January Webinar Q&A and Resources

We want to share with you more Q&A from our January Webinar, "The Jewish Cardinal." We are also providing some recommended resources as many of you were interested in more information about the life and writings of Cardinal Lustiger.

Question: How would Cardinal Lustiger have seen the Aaronic priesthood relating to his understanding of Catholic ordination?

Fr. Etienne Veto:

As far as I know Lustiger seldom spoke about Aaronic priesthood in relation to the Roman Catholic understanding of ordination. It was first and foremost the name his parents gave and his grandfather’s name. Yet he did see his name as a prophetic preparation for his ordination as a Catholic priest. He insisted a lot on the importance of priesthood in the Church: G-d instituted priesthood and made it a crucial element of the structure of the chosen people, so priesthood is also essential to the Church. Likewise, Lustiger would understand Christian ministerial priesthood as derived from Levitical-Aaronic priesthood, as its messianic development. Jesus the Messiah is High Priest because he repeats the act of Moses the Levite who sprinkles blood on the people (Ex 24:8; The Promise, p. 103): this offers salvation to all mankind and allows gentile believers to be “a royal priesthood” (1 P 2:9) as is Israel, but it also permits some gentiles to become in a special way “priests and Levites” (Is 66:21). I suppose he would also have said that Christ’s saving act is, mysteriously, the true foundation and source of a salvific dimension of Aaronic and Levitical priesthood, through whom G-d offered forgiveness of sin already in the terms of the Mosaic Covenant (Lev 4:26.35; 5:11). However, what may be a blind spot in Lustiger’s thought on this topic is whether there is a specific dimension of these messianic “priests and Levites” if they are Jewish believers in Jesus.

Here are some additional resources on Cardinal Lustiger recommended by Fr. Etienne:

Question: Would you agree that “secular” is a misnomer when speaking about our Jewish backgrounds that are very Jewish culturally yet philosophically modern and influenced by the enlightenment? In my view, even so-called “secular” Jewish backgrounds are heavy with connection to our covenantal history, even if we do not understand it as such. I think this sense of Jewish destiny often leads us to Yeshua.

Matthew Friedman:

It's certainly a point worth raising. For me, I was using this as a shorthand for "fairly non-observant;" in my father's case when I was young, he was a "secular" agnostic, as was his father (though my grandmother described herself as an atheist rather than as agnostic). In this sense, it's not only "influenced by the enlightenment," but more nominal in adherence to Judaism. Hence, as I'd mentioned, the quite common practice of synagogue attendance on High Holy Days and celebration of Pesach, but little Shabbat or dietary observance. From an anthropological/religious studies perspective, a better descriptor might be "high identity, low practice" for my family when I was growing up. For me, I'm not sure my sense of "covenantal history" or "Jewish destiny" led me to Yeshua; I saw those connections more in retrospect. One area where the connection became more explicit for me was in first encountering Messianic Jewish expressions of faith. I was about a year old in the faith when a friend lent me a copy of "Lamb Favorites." I put it on the turntable, and wept as the opening chords and words of "The Sacrifice Lamb" played. It was my, "Oh my goodness, there are more of us!" moment, and it solidified my Jewishness even as it connected me more deeply with Yeshua as a Jew.

Previous
Previous

February Webinar Q&A and Resources

Next
Next

December Webinar Q&A