APOSTASY: Vatican Document Affirms that not only do the Jews share our Religion, but the Torah is the Word of God just as Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Was this the final documentation of the Apostasy set up in 1958 to play itself out now? If so, why be so mad at Francis?
DR. CHOJNOWSKI
I have put my own comments in Red and I have bolded in Black the texts Statements that I believe are the most indicative. Was this what all the hoopla was all about Alfi? Vatican Curia “The Gifts and the Calling of God Are Irrevocable” (Rom 11:29)
Vatican Curia
“The Gifts and the Calling of God Are Irrevocable” (Rom 11:29)
- Created: December 10, 2015
- Written by Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews
A Reflection on Theological Questions Pertaining to Catholic-Jewish Relations on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of Nostra Aetate(No. 4)
INDEX
- A brief history of the impact of “Nostra aetate” (No.4) over the last 50 years
- The special theological status of Jewish-Catholic dialogue
- Revelation in history as ‘Word of God’ in Judaism and Christianity
- The relationship between the Old and New Testament and the Old and New Covenant
- The universality of salvation in Jesus Christ and God’s unrevoked covenant with Israel
- The Church’s mandate to evangelize in relation to Judaism
- The goals of dialogue with Judaism
PREFACE
Fifty years ago, the declaration “Nostra aetate” of the Second Vatican Council was promulgated. Its fourth article presents the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people in a new theological framework [In
other words, a new doctrine is being taught now by the NewChurch
concerning the Jews. This new doctrine started being taught in 1965].
The following reflections aim at looking back with gratitude on all
that has been achieved over the last decades in the Jewish–Catholic
relationship, providing at the same time a new stimulus for the future.
Stressing once again the unique status of this relationship within the
wider ambit of interreligious dialogue, theological questions are
further discussed, such as the relevance of revelation, the relationship
between the Old and the New Covenant, the relationship between the
universality of salvation in Jesus Christ and the affirmation that the
covenant of God with Israel has never been revoked, and the Church’s
mandate to evangelize in relation to Judaism. This document presents
Catholic reflections on these questions, placing them in a theological
context, in order that their significance may be deepened for members of
both faith traditions. The text is not a magisterial document or doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church,
but is a reflection prepared by the Commission for Religious Relations
with the Jews on current theological questions that have developed since
the Second Vatican Council. It is intended to be a starting point for
further theological thought with a view to enriching and intensifying
the theological dimension of Jewish–Catholic dialogue.
1. A brief history of the impact of “Nostra aetate” (No.4) over the last 50 years
1. “Nostra
aetate” (No.4) is rightly counted among those documents of the Second
Vatican Council which have been able to effect, in a particularly
striking manner, a new direction of the Catholic Church since then [It
changes the very purpose of the Church. As John Paul II emphasized the
Church's purpose now is to proclaim to the world a salvation that the
world already possesses. No need to apply sanctification to souls].
This shift in the relations of the Church with the Jewish people and
Judaism becomes apparent only when we recall that there were previously
great reservations on both sides, in part because the history of Christianity has been seen to be discriminatory against Jews [After
being one of the great protectors of the Jews throughout the history of
Christendom --- without failing in its desire to convert],
even including attempts at forced conversion (cf. “Evangelii gaudium”,
248). The background of this complex connection consists inter alia in
an asymmetrical relationship: as a minority the Jews were often
confronted by and dependent upon a Christian majority. The
dark and terrible shadow of the Shoah over Europe during the Nazi
period led the Church to reflect anew on her bond with the Jewish people
[So
here we are, it was the years of National Socialist persecution of the
Jews or the "Holocaust" that is the reason why Catholic teaching and
attitudes HAD to change].
2. The fundamental esteem for Judaism [How can we have "esteem" for a non-Catholic religion that denies the Divinity of Christ and His Salvific Act] expressed in “Nostra aetate” (No.4) however has enabled communities that once faced one another with scepticism to become [Isn't this a completely disingenuous understatement]– step by step over the years – reliable partners and even good friends, [Partners in what? Possessing a friendship based on which "good"?] capable of weathering crises together
and negotiating conflicts positively. Therefore, the fourth article of
“Nostra aetate” is recognised as the solid foundation for improving the
relationship between Catholics and Jews.
