@Caroline03"Why can you not understand that your hostility would be a drawback to anyone converting to Roman Catholicism. You have painted a picture of the Church that is not "
---
Unfortunately, Dear Madam, nobody is able to help anyone convert to Roman Catholicism if his/her doctrine is not Catholic. More examples from your last comment:
- evolutionism and mobilism: "All within the Old Covenant has been bought to an end, but it HAS evolved into a new Covenant." (illogical - bringing to an end excludes a mutation or evolution) , "Circumcision transformed into Baptism,"
- modernism and naturalism: "Forever, God has been venerated through Bread and wine and Sacrifices offered to Him for the forgiveness of sins. The NEW Covenant has altered the way these are offered ", "Help Hebrews to understand. They need to know of the reasons why changes were made".
Again - you take an archetype or a prefiguration (as in case of the Melchisedeh offering or the circumcision) for the early stage of the evolution. The New Covenant was New (though prophetised and prefigured in the Old Testament) . Old offerings were abolished not altered. They were unsuccessful and could not bring atonement or forgiveness of sins. The new and clean sacrifice was prophetised by prophet Malachy (Mal 1,10 et seq. cf. also e.g. 1 Cor 10,20). I wonder how you can - as the Catholic:
- hold the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and the Sacrifice of the Mass (where the Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross is made present) as the "alteration" of earlier unclean sacrifices,
- see the sacrament of Baptism - the sign of grace removing sins and cleansing the soul as the "transformation" of circumcision that removed only a small part of the body,
it seems that your soul is in a very grave danger.
Your antropological evolutionary stance is dangerously close to the modernist claim of evolution risen e.g. in the following statement condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili:
"Christian Doctrine was originally Judaic. Through successive evolutions it became first Pauline, then Joannine, finally Hellenic and universal."
"You are prickly and discourteous to ME "
---
I am not in mood to be courteous to anybody who does not take the opportunity to stop preaching non-Catholic opinions. In previous comments I referred to the errors, you attacked me with phony accusations and added... new erroneous statements.
"and they must think you are not a nice person"
---
Perhaps, because I'm from the Catholic Church of Nicea not from the modern church of the nice.
"there are ways of explaining the New Covenant to those who definitely do not understand it "
--
Certainly, teaching them errors does not belong to the above ways.
"Help Hebrews to understand [the evolution???]"
---
What are they supposed to understand? If they do not follow the prophets and accept the sign of Jonah they won't get anything else, Our Lord said.
To say that the New Covenant: " is very Jewish in itself and it should be explained to them"
would be a lie. Of course, the phase preceding the New Covenant can be called "very Jewish" - they got the Old Law to keep the faith in one God amidst waves of paganism, they got prophets to wait for and recognize the Messiah (whether they kept the above faith and respected the prophets was another question). They were told: the Messiah would come, not: go and evolve into the Messiah.
But (apart from the apostles and disciples) they were disappointed when the Messiah had come. The Messiah was not Jewish enough for them and their highest authorities decided to get rid of the Messiah. It did not solve the problem. His Apostles went to the ends of the earth preaching that He had ended the difference between the Jews and the goyim. That's the key point for years. If you do not convince them that there is neither Greek nor Jew all the missionary attempts will be futile.
To cut the long discussion short:
the "very Jewish" distorted version of Christianity is the way to judaize the Christians not to convert the Jews.