The Orthodoxy of Roy Schoeman

Dear Editor,

Mr. Sungenis accuses me of calumniating him because I warned, at the end of my May 2007 letter, that he has falsely attributed more heretical beliefs to Schoeman than the one example which I provided. Ironically, he proceeds to provide several more examples himself. I will follow the order of Sungenis' list.

(1) Sungenis charges Schoeman with Jewish racism and denying that true Jews are those who are circumcised in their heart (Rom 2:28-29). However, on page 42 of Salvation is from the Jews (hereafter Salvation) Schoeman does nothing more than paraphrase St. Paul's teaching in Romans 11 that the Jews are the natural branches (vv. 21, 24) of the good olive tree, and remain such even after they have been cut off from it ("how much more shall they, that are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" v. 24). This is in contradistinction to Gentiles, who are by nature a wild olive tree (vv. 17, 24), and for whom it is "contrary to nature" (v. 24) to be ingrafted into the good olive tree.

(5) Sungenis accuses Schoeman of attempting "a perverse resurrection of Talmudic Judaism," because he examines what the Talmud says about the Messiah. This is a tremendous leap of logic and a wild and baseless accusation. Schoeman draws an analogy to Caiaphas, the Jewish High Priest who unwittingly prophesied of Christ in John 11:51, and asks whether we might be able to find similar hostile testimony to Christ in the Talmud (Salvation, pp. 78, 81). And happily, he succeeds. What Schoeman has done is similar to the approach of the great medieval Dominican Hebraist Raymund Martini, whose classic work Pugio Fidei Adversus Mauros et Iudaeos was long the standard manual for Dominican missionaries to the Muslims and Jews. Martini quoted extensively from Jewish literature, because he recognized that it made certain admissions and preserved many old traditions which pointed to Christ. Like Schoeman, he culled these texts which point to Christ out of the large body of false teachings. Martini pulled the pearls out of the dung heap, to use his own terms; he documented that Jewish literature such as the Talmud unwittingly, even against its will, helps to demonstrate that Christ is the Messiah.

(7) Sungenis claims that Schoeman believes that the Fathers and Catholic tradition were in error in applying various Old Testament prophesies to the Church instead of national Israel. However, Schoeman never says that the Fathers were in error. Rather, he argues that the prophecies are polyvalent and may have applications to national Israel in addition to the (correct) interpretations of the Fathers (Salvation, pp. 306-308, 315-316). Schoeman of course affirms that the Catholic Church is the new Israel.

(8, 9, 11) Sungenis accuses Schoeman several times of believing that Israeli military aggression is blessed by God. In the unabridged version of his "Fourteen Problems with the Theology and Eschatology of Roy Schoeman", available on his website, he even compares Schoeman to Menachem Begin, David Ben Gurion, and Ariel Sharon who believed they were "the new Joshuas and Calebs under divine directive to slaughter the Amelekites [sic]." But Schoeman never says that Israeli military aggression is God-blessed. He does argue (perhaps wrongly) that certain events in Israeli military history were predicted by Scripture, but he never states whether they were positively willed and blessed by God as good, or simply part of God's permissive will (cf. Salvation, pp. 309-310).

(9) Sungenis states, "Schoeman claims that the 'fullness of the Gentiles' (Lk 21:24; Rm 11:25) occurred in 1967..." The implication here, which Sungenis has elsewhere stated explicitly, is that Schoeman believes that God is basically done saving Gentiles as of 1967. This is absurd. Schoeman does not reference Romans 11:25, from which the phrase "the fullness of the Gentiles" comes, anywhere in the context with which Sungenis is dealing (p. 306 of Salvation). Schoeman only references Luke 21:24, which states "Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." He takes the latter clause to mean (again, perhaps wrongly) "until the time for Gentiles to have sovereignty over Jerusalem is over" (my paraphrase of his thought). He suggests that this passage was fulfilled in 1967 when Jews gained sovereignty over Jerusalem. Whether right or wrong on this point, Schoeman never comes close to suggesting that "the fullness of the Gentiles" have already been saved.

