people I helped into the Church as “Jews” over which I could notch my belt by “converting them”. Each was a unique journey of respect and love. One such journey, that of a man whom I am proud to call my best friend, took nearly 10 years.
So, I think the real issues are these: Are either Moss or Schoeman opposed to the conversion of Jews to the Church? Emphatically, no. Do they actively desire that Jews accept Christ and come into the Catholic Church? Emphatically, yes. The witness of their lives and work makes no sense if these things are not true. Schoeman’s website has a page devoted to prayers for the conversion of Jews to Christ [link]. He is well known for the line, “The Jews brought Christ to the Gentiles. Isn’t it time to return the favor?” In an article recently printed in AHC, Schoeman even wrote, “No Christian can afford to allow the Holocaust to stand in the way of evangelizing the Jews.”
By its very nature, the means of evangelization is a subjective, prudential matter. Good Catholics may understandably disagree. But to paint this as a black and white, quasi-dogmatic, condemnable matter in the way Bob and his colleagues have is misleading to the point of being false in my opinion. Apparently, even Schoeman and Moss differ somewhat on their ideas of evangelization (how strong, etc.), but they do not disagree in their abiding desire to bring Jews to Christ.
All of this is especially ironic in Schoeman’s case as he wrote his book largely as a refutation of the unfortunate “Reflections on Covenenant Mission” document that was supportive of the two covenant theory (a document strongly criticized by Moss as well). While Bob seems to almost acknowledge this fact on one occasion, in others he errantly condemns Schoeman (and Moss) as though he is in agreement with RCM (documented above).
Schoeman addresses the issue of the Jewish temple three times in Salvation is from the Jews, all in relatively close proximity. And nowhere does he endorse the building of the temple as a development actively directed and sought by God that ought to be embraced accordingly by Catholics or assert that the sacrifices offered there would be efficacious in God’s sight, as Bob charges. Schoeman sees the possible rebuilding of the Jewish temple as having eschatological significance, perhaps creating a tension with Muslims that would bring about a global war for instance. I have verified this with him personally as well.
This is what Bob recently had to say about Schoeman and the Jewish Temple:
(Sungenis): “We even have Jewish converts to Catholicism today, like Roy Schoeman and David Moss, who propagate these same sentiments by claiming that the Jews are going to…offer sacrifices in Jerusalem again, and all this in fulfillment, they claim, by the words of Jesus Christ. This is total nonsense, and it is one of the most pernicious and nefarious heresies the Church has ever faced.”
Yet, when writing about the Antichrist as being Jewish, he writes:
(Sungenis):“As we have documented earlier, our Catholic saints and doctors have said the same thing. The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia predicts that the Antichrist will come from Jewry. The 1936 Catholic Encyclopedia followed this by predicting that a Temple would be built for him in Jerusalem…” [link]
And finally, this is what Bob wrote back about 3 ½ years ago to Bill Cork:
(Bill Cork): "You (Bob Sungenis) say, 'the man of sin will make a pact with Israel and build the long-awaited temple during a period of three and one half years. After that time, he will turn against the Jews and reveal his true identity. Shortly thereafter, Christ will come back in judgment at His Second Coming.'
"Um, that's Hal Lindsay ... Tim LaHaye. Stay away from those Left Behind books, please. You won't find this in the Catechism."
(Sungenis): "The only thing left behind here is your knowledge of the Fathers. They say the same thing. So do the medievals. I quoted some of them in my essay."
End Cork/Sungenis excerpt
Note:
First, Bob clearly defended the idea that the Temple would be rebuilt during the end times in Jerusalem. He insisted that “the Fathers” and “the Medievals” said the same thing. And if they rebuild it, clearly they will do so with the intention of offering sacrifices there.
Second, Schoeman and Moss are propagating “one of the most pernicious and nefarious heresies the Church has ever faced”? At the least, that charge would seem to be unnecessarily extreme.