3.
For the practical implementation of “Nostra aetate” (No.4), Blessed
Pope Paul VI on 22 October 1974 established the Commission for Religious
Relations with the Jews which, although organisationally attached to
the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, is operationally
independent and entrusted with the task of accompanying and fostering
religious dialogue with Judaism. From a theological perspective it also
makes good sense to link this Commission with the Council for Promoting
Christian Unity, since the separation between Synagogue and Church may be viewed as the first and most far-reaching breach among the chosen people [St.
P[S]aul call your office! If this does not deny the entirety of
the Apostolic Mandate and the very Purpose of the Church, I do not know
what does. Also, what this means is that Heretics, Schismatics, and Jews
are all part of the "Chosen People" --- now!].
4. Within a year of its foundation, the Holy See’s Commission published
its first official document on 1 December 1974, with the title
“Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the Conciliar Declaration
Nostra Aetate (No.4)”. The crucial and new concern of this document
consists in becoming acquainted with Judaism as it defines itself,
giving expression to the high esteem in which Christianity holds Judaism
and stressing the great significance for the Catholic Church of
dialogue with the Jews, as stated in the words of the document: “On the
practical level in particular, Christians must therefore strive to
acquire a better knowledge of the basic components of the religious
tradition of Judaism: they must strive to learn by what essential traits
the Jews define themselves in the light of their own religious
experience” (Preamble). On the basis of the Church’s witness of faith in
Jesus Christ, the document reflects upon the specific nature of the
Church’s dialogue with Judaism. Reference is made in the text to the
roots of Christian liturgy in its Jewish matrix, new possibilities are
outlined for rapprochement in the spheres of teaching, education and
training, and finally suggestions are made for joint social action.
5.
Eleven years later on 24 June 1985, the Holy See’s Commission issued a
second document entitled “Notes on the correct way to present the Jews
and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church”.
This document has a stronger theological-exegetical orientation insofar
as it reflects on the relationship of the Old and New Testaments,
delineates the Jewish roots of the Christian faith, explicates the
manner in which ‘the Jews’ are represented in the New Testament, points
out commonalities in liturgy, above all in the great festivals of the
church year, and briefly focuses on the relationship of Judaism and
Christianity in history. With regard to the “land of the forefathers”
the document emphasizes: “Christians are invited to understand this
religious attachment which finds its roots in Biblical tradition,
without however making their own any particular religious interpretation
of this relationship. … The
existence of the State of Israel and its political options should be
envisaged not in a perspective which is in itself religious, but in
their reference to the common principles of international law.” The
permanence of Israel is however to be perceived as an “historic fact and
a sign to be interpreted within God’s design [Could
"the permanence of Israel" [i.e., the Zionist State of Israel] be one
of the central reasons why a Revolution in the Catholic Church was seen
as "needed" was back in 1958]” (VI, 1).
6.
A third document of the Commission for Religious Relations with the
Jews was presented to the public on 16 March 1998. It deals with the
Shoah under the title “We remember. A reflection on the Shoah”. This
text delivers the harsh but accurate judgement that the balance of the
2000–year relationship between Jews and Christians is regrettably
negative. It recalls the attitude of Christians towards the
anti-Semitism of the National Socialists and focuses on the duty of Christians to remember the human catastrophe of the Shoah [We
remember here the statement by Benedict XVI that if he knew that Bishop
Richard Williamson did not accept that 6 million Jews were gased by the
Germans, he would not have lifted the excommunication against him. As
if giving historical recognition to a secular event --- whether true or
false --- is a requirement for membership in the Church of Jesus Christ,
the Catholic Church].
In a letter at the beginning of this declaration Saint Pope John Paul
II expresses his hope that this document will truly “help to heal the
wounds of past misunderstandings and injustices. May it enable memory to
play its necessary part in the process of shaping a future in which the
unspeakable iniquity of the Shoah will never again be possible.”
7. In the series of documents issued by the Holy See, reference must be
made to the text published by the Pontifical Biblical Commission on 24
May 2001, which deals explicitly with Jewish-Catholic dialogue: “The
Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible”. This
represents the most significant exegetical and theological document of
the Jewish-Catholic dialogue and is a treasure-trove of common issues
which have their basis in the Scriptures of Judaism and Christianity.