Sungenis' third objection to Schoeman's theology is also erroneous. But unlike the objections above, the problem is not that he condemns Schoeman for a heretical belief which he does not actually hold, but that he condemns him for a perfectly orthodox practice. Schoeman gives an educational, Christianized presentation of a Seder supper, replete with lengthy quotations from the New Testament and repeated references to the Trinity, Christ, the Passion, and the sacrifice of the Mass. Schoeman's express purpose is to illustrate the ways in which the Christian mysetry is foreshadowed by the Seder, as well as to elicit prayers for the conversion of the Jews to Christ.

In contrast to Sungenis' charge that Schoeman is therefore judaizing, Pope Benedict XIV established principles which validate this practice in his 1756 encyclical Ex Quo. The Pope was dealing with certain practices of the Greek Church, such as abstinence from blood and strangled meats and the rite of ritual purification for women after childbirth, which corresponded to precepts of the Old Law. Some Latins had argued that the Greek Church judaized. Yet the Pope countered them by stating that it is lawful to observe certain Old Testament ceremonial rites, so long as they are not observed qua obligations of the old Law, but rather from some other motive. He favorably quotes Leo Allatius as follows:

If a man should perform acts for a different end and purpose (even with the intention of worship and as religious ceremonies), not in the spirit of that Law nor on the basis of it, but either from personal decision, from human custom, or on the instruction of the Church, he would not sin, nor could he be said to judaize. So when a man does something in the Church which resembles the ceremonies of the old Law, he must not always be said to judaize (Ex Quo, 67).

The Pope later adds, "some, surely, of the ceremonial rites of the old Law could be observed under the new Law if only they were not done as obligations of the old Law, which was abrogated, but as a custom, or lawful tradition, or as a new precept issued by one enjoying the recognized and competent authority to make laws and to enforce them..." (Ibid., 74).

So, since Schoeman makes his educational Seder presentations "from personal decision," and not in the spirit of the old Law or on the basis of it, he cannot legitimately be accused of judaizing.

At the end of his letter, Sungenis attributes to me the idea that Salvation is "in essence, 'a flawed book.'" He quotes a tiny snippet (three words) from my article, and prefaces them in a way which blatantly misrepresents my thoughts. The flaws of Salvation do not constitute its essence; its essence is a mediation on Jewish conversion to Christ and the role of the Jews in the end times. The flaws obscure it slightly, but they are not overwhelming.

Sungenis' behavior here is characteristic. In spite of his claim that he has meticulously documented Schoeman's views, he has habitually quoted tiny snippets from his book, interpolated thoughts which Schoeman has never expressed, cut out words with ellipses in ways which change the meaning of Schoeman's text, and even on occasion resorted to completely fraudulent quotes. He did this twice in his letter to the editor of The Latin Mass (Winter 2006, p. 5), stating that according to Schoeman, "anyone who tries to stop [the return of the Jerusalem Temple] is 'of the Antichrist'", and "God will then proceed to make 'the Old Covenant fulfill the New'". Neither the phrase "of the Antichrist" nor "the Old Covenant fulfill the New" appear anywhere in Schoeman's book.

Speaking of The Latin Mass, in those very pages Schoeman did in fact publicly repudiate all the heresies which Sungenis has attributed to him. Schoeman has not merely repudiated them in private correspondence. And what was Sungenis' reaction? He said that it was "disingenuous" of him to attempt to disavow them. On other occasions as well, Sungenis has insisted that Schoeman actually does hold these beliefs which he professes to repudiate. So, rather than admit that he has misrepresented Schoeman, Sungenis prefers to imply that he is a liar. This is no way to treat anyone, much less a Catholic brother in Christ.

As our Holy Father, while Cardinal Ratzinger, has taught (Many Religions, One Covenant, pp. 27, 104), the Jews still have a unique, special role to play in salvation history. This is not Jewish racism, nor is it judaizing; it is Catholicism. Schoeman's book is an admirable, if flawed, attempt to explore that role. While I certainly think that it would be helpful if Schoeman were to fix the flaws (in particular, the problematic text which arguably leads to the false conclusion, which Schoeman himself rejects, that God desires the return of the Jerusalem Temple), they come nowhere near to meriting the dozen or so articles Sungenis has written, denouncing Schoeman's book for hyper-judaizing, for Jewish racism, for exercising an anti-Christ, anti-Christian, and anti-Catholic influence over the Church, and for purveying one of the most pernicious and nefarious heresies the Church has ever faced. This is simply slander.

Ben Douglass
August 1, Anno Domini MMVII