Additionally, the question needs to be asked: If Bob believes that the Jewish Temple will be rebuilt during the end times and in Jerusalem (an opinion held by the Fathers and Medievals, as he put it), exactly how are the Jewish people to accomplish this prophetically significant feat if they do not simultaneously possess the land of Israel (or Palestine, depending upon your preference)? Bob seems to have expended a great deal of energy denouncing this idea as an extension of Zionism. To be clear, I am not hereby advocating Zionism by that comment (although that term seems to be defined differently depending upon one’s predispositions). I honestly don’t know the answer to the question. But it would seem to me that we ought to expect that Jerusalem will be under Jewish control during this critical period if they are to rebuild the temple there.
For the record, I called David Moss recently and he indicated that he has not taken any official position on the potential rebuilding of the Jewish temple at all. This is not what Bob and his colleagues have portrayed and implied in their condemnations and denouncements of these men.
3) Sungenis: “Schoeman’s next claim is that Hosea 3:5 is a prophecy concerning a distinctive conversion of Jews near the Second Coming of Christ… Hosea 3:5 is one of the passages Church tradition has understood as fulfilled in the first coming of Christ, but Schoeman is trying to confiscate it for Zionism… Suffice it to say, there is nothing in the context of Hosea 3:5 which even remotely points to the Second Coming of Christ and an exclusive conversion of Jews." end (emphasis added)
Note: the following is from addendum #1 (section 5) on the issue of the “Conversion of the Jews”:
* The highly respected Scripture scholar Fr. Leo Haydock in his Biblical commentary,
published in 1859, (highly recommended by Bob for its excellent scholarship (12) and included in Bob’s short list of “must haves”) has the following to say about Hosea 3:2-5:
“Verse 2: The unbelieving Jews, who refrain from idols, receive some
temporal advantages, but not….faith of the blessed Trinity and the
observance of the Decalogue whereby they might obtain eternal life.
Towards the end of the world they shall be converted.”
“Verse 5: ‘David their king’ . That is, Christ, who is of the house of
David. Ch. - After the captivity, the Jews submitted to Zorobabel. Yet
this only foreshewed a more sincere conversion to Jesus Christ. In fact,
the house of David never regained the throne, (C.) and it is not clear that
Zorobabel had any authority over the people. H.- Christ is the literal
object of this prediction.” (emphasis added)
I don’t believe Bob would seriously want to accuse acclaimed scripture scholar, Fr. George Leo Haydock (writing in the mid 1800’s), of being a Zionist conspirator, impugn his exegetical skills and declare him to be in violation of "Church tradition." Even more interesting is that Blessed Pope Pius XI referred to this very passage in terms of the return of Israel to Christ (see section 5, addendum #1).
4) Sungenis: “This is certainly a novel interpretation. Unfortunately for Moss, it totally distorts the words of Romans 11:17-20… Moss believes that the “root” of Romans 11 is Israel, not Christ, and that as the Gentiles are saved as they are grafted into Israel. This is wrong. The root is Christ, not Israel.….It is as if Moss is saying, “You Gentiles are only saved because of us Jews, and in order to appreciate that fact, you should practice these Jewish rituals.” [link]
Note: The “Moss” Bob refers to here is David Moss, president of the Association of Hebrew Catholics (AHC). And I find his choice of words significant. Bob seemed clearly irritated at what he perceived as David Moss’ Jewish arrogance (“You Gentiles are only saved because of us Jews…”). But perhaps Bob’s own predispositions are coloring his interpretation of what Moss wrote.
Bob almost treats this passage as though the meaning of it has been dogmatically defined in the way he interprets it and thus Moss is a dangerous heretic for contradicting that interpretation. But there are two problems with this strong criticism. The first is that David Moss has never said that “the root is Israel, not Christ.” Here Bob puts words into Moss’s mouth that make the case look more ominous, more absolute. In fact, I have confirmed with Moss that he has no issue with seeing the root as Christ as well. He never intended to “deny” this possibility. The second problem with Bob’s criticism is that Moss’s initial interpretation is not so entirely novel, as it appears that Abrosiaster and Pelagius support it. [link]
The final problem with Bob’s criticism is that several Fathers, saints and/or Catholic scholars, including St. John Chrysostom, Diodore, Pseudo-Constantius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyr, Dom Bernard Orchard, Fr. George Leo Haydock, Fr. Richard Stack and the Moffat New Testament Commentary all saw the root as the Semite Abraham and/or the Patriarchs.[link] One doubts Bob would similarly respond to these men for an interpretation that differs from his own.