The Sacred Scriptures of the Jewish people are considered a “fundamental
component of the Christian Bible”, the fundamental themes of the Holy
Scripture of the Jewish people and their adoption into the faith in
Christ are discussed, and the manner in which Jews are represented in
the New Testament is illustrated in detail.
8. Texts and documents, as important as
they are, cannot replace personal encounters and face–to–face dialogues.
While under Blessed Pope Paul VI the first steps in Jewish–Catholic
dialogue were undertaken, Saint Pope John Paul II succeeded in fostering
and deepening this dialogue through compelling gestures towards the
Jewish people. He was the first pope to visit the former concentration
camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau to pray for the victims of the Shoah, and he visited the Roman Synagogue to express his solidarity with the Jewish community [what does "solidarity with the Jewish community" mean? Solidarity in what?].
In the context of an historical pilgrimage to the Holy Land, he was
also a guest of the state of Israel where he participated in
interreligious encounters, paid a visit to both Chief Rabbis and prayed
at the Western Wall. Again and again he met with Jewish groups, whether
in the Vatican or during his numerous apostolic journeys. So too
Benedict XVI, even before his election to the papacy, engaged in
Jewish-Catholic dialogue by offering in a series of lectures important
theological reflections on the relationship between the Old and the New
Covenant, and the Synagogue and the Church. Following his election and
in the footsteps of Saint Pope John Paul II he fostered this dialogue in
his own way by reinforcing the same gestures and giving expression to
his esteem for Judaism through the power of his words. As Archbishop of
Buenos Aires, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was greatly committed to
fostering Jewish-Catholic dialogue and had many friends among the Jews
of Argentina. Now as Pope he continues, at the international level, to
intensify dialogue with Judaism through many friendly encounters. One of
his first such encounters was in May 2014 in Israel, where he met with
the two Chief Rabbis, visited the Western Wall, and prayed for the victims of the Shoah [Again.]in Yad Vashem.
9. Even before the establishment of the Holy See’s Commission, there
were contacts and links with various Jewish organisations through the
then Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. Since Judaism is
multi-facetted and not constituted as an organisational unity, the
Catholic Church was faced with the challenge of determining with whom to
engage, because it was not possible to conduct individual and
independent bilateral dialogues with all Jewish groupings and
organisations which had declared their readiness to dialogue. To resolve
this problem the Jewish organisations took up the suggestion of the
Catholic Church to establish a single organisation for this dialogue.
The International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations
(IJCIC) is the official Jewish representative to the Holy See’s
Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews.
10. The IJCIC began its work in 1970, and a year later the first joint
conference was organized in Paris. The conferences which have been
conducted regularly since are the responsibility of the entity known as
the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee (ILC), and they
shape the collaboration between the IJCIC and the Holy See’s Commission.
In February 2011, once more in Paris, the ILC was able to look back
with gratitude on 40 years of institutional dialogue. Much has developed
over the past 40 years; the former confrontation has turned into
successful cooperation, the previous potential for conflict has become
positive conflict management, and the past co–existence marked by
tension has been replaced by resilient and fruitful mutuality. The bonds
of friendship forged in the meantime have proved to be stable, so that
it has become possible to address even controversial subjects together
without the danger of permanent damage being done to the dialogue. This
was all the more necessary because over the past decades the dialogue
had not always been free of tensions. In general, however, one can
observe with appreciation that in Jewish-Catholic dialogue since the new
millennium above all, intensive efforts have been made to deal openly
and positively with any arising differences of opinion and conflicts, in
such a way that mutual relations have become stronger.
11. Beside the dialogue with the IJCIC we should also mention the
institutional conversation with the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, which is
clearly to be seen as a fruit of the encounter of Saint Pope John Paul
II with both Chief Rabbis in Jerusalem during his visit to Israel in
March 2000. The first meeting was organised in June 2002 in Jerusalem,
and since then such meetings have been conducted annually, taking place
in Rome and Jerusalem alternately. The two delegations are relatively
small so that a very personal and intensive discussion on various
subjects is possible, such as on the sanctity of life, the status of the
family, the significance of the Sacred Scriptures for life in society,
religious freedom, the ethical foundations of human behaviour, the
ecological challenge, the relationship of secular and religious
authority and the essential qualities of religious leadership in secular
society. The fact that the Catholic representatives taking part in the
meetings are bishops and priests and the Jewish representatives almost
exclusively rabbis permits individual topics to be examined from a
religious perspective as well. The dialogue with the Chief Rabbinate of
Israel has to that extent enabled more open relations between Orthodox
Judaism and the Catholic Church at a global level. After each meeting a
joint declaration is published which in each instance has testified to
the richness of the common spiritual heritage of Judaism and
Christianity and to what valuable treasures are still to be unearthed.
In reviewing over more than ten years of dialogue we can gratefully
affirm that a strong friendship has resulted which represents a firm
foundation for the future.
12. The efforts of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations
with the Jews cannot of course be restricted to these two institutional
dialogues. The Commission aims in fact at being open to all streams
within Judaism and at maintaining contact with all Jewish groupings and
organisations that wish to establish links with the Holy See. The Jewish
side shows a particular interest in audiences with the Pope, which are
in every instance prepared by the Commission. Besides direct contacts
with Judaism the Holy See’s Commission also strives to provide
opportunities within the Catholic Church for dialogue with Judaism and
to work together with individual Bishops’ Conferences to support them
locally in promoting Jewish-Catholic dialogue. The introduction of the
‘Day of Judaism’ in some European countries is a good example of this.
13. Over the past decades both the
‘dialogue ad extra’ and the ‘dialogue ad intra’ have led with increasing
clarity to the awareness that Christians and Jews are irrevocably
inter-dependent, and that the dialogue between the two is not a matter
of choice but of duty as far as theology is concerned. Jews and
Christians can enrich one another in mutual friendship. Without her
Jewish roots the Church would be in danger of losing its soteriological
anchoring in salvation history and would slide into an ultimately
unhistorical Gnosis. Pope Francis states that “while it is true that
certain Christian beliefs are unacceptable to Judaism, and that the
Church cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah, there
exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts
of the Hebrew Scriptures together and to help one another to mine the
riches of God’s word. We can also share many ethical convictions and a
common concern for justice and the development of peoples” [Preaching to convert? This is no where mentioned as an endeavor of the Church in regard to the Jews.] (“Evangelii gaudium”, 249).
2. The special theological status of Jewish-Catholic dialogue
14.
The dialogue with Judaism is for Christians something quite special,
since Christianity possesses Jewish roots which determine relations
between the two in a unique way (cf. “Evangelii gaudium”, 247). In spite
of the historical breach and the painful conflicts arising from it, the
Church remains conscious of its enduring continuity with Israel. Judaism
is not to be considered simply as another religion; the Jews are
instead our “elder brothers” (Saint Pope John Paul II), our “fathers in
faith” (Benedict XVI). Jesus was a Jew, was at home in the Jewish
tradition of his time, and was decisively shaped by this religious
milieu [What
does it mean to say Jesus "was decisively shopped by this religious
milieu? A deeply Modernist reading of the Scriptures, no?](cf.