5) Sungenis: “Suffice it to say, Mr. Schoeman is on a mission…This is not about 'ethnic' acceptance of Jews, but about Schoeman’s attempt to revise Catholic theology for the sake of the Jews.”
Note: I believe the animus in this statement is clear enough. Bob seems fully convinced that Schoeman is a subversive, untrustworthy Jew who is more worried about “the sake of the Jews” than the Catholic faith. He is apparently a Jew first and a Catholic second in Bob’s eyes.
6) Upon skimming through the great volumes Bob has written against Schoeman and Moss, I came across the following article: Judaizers in the Catholic Church. I have no intention of contesting everything Bob has written relating to Jews, as it is not necessary to establish the points I enumerated at the beginning. However, I think it is worth taking a minute to examine part of this one particular article in detail, because I believe it clearly illustrates something significant.
Sungenis: “Schoeman then enters into a most crucial phase of his Zionistic interpretations – those dealing with the actual events leading up to the Second Coming. He (Schoeman) writes:"
“Related to the prophecies about the Antichrist and the final war is the belief that prior to the Second Coming, the Temple in Jerusalem will be built. This is based on an interpretation of Daniel 9-12, in which Daniel 9 refers to the Second Coming of Christ.”
“(Schoeman) then begins his application:”
“Although the prophecies of Daniel are at times associated with other events, too, since Jesus explicitly applies them to the Second Coming, that must be at least one of their intended fulfillments. The prophecies mention the sacrifice ceasing and the temple being profaned; the Church Fathers [interpret] this in a spiritual sense, to refer to a cessation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. But, it is conceivable that it might also have a literal fulfillment, if the Temple in Jerusalem should be rebuilt. And this is now within the realm of possibility. In 1967, for the first time in almost two thousand years, Jews regained possession of the Temple Mount, and there are now organizations in Israel attempting to rebuild the Temple. Should it be rebuilt on the Temple Mount, also claimed by Islam as a holy site, it is not hard to envision how that in itself could precipitate the global war known as ‘Armageddon.’”
“As stated earlier, the purpose of this discussion is not to ‘prove’ that the Second Coming is near. Many of the proposed interpretations of the prophecies are speculative. Yet cumulatively they suggest that the Second Coming takes place at a time when the Jewish people have returned to Israel and formed a Jewish nation. If this is, in fact, a precondition for the return of Christ, the concerted efforts of the past century to eliminate the Jews and, failing that, to destroy the nascent State of Israel, well might be part of a diabolical attempt to prevent the Second Coming.”
(End of excerpt from Sungenis article)
Note: Now let’s take a look at Bob’s subsequent critique. I believe Bob’s primary mistake is that he repeatedly extrapolates to certain conclusions based on what Schoeman has written and treats these extrapolations as Schoeman’s own express intentions, which Bob then promptly condemns. For example:
1) (Sungenis): “Schoeman believes that this new Temple will…be a fulfillment of divine favor…”
Note: Yet, nowhere did Schoeman write this. This is clearly an extrapolation by Bob. In fact, I have verified with Schoeman that this was not his intention. There is a difference between perceiving something in prophetic terms and asserting that it is therefore actively desired by God. For instance, the crucifixion of Christ was prophesied in Scripture, yet it does not therefore follow that God actively desired the death of Christ.
2) Bob continues: “but his recalling that Daniel’s ‘prophecies mention the sacrifice ceasing and the temple being profaned,’ coupled with Schoeman’s rejection of the interpretation of the Church Fathers that the sacrifice which ceases refers to a termination of the Catholic Mass, shows that Schoeman fully anticipates a return of Old Covenant cultic sacrifices as a primary sign of divine blessing upon the Jews.”
Note: Here, Bob’s personal extrapolation is even clearer, yet again, he insists upon treating it as Schoeman’s express intention. I see no place wherein Schoeman has, “rejected the interpretation of the Church Fathers that the sacrifice which ceases refers to a termination of the Catholic Mass.” To the contrary, on the very page Bob quotes from Salvation is from the Jews (p. 315), Schoeman writes:
“the prophecies (of Daniel) mention the sacrifice ceasing and the temple being profaned; the Church Fathers interpret this in a spiritual sense, to refer to a cessation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. But, it is conceivable that it might also have a literal fulfillment, if the Temple in Jerusalem should be rebuilt…” (emphasis added)
Clearly, Schoeman does not “reject” the interpretation of the Fathers here in regard to the Mass. However, he suggests that "it is conceivable" there may be additional fulfillments to consider (and he refers to previous events that Catholics have viewed as possible fulfillments as well). This is not a contradictory interpretation, it is a complementary one. The words “might also” are not exclusive, they are inclusive.
Additionally, even if Schoeman did intend an exclusive interpretation (which he did not), his choice of words, “it is conceivable that it might also” is anything but absolutist. This portrayal of Schoeman’s point in such black and white terms as “rejection” is therefore unjustifiable.
And again, Schoeman does not think or intend to assert that a restoration of the Jewish Temple would therefore be a sign of “God’s divine blessing” upon the Jewish people.
3) Bob continues: “Then, by a strange twist on predictive prophecy never before seen, Schoeman posits that the “abomination” spoken of by Daniel occurs when these cultic sacrifices are interrupted by the Antichrist. In other words, because the re-institution of Temple worship, as it was practiced in the Old Testament, is, according to Schoeman, from divine favor upon the Jews, anyone who would attempt to stop it is of the Antichrist! Suffice it to say, this is the ultimate Judaizing of the Catholic Church – Temple worship under the auspices of Catholicism.”
Note: Again, it is not “according to Schoeman” that the reinstitution of Temple worship is from divine favor. It is “according to Bob’s extrapolations of Schoeman” that it is “from divine favor.” The give-away that this is the problem is contained in Bob’s own expression, “In other words…” These “other words” are not those of Schoeman.
And it seems unreasonable to extrapolate to the firm conclusion that Schoeman must therefore be insisting that “anyone who would attempt to stop it is of the Antichrist!”, as Bob phrased it.
4) Bob continues: “In the process, Schoeman, by his own admission, has eliminated the Church as the fulcrum of prophetic prophecy….”
Note: Precisely where did Schoeman “by his own admission…eliminate the Church as the fulcrum of prophetic prophecy”? (And what is “prophetic prophecy”?) It is certainly not expressly there. And I don’t think it is even implied. Isn’t there a Catholic “both/and” available? Why does everything along these lines seem to be an “either/or” for Bob?
Is it absolutely certain and inescapable that one view or interpretation of prophetic/eschatological occurrences contradicts and precludes all others? I don’t believe so, any more than when St. Augustine speaks only about the symbolic nature of the Holy Eucharist in certain places he intends to “eliminate” the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation.
Personally, I have long speculated as to multiple-fulfillments of the “abomination of desolation standing in the Holy Place”, including the possibility that it may also refer to the creation of a human-looking being without a soul, created through a process of animal/human cloning (which is reportedly now being done: link). St. Paul, after all, teaches that our bodies are the “temple of God” (1 Cor 3:16). Others have pointed to some of the previous events at the Fatima shrine.
But most importantly, and to the point: Is it fair and reasonable to portray me as “eliminating” or “rejecting” the Church from these prophecies on this basis? As a corollary, in the Old Testament, prophecy may have multiple fulfillments, and this does not detract from God’s glory and sovereignty, it multiplies it.
In fact, Schoeman writes, “Many of the prophecies cited have multiple interpretations, and it is certainly speculative to associate them with particular events of our day…” (p 306, Salvation is from the Jews) and “biblical prophecies frequently refer to different events taking place in different epochs” (p 307, ibid). It seems clear from the book alone that Schoeman does not intend to do what Bob accuses him of.
5) Bob continues: “That these Temple sacrifices necessitate the formal return of Judaism (or perhaps some type of Judaistic-Catholic hybrid) as the pinnacle of divine favor doesn’t seem to bother Schoeman in the least.”
Note: This seems a particularly extreme and unwarranted charge. On what legitimate basis does Bob accuse Schoeman of perhaps supporting “some type of Judaistic-Catholic hybrid” involving temple sacrifice or at least “not being bothered” by such an idea? In light of such extreme and unwarranted charges, I do not imagine that many people would respond by engaging in open discussion. Finally, how does the presence of anything, by itself, necessarily imply God’s favor? Antichrist plays a key role in end-times prophecy, yet we do not believe this is a sign of “divine favor.”