“Ecclesia in Medio Oriente”, 20). His first disciples gathered around
him had the same heritage and were defined by the same Jewish tradition
in their everyday life. In
his unique relationship with his heavenly Father, Jesus was intent
above all on proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom of God. [What orthodox believer would ever speak of Christ's "unique relationship with his Heavenly Father?]“The
time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe
in the gospel” (Mk 1:15). Within Judaism there were many very different
kinds of ideas regarding how the kingdom of God would be realised, and
yet Jesus’ central message on the Kingdom of God is in accordance with
some Jewish thinking of his day. One cannot understand Jesus’
teaching or that of his disciples without situating it within the Jewish
horizon in the context of the living tradition of Israel; one would
understand his teachings even less so if they were seen in opposition to
this tradition. [Pure
Modernism. Why are we surprised.... why am I surprised still that
everything out of the Vatican is saturated with Modernist, subjectivist
departures from the faith?]In
Jesus not a few Jews of his time saw the coming of a ‘new Moses’, the
promised Christ (Messiah). But his coming nevertheless provoked a drama
with consequences still felt today. Fully and completely human, a Jew of
his time, descendant of Abraham, son of David, shaped by the whole
tradition of Israel, heir of the prophets, Jesus stands in continuity
with his people and its history. On the other hand he is, in the light
of the Christian faith, himself God – the Son – and he transcends time,
history, and every earthly reality. The community of those who believe
in him confesses his divinity (cf. Phil 2:6-11). [Same
old Modernist division of Our Lord Jesus Christ into two "Christs," one
the "empirical" Christ that was a man living in his own historical
context and then the "Christ" that "in the light of the Christian faith"
for "those who believe in him confesses his divinity"] In
this sense he is perceived to be in discontinuity with the history that
prepared his coming. From the perspective of the Christian faith, he
fulfils the mission and expectation of Israel in a perfect way. At the
same time, however, he overcomes and transcends them in an
eschatological manner. Herein consists the fundamental difference
between Judaism and Christianity, that is, how the figure of Jesus is to
be evaluated. Jews are able to see Jesus as belonging to their people, a
Jewish teacher who felt himself called in a particular way to preach
the Kingdom of God. That this Kingdom of God has come with himself as
God’s representative is beyond the horizon of Jewish expectation. The
conflict between Jesus and the Jewish authorities of his time is
ultimately not a matter of an individual transgression of the law, but
of Jesus’ claim to be acting with divine authority. The figure of Jesus
thus is and remains for Jews the ‘stumbling block’, the central and
neuralgic point in Jewish-Catholic dialogue. From a theological
perspective, Christians need to refer to the Judaism of Jesus’ time and
to a degree also the Judaism that developed from it over the ages for
their own self-understanding. Given Jesus’ Jewish origins, coming to
terms with Judaism in one way or another is indispensable for
Christians. Yet, the history of the relationship between Judaism and
Christianity has also been mutually influenced over time.
15. Dialogue between Jews and Christians
then can only be termed ‘interreligious dialogue’ by analogy, that is,
dialogue between two intrinsically separate and different religions. It
is not the case that two fundamentally diverse religions confront one
another after having developed independently of one another or without
mutual influence. The soil that nurtured both Jews and Christians is the
Judaism of Jesus’ time, which not only brought forth Christianity but
also, after the destruction of the temple in the year 70, post-biblical
rabbinical Judaism which then had to do without the sacrificial cult
and, in its further development, had to depend exclusively on prayer and
the interpretation of both written and oral divine revelation. Thus
Jews and Christians have the same mother and can be seen, as it were, as
two siblings who – as is the normal course of events for siblings –
have developed in different directions. [In other words, one does not replace the other as God's Chosen People.]The
Scriptures of ancient Israel constitute an integral part of the
Scriptures of both Judaism and Christianity, understood by both as the
word of God, revelation, and salvation history. The first Christians
were Jews; as a matter of course they gathered as part of the community
in the Synagogue, they observed the dietary laws, the Sabbath and the
requirement of circumcision, while at the same time confessing Jesus as
the Christ, the Messiah sent by God for the salvation of Israel and the
entire human race. With Paul the ‘Jewish Jesus movement’ definitively
opens up other horizons and transcends its purely Jewish origins. Gradually his concept [Notice the epistemological and psychological words used to describe St. Paul's teaching of the doctrine of Divine Revelation] came
to prevail, that is, that a non-Jew did not have to become first a Jew
in order to confess Christ. In the early years of the Church, therefore,
there were the so-called Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians,
the ecclesia ex circumcisione and the ecclesia ex gentibus, one Church
originating from Judaism, the other from the Gentiles, who however
together constituted the one and only Church of Jesus Christ.
16. The separation of the Church from the
Synagogue does not take place abruptly however and, according to some
recent insights, may not have been complete until well into the third or
fourth centuries. This means that many Jewish Christians of the first
period did not perceive any contradiction between living in accordance
with some aspects of the Jewish tradition and yet confessing Jesus as
the Christ. Only when the number of Gentile Christians represented the
majority, and within the Jewish community the polemics regarding the
figure of Jesus took on sharper contours, did a definitive separation
appear to be no longer avoidable. Over time the siblings Christianity
and Judaism increasingly grew apart, becoming hostile and even defaming
one another. For Christians, Jews were often represented as damned by
God and blind since they were unable to recognise in Jesus the Messiah
and bearer of salvation. For Jews, Christians were often seen as
heretics who no longer followed the path originally laid down by God but
who went their own way. It is not without reason that in the Acts of
the Apostles Christianity is called ‘the way’ (cf. Acts 9:2; 19:9,23;
24:14,22) in contrast to the Jewish Halacha which determined the
interpretation of the law for practical conduct. Over time Judaism and
Christianity became increasingly alienated from one another, even
becoming involved in ruthless conflicts and accusing one another of abandoning the path prescribed by God. [No! Who would think!?]