6) Bob continues: “In reality, Schoeman’s attempt to resurrect Old Covenant sacrifices and theocratic worship is one of the most audacious pieces of private interpretation ever seen in the history of Christianity.”
Note: I would at least agree that someone is engaging in “audacious private interpretation”. That said, in fairness, again, I can at least see where one may legitimately ask for clarification from Schoeman on some of these points. One could conceivably even argue that certain things may eventually need to be modified. I have no issues with such possibilities and consider such discussions, when handled fairly and charitably, perfectly legitimate.
For instance, the Scriptural prophecy about the cessation of the sacrifice does seem to imply that God will be displeased about this development. One may question whether the Jewish Temple could ever potentially fulfill this prophecy because we know that sacrifices now offered in the Jewish Temple could never be pleasing and efficacious in God’s eyes. There is only one such sacrifice: that of Jesus Christ which is re-presented at each and every Mass (which Schoeman would not dispute).
However, Bob’s harsh, suspicious and condemnatory approach here is not justified. Again, while I do not question that certain things may need clarification (or potentially even modification), or that a Catholic may legitimately disagree with certain ideas, as I have documented, Bob began criticizing Schoeman’s work before he had even read any of it. Such things illustrate a serious lack of objectivity, fairness and good will.
There are other examples of this treatment, for instance: [link]
1) (Sungenis): “…there is something very seriously wrong occurring in the theology of Roy Schoeman and David Moss, and it seems to be going over the heads of many people, or, as is sometimes the case, people may be deliberately side-stepping the problem for their own personal reasons.”
Note: I think there is irony in this charge, especially the implication that their predispositions are unduly coloring their understanding.
2) Here, Bob criticizes Schoeman for writing that it was part of God’s design that the Jews did not accept Christ when He first came (a, b and c), while in a different situation Bob has written that, if anything, one must believe precisely that it was God’s design that the Jews did not accept Christ (d).
a) (Sungenis): “Schoeman’s attempt here…is to put the onus on God for the present disbelief of the Jews…”
b) (Sungenis): “Schoeman implies that…it was somehow 'God’s plan' that they remain in unbelief...Suffice it to say, Schoeman’s theodicy is quite off the mark”
c) (Sungenis): “Schoeman intimates that God 'mysteriously' put the Jews in unbelief by His own accord…”
As opposed to:
d) (Sungenis): “Since the Jews, at large, have rejected Christ and Christianity for the entire time of their existence, ‘God's design,’ if anything, must be understood as the source of that unbelief. Not surprisingly, this is precisely what St. Paul says in Romans 11, that is, that the unbelief of the Jews, by ‘God's design,’ will continue right up until the end, and only a remnant out of Jewry will be saved, as was the case in the Old Testament as well.” (emphasis added) [link]:
Note: So is it permissible to say that by "God's design" the Jewish people, as a whole, have been kept in the darkness or not? Or is it okay for Bob to say this but not for Jewish converts? In the case of quotes “a” through “c”, Bob was criticizing Schoeman in the context of Schoeman’s explanation of the idea that at some point God will relent in hardening the hearts of the Jews, as a people. In the case of the last quote, “d”, he was reacting against the document Reflections on Covenant and Mission, after it stated “The permanence of Israel, while so many ancient peoples have disappeared without trace, is a historic fact and a sign to be interpreted within God's design.”
It would seem he genuinely dislikes both of these ideas, making what appear to be clearly contradictory arguments in the process.
3) (Sungenis): “not only do I contend that Moss and Schoeman are reintroducing a modern-day Judaizing theology, I would go so far as to say that it is a hyper-Judaizing theology. This is especially the case with Roy Schoeman, as he has outlined his case in his book, Salvation is from the Jews. The mere title, because it is thoroughly anachronistic, should send shivers up the spine of any faithful Catholic…It is the Church that provides salvation after the cross, not the Jews.”
Note: “Judaizers” was apparently not enough. Moss and Schoeman must be condemned as “hyper-Judaizers?” I also found it remarkable that a passage from Holy Scripture, especially one spoken by Christ Himself, could “send shivers up” Bob’s spine. One may reasonably ask if all interpretations Bob considers to be anachronistic elicit such a strong visceral response from him.
Additionally, I am not sure why Bob believes this must be viewed as an anachronism at all. Isn’t Jesus Christ the source of our salvation? And isn’t He now eternally a Jew, born of the Jewess, Mary, herself the Mediatrix of all graces? As such, while it is certainly correct to say that the Church is the means of salvation, how does this negate or contradict the statement that “Salvation is from the Jews” even now? Why force this to be an “either/or” again?
Bob’s criticism seems to effectively put Christ and the Church at odds. It seems to me that salvation may very literally be viewed as, “from the Jews.” (And, to be clear, I do not thereby intend to “eliminate” or “reject” any Person of the Holy Trinity or the Church by expressing this). Why is the fact that man’s salvation comes from the Jews so disturbing as to send shivers up Bob’s spine?
In regard to Jewish rituals and customs, Bob has charged Schoeman and Moss with trying to force these into Catholic worship and practice:
(Sungenis): “The problem…is that in most cases these Jewish converts…are forcefully trying to integrate (Judaism) with Christianity.” [link]
Note: Bob has gone so far as to condemn Schoeman, Moss and other such Jewish converts as “Judaizers”, as documented above. However, I have not seen that either Schoeman or Moss is fairly categorized as such, at least certainly not based on Bob’s proposed evidence against them. Yet, they do, for instance, each see significant value in understanding and celebrating a Passover Seder in a way that emphasizes its meaning in the light of Jesus Christ. I think it is somewhat analogous to reading the Old Testament in light of the New Testament and seeing the unmistakable mark of God’s incredible handiwork in the process. One cannot fairly characterize this as trying to force something upon the Church.
Additionally, again, as I have documented, Bob first began criticizing Schoeman’s work before he had even read it, basing his critique solely upon what he read from a review written by E. Michael Jones.
Finally, please let me emphasize again: I am not hereby suggesting that legitimate criticisms cannot be made of Schoeman’s or Moss’ work. And neither man has ever expressed any expectation of such preferential treatment. It is possible there may be areas in each man’s work that could use some clarification or modification. However, it should not be too much to ask that such criticisms be offered fairly, responsibly and charitably rather than a spirit of ready, dark suspicion, condemnation and conspiracy-mongering. Certainly, it would also help to establish the proper dynamic if Bob his colleagues read the entire works under consideration before commencing with any criticism, let alone the kind of harsh, absolute condemnation they have leveled to date. And finally, it would certainly help if Moss, Schoeman and other Catholics with a Jewish background were treated more as individuals, rather than as “Jews”. In fact, again, Schoeman and Moss differ over certain significant issues relating to Jewish identity within the Church and other matters as well.
The word “arrogance” has been used and implied by Bob and his colleague Chris Ferrara, in regard to these men. It seems they perceive Schoeman and Moss as believing themselves superior because of their Jewish background.16 Certainly, at least the following passage from a presentation Schoeman gave does not support such a conclusion:
“One can ask, why did God choose the Jews? …God always seems to
choose the weakest and most unworthy for His special graces, precisely
so that the whole world knows that what’s happening is coming from God
and doesn’t belong to the people themselves. There are lots of examples
of this. For example, there is St. Bernadette, a virtually illiterate peasant
girl, receiving the apparition of Our Lady of Lourdes. And there was Jesus’
response to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, chosen to receive the Sacred
Heart apparitions. When Jesus revealed Himself, she asked Him, “Why
me, why did you choose me?” He replied was, “Oh that’s very simple,
if I could have found anyone else smaller and more worthless than you,
I would have chosen her instead.”
In fact, God makes it explicit in the Old Testament that this is why He
chose the Jews. In Ezekiel 16, we read:
“Thus says the Lord God to Jerusalem, your origin and your birth are of
the land of the Canaanites, your father was an Amorite, your mother a
Hittite. On the day you were born, your naval string was not cut, nor were
you washed with water to cleanse you nor rubbed with salt nor swathed
with bands. … And when I passed you by, and saw you weltering in your
blood, I said to you in your blood, live! … Then I bathed you with water
and washed off your blood, and anointed you with oil. I clothed you with
embroidered cloth and shod you with leather. I swathed you with fine
linen and covered you with silk … And your renown went forth among
the nations because of your beauty, for it was perfect thru the splendor
which I had bestowed upon you, says the Lord God.”