17.
On the part of many of the Church Fathers the so-called replacement
theory or supersessionism steadily gained favour until in the Middle
Ages it represented the standard theological foundation of the
relationship with Judaism:
the promises and commitments of God would no longer apply to Israel
because it had not recognised Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God,
but had been transferred to the Church of Jesus Christ which was now the
true ‘new Israel’, the new chosen people of God. Arising from the same
soil, Judaism and Christianity in the centuries after their separation
became involved in a theological antagonism which was only to be defused
at the Second Vatican Council. [This is much like Josef Ratzinger's claims in Introduction to Christianity that
the doctrine of the Mass as sacrifice to appease the anger of God the
Father and the very notion of Transubstantiation was merely a medieval
theory of St. Anselm and not the perennially professed doctrine of the
Catholic Church. Here we have the apostate statement that the idea that
the Catholic Church is the "new Israel" and, therefore, the Chosen
People of God is merely a theory of Medieval and pre-Medieval period and
not the constant teaching of the Catholic Church from St. Peter and
Paul down to the present time, expressed in the Church's infallible
teaching and in her traditional liturgy. Wait! Maybe that is why the
traditional liturgy had to be trashed and replaced!] With
its Declaration “Nostra aetate” (No.4) the Church unequivocally
professes, within a new theological framework, the Jewish roots of
Christianity. While affirming salvation through an explicit or even
implicit faith in Christ, the Church does not question the continued
love of God for the chosen people of Israel. A replacement or
supersession theology which sets against one another two separate
entities, a Church of the Gentiles and the rejected Synagogue whose
place it takes, is deprived of its foundations. From an originally close
relationship between Judaism and Christianity a long-term state of
tension had developed, which has been gradually transformed after the
Second Vatican Council into a constructive dialogue relationship. [So
those who have held, to this time, that there is no substantial
difference between the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church and the
post-Vatican II NewChurch are SIMPLY WRONG. BIG TIME.]
18. There have often been attempts to identify this replacement theory [It is strange how the entire real history of the Catholic Church is reduced to a "replacement theory."] in
the Epistle to the Hebrews. This Epistle, however, is not directed to
the Jews but rather to the Christians of Jewish background who have
become weary and uncertain. Its purpose is to strengthen their faith and
to encourage them to persevere, by pointing to Christ Jesus as the true
and ultimate high priest, the mediator of the new covenant. This
context is necessary to understand the Epistle’s contrast between the
first purely earthly covenant and a second better (cf. Heb 8:7) and new
covenant (cf. 9:15, 12:24). The first covenant is defined as outdated,
in decline and doomed to obsolescence (cf. 8:13), while the second
covenant is defined as everlasting (cf. 13:20). To establish the
foundations of this contrast the Epistle refers to the promise of a new
covenant in the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah 31:31-34 (cf. Heb 8:8-12).
This demonstrates that the Epistle to the Hebrews has no intention of
proving the promises of the Old Covenant to be false, but on the
contrary treats them as valid. The reference to the Old Testament
promises is intended to help Christians to be sure of their salvation in
Christ. At issue in the Epistle to the Hebrews is not the contrast of
the Old and New Covenants as we understand them today, nor a contrast
between the church and Judaism. Rather, the contrast is between the
eternal heavenly priesthood of Christ and the transitory earthly
priesthood. The fundamental issue in the Epistle to the Hebrews in the
new situation is a Christological interpretation of the New Covenant.
For exactly this reason, “Nostra aetate” (No.4) did not refer to the
Epistle to the Hebrews, but rather to Saint Paul’s reflections in his
letter to the Romans 9–11.