Here God Himself explicitly says that He chose the Jewish people
precisely because they were the most insignificant and worthless,
comparing them to an infant who is cast aside at birth without even
the blood of the afterbirth being washed off.”
End Schoeman excerpt
It seems to me that Schoeman and Moss remain humbly open to thoughtful discussion and criticism and have continually, explicitly expressed their docile obedience to the teaching of the Church and the hierarchy. These are not subversive radicals or conspirators by any stretch of the imagination and I see no legitimate reason to treat them as such. In contrast to certain critics, neither of these men has publicly exhibited what might reasonably be interpreted as a spirit of rebellion against the hierarchy or the Pope.
In all candor, I can understand both Schoeman’s and Moss’s reluctance (or anyone else’s for that matter) to openly engage individuals in debate or discussion who so readily and regularly display such a lack of charity and fairness. This is unfortunate, really, because when approached in a spirit of authentic charity, such endeavors may well serve the cause of truth.
It is said that the difference between a poison and a miraculous cure is often in the dosage. Even with the best of intentions, criticism can easily become a spiritual, psychological and emotional poison, a black hole. I think it is significant that Satan is labeled as “the accuser…who accuses…day and night” (Rev. 12:10). The more intimately a belief or activity is associated with a person, the closer it is to becoming an identity.
Ironically, again in chiding Dr. Thomas Drolesky for harsh, uncharitable and careless criticism, Sungenis and his VP, Ben Douglass, recently wrote the following [link] :
(Sungenis and Douglass): “In sum, Dr. Droleskey ought to take to heart St. Ignatius of Loyola's 'presupposition' to The Spiritual Exercises, 'that every good Christian is to be more ready to save his neighbor's proposition than to condemn it. If he cannot save it, let him inquire how he means it; and if he means it badly, let him correct him with charity. If that is not enough, let him seek all the suitable means to bring him to mean it well, and save himself.' "
I used this very quote in an article entitled, “When Catholic Standards Get in the Way” (late 2004) that was still posted at CAI until recently along with another quote by Thomas a Kempis. I wrote the article due in large part to the kinds of concerns I have expressed here about Bob and CAI. And I believe a Kempis’s words also bear repeating:
“We would willingly have others perfect, and yet we do not amend our
own faults. We would have others strictly corrected; but are not willing
to be corrected ourselves. The large liberty that others take displeases
us; and yet, we do not want to be denied anything…..
First keep yourself in peace and then you will be able to bring others
to peace. The peaceable man does more good than one who is very
learned. The passionate man turns even good to evil, and readily
believes evil. The good, peaceable man turns all things to good.
He who is in perfect peace suspects no man. But he who is
discontented and disturbed is agitated by various suspicions; he
neither has rest himself, nor does he permit others to rest. Many
times he says that which he should not say, and leaves undone that
which it were best for him to do. He considers what others
ought to do, and neglects that which his is bound to do himself.
Have, therefore, a zeal in the first place over yourself, and then you
may justly exercise zeal toward your neighbor.
You know well how to excuse and gloss over your own deeds, but
you will not accept the excuses of others. It were more just for you
to accuse yourself, and to excuse your brother. If you wish to be borne
with, bear also with others. See how far you still are from true charity and
humility, which knows not how to feel anger or indignation against anyone
but oneself.
It is easy to converse with the good and the meek, for this is naturally
pleasing to all. And everyone prefers to live in peace with those who
agree with him and love him the best. But to know how to live peacefully
with those who are stubborn and perverse, or undisciplined and opposed to
us, is a great grace, worthy of much praise, and a sign of virile strength.
There are some who know how to live in peace and also enjoy peace with
others. And there are others who do not have peace themselves, nor suffer
others to enjoy peace; they are troublesome to others. And there are still
others who keep themselves in peace and procure to restore peace to
others. Nevertheless all our peace, in this miserable life, must be placed
more in humble suffering than in not feeling adversities.
He who knows how to suffer will enjoy much peace, and he is a
conqueror of himself, the lord of the world, the friend of Christ, and an
heir of Heaven."
The Imitation of Christ
The persistent tendency to reflexively read certain others uncharitably, to assume the worst and then hastily pounce, seems to be common in these circles, unfortunately. This kind of reactive approach creates and aggravates a destructive atmosphere of suspicion and animosity that is not conducive to authentic Catholic discussion and debate.
Concluding Thoughts
I am sure that most people will be as relieved to finish reading this as I was to finish writing it. There are few things less enjoyable than this kind of undertaking and I pray I never find myself in such a situation again. However, I ask the reader to consider once more the points I enumerated at the very beginning.
The kind of persistent, expansively negative rhetoric about and attacks on the Jewish people that appear on Robert Sungenis’ website have no legitimate place in civil discourse at all, much less under the banner “Catholic.” Certainly, there are legitimate criticisms to be made and legitimate discussions to be had regarding various “Jewish issues.” But those who persistently create and repeat the kinds of views he reiterates are manifestly not the ones to lead them. Such discussions and criticisms, if they are to have any hope of bearing godly fruit, must be led in spirit of genuine charity, humility and honesty. It is my heartfelt prayer that all those reading these words will reject the ugly and dangerous approach that demonizes the Jewish people and effectively reduces all the world’s ills to their supposed machinations and nefarious conspiracies.
Here, I would like to reiterate part of what I wrote a few months ago for John Pacheco's Catholic Legate [link] :
"The only certain, consistent combination of full knowledge and bad will of which I am aware is at work in the spiritual realm, prowling the earth in search of human souls to devour (1 Peter 5:8). I’m unwilling to cede either group to him (Protestants or Jews), especially so fully and in such a black and white way. And through my experience in reaching out to our Jewish brothers (some of whom I have helped come to their own Messiah in the Catholic Church) I have never seen a single one brought to the fullness of the faith by the proposition that they were in league with Satan, Christ-haters or the like. In fact, I have found remarkable openness among today's Jews about Christ, especially if a relationship of respect and trust is first established. I believe this can be directly attributed to the widespread lowering of imprudent, heated and unproductive rhetoric over recent decades. Ditto for Protestants. We can certainly thank John Paul II for much of this."
"Now, certainly, there are some individuals or groups in each camp that may require a harsher response at times (like the ADL or professional Protestant anti-Catholics like Jack Chick). But they are not nearly the majority in my opinion. And to begin posturing, accusing and negatively broad-brushing either group could threaten to destroy the very real progress that has been made. This would be a tragic development. Of course, I am in no way suggesting, as some do, that we remain silent about the truth of Catholicism in order to not offend, only that we use the wisdom, prudence, patience and discernment that naturally flows from authentic, Catholic charity in our evangelism."
"This is not unlike my experience in the pro-life movement. There was a time when I tended to assume that all people really understood the issues very well, whether the issue was abortion or homosexual "marriage". And in my incorrect, self-righteous judgment, I lacked the patience and kindness necessary to reach those I might have (cf. 1 Pet 3:15). When I eventually learned that the majority of people on the wrong side of these issues only THINK they understand them in depth, I changed my approach. Don't misunderstand. Such people can still be amazingly stubborn and maddening. And as they become informed, they may yet purposely choose evil. But they may not. And by the grace of God, without giving an inch on the fundamentals, my passion has increasingly become compassion, and I have found that compassion is capable of bypassing barriers that passion can only crash against in futility."
"My prayer is that God will rid all of us, Traditionalist and non-Traditionalist alike, of the pride and fear that hardens our hearts and makes them unwilling to bleed and suffer for every soul He desires, whether Jewish or Gentile. Until then, I pray we continue to do the best we can with what we have and humbly trust in His ability to do great things with even the most flawed work when trustingly placed in His hands"
(End)
I and many others who have worked with and care about Bob are deeply concerned that these unnecessary and dangerous detours are tragically diverting attention from and undermining the kind of fine work evident in Bob’s books, Not by Faith Alone, Not by Scripture Alone and Not by Bread Alone. We all sincerely hope and pray that Bob abandons this course and refocuses his considerable abilities upon those areas in which he has created sound works of scholarship in the past. And we kindly ask your prayers to that hopeful end as well.
Michael Forrest
|
|
|