19.
For an outside observer, the Conciliar Declaration “Nostra aetate”
could give the impression that the text deals with the relations of the
Catholic Church with all world religions in a relationship based on
parity, but the history of its development and the text itself point in a
different direction. [Here is the bone to the Neo-Cons] Originally Saint Pope John XXIII proposed that the Council should promulgate a Tractatus de Iudaeis, but in the end the decision was made to give consideration to all world religions in “Nostra aetate”. However, the
fourth article of this Conciliar Declaration, which deals with a new
theological relationship with Judaism, represents almost the heart of
the document, in which a place is also made for the Catholic Church’s
relationship with other religions. The relationship with Judaism can in
that sense be seen as the catalyst for the determination of the
relationship with the other world religions. [So
Ecumenism was PRIMARILY meant to change the Catholic Church's teaching
on and dealings with the Jews and, only secondarily, expanded to include
"other world religions." Interesting. Some of you readers may be
calling me "Captain Obvious" at this point. Reasoning and understanding
is a process, though!]
20. Nevertheless,
from the theological perspective the dialogue with Judaism has a
completely different character and is on a different level in comparison
with the other world religions. The faith of the Jews testified to in
the Bible, found in the Old Testament, is not for Christians another
religion but the foundation of their own faith [So Vatican II officially states that Jews and Catholics now have the same religion. Quite an achievement for the "innovators"],
although clearly the figure of Jesus is the sole key for the Christian
interpretation of the Scriptures of the Old Testament. The cornerstone
of the Christian faith is Jesus (cf. Acts 4:11; 1 Pt 2:4–8). However,
the dialogue with Judaism occupies a unique position for Christians;
Christianity is by its roots connected with Judaism as with no other
religion. Therefore the Jewish-Christian dialogue can only
with reservations be termed ‘interreligious dialogue’ in the true sense
of the expression; one could however speak of a kind of
‘intra-religious’ or ‘intra–familial’ dialogue sui generis. In his
address in the Roman Synagogue on 13 April 1986 Saint Pope John Paul II
expressed this situation in these words: “The Jewish religion is not
‘extrinsic’ to us but in a certain way is ‘intrinsic’ to our own
religion. With Judaism therefore we have a relationship which we do not
have with any other religion. You are our dearly beloved brothers and,
in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers.”
3. Revelation in history as ‘Word of God’ in Judaism and Christianity
21. We find in the Old Testament God’s plan of salvation presented for
his people (cf. “Dei verbum”, 14). This plan of salvation is expressed
in an enlightening way at the beginning of biblical history in the call
to Abraham (Gen 12ff). In order to reveal himself and speak to
humankind, redeeming it from sin and gathering it together as one
people, God began by choosing the people of Israel through Abraham and
setting them apart. To them God revealed himself gradually through his
emissaries, his prophets, as the true God, the only God, the living God,
the redeeming God. This divine election was constitutive of the people
of Israel. Only after the first great intervention of the redeeming God,
the liberation from slavery in Egypt (cf. Ex 13:17ff) and the
establishment of the covenant at Sinai (Ex 19ff), did the twelve tribes
truly become a nation and become conscious of being the people of God,
the bearers of his message and his promises, witnesses of his merciful
favour in the midst of the nations and also for the nations (cf. Is
26:1-9; 54; 60; 62). In order to instruct his people on how to fulfil
their mission and how to pass on the revelation entrusted to them, God
gave Israel the law which defines how they are to live (cf. Ex 20; Deut
5), and which distinguishes them from other peoples.
22. Like the Church itself even in our own
day, Israel bears the treasure of its election in fragile vessels. The
relationship of Israel with its Lord is the story of its faithfulness
and its unfaithfulness. In order to fulfil his work of salvation despite
the smallness and weakness of the instruments he chose, God manifested
his mercy and the graciousness of his gifts, as well as his faithfulness
to his promises which no human infidelity can nullify [In
other words, any rejection of the Son of God does not affect the Jews
status as the Chosen People of God --- for them, Jesus Christ is not the
sine qua non like he is for the rest of us.....I guess?](cf.
Rom 3:3; 2 Tim 2:13). At every step of his people along the way God set
apart at least a ‘small number’ (cf. Deut 4:27), a ‘remnant’ (cf. Is
1:9; Zeph 3:12; cf. also Is 6:13; 17:5-6), a handful of the faithful who
‘have not bowed the knee to Baal’ (cf. 1 Kings 19:18). Through this
remnant, God realized his plan of salvation. Constantly the object of
his election and love remained the chosen people as through them – as
the ultimate goal – the whole of humanity is gathered together and led
to him.
23. The Church is called the new
people of God (cf. "Nostra aetate", No.4) but not in the sense that the
people of God of Israel has ceased to exist.
The Church “was prepared in a remarkable way throughout the history of
the people of Israel and by means of the Old Covenant” (“Lumen gentium”,
2). The Church does not replace the people of God of Israel, since as
the community founded on Christ it represents in him the fulfilment of
the promises made to Israel. This does not mean that Israel,
not having achieved such a fulfilment, can no longer be considered to be
the people of God. “Although the Church is the new people of God, the
Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this
followed from the Holy Scriptures” (“Nostra aetate”, No.4).
24. God
revealed himself in his Word, so that it may be understood by humanity
in actual historical situations. This Word invites all people to
respond. If their responses are in accord with the Word of God they
stand in right relationship with him. For Jews this Word can be learned
through the Torah and the traditions based on it. The Torah is the
instruction for a successful life in right relationship with God.
Whoever observes the Torah has life in its fullness (cf. Pirqe Avot II,
7). By observing the Torah the Jew receives a share in communion with
God. In this regard, Pope Francis has stated: “The Christian confessions
find their unity in Christ; Judaism finds its unity in the Torah.
Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Word of God made flesh in
the world; for Jews the Word of God is present above all in the Torah.
Both faith traditions find their foundation in the One God, the God of
the Covenant, who reveals himself through his Word. In seeking a right
attitude towards God, Christians turn to Christ as the fount of new
life, and Jews to the teaching of the Torah.” (Address to members of the
International Council of Christians and Jews, 30 June 2015). [So
while we worry about whether such and such as statement is an example
of "material," "formal," "notorious," "factual," heresy ---- there is
outright apostasy --- stepping away from the very fundamentals of faith
--- being embraced by the institutional organization of the Catholic
Church. But, of course, this has nothing at all to do with sex, so, who
cares. Speak about "the non-Christians having a right to contraception"
and watch the explosion! From the above statement of this document and
from Francis himself, clearly one does not need to be baptized in Christ
to be saved and participate in the "Word".]
25. Judaism and the Christian
faith as seen in the New Testament are two ways by which God’s people
can make the Sacred Scriptures of Israel their own. The Scriptures which
Christians call the Old Testament is open therefore to both ways. A
response to God’s word of salvation that accords with one or the other
tradition can thus open up access to God,
even if it is left up to his counsel of salvation to determine in what
way he may intend to save mankind in each instance. That his will for
salvation is universally directed is testified by the Scriptures (cf.
eg. Gen 12:1-3; Is 2:2-5; 1 Tim 2:4). Therefore there are not two paths
to salvation according to the expression “Jews hold to the Torah,
Christians hold to Christ”. Christian faith proclaims that Christ’s work
of salvation is universal and involves all mankind. God’s word is one
single and undivided reality which takes concrete form in each
respective historical context.
26. In this sense, Christians affirm that Jesus Christ can be considered as ‘the living Torah of God’. Torah and Christ are the Word of God [To make this comparison in this way is just blasphemy],
his revelation for us human beings as testimony of his boundless love.
For Christians, the pre-existence of Christ as the Word and Son of the
Father is a fundamental doctrine, and according to rabbinical tradition
the Torah and the name of the Messiah exist already before creation (cf.
Genesis Rabbah 1,1). Further, according to Jewish understanding God
himself interprets the Torah in the Eschaton, while in Christian
understanding everything is recapitulated in Christ in the end (cf. Eph
1:10; Col 1:20). In the gospel of Matthew Christ is seen as it were as
the ‘new Moses’. Matthew 5:17–19 presents Jesus as the authoritative and
authentic interpreter of the Torah (cf. Lk 24:27, 45–47). In the
rabbinical literature, however, we find the identification of the Torah
with Moses. Against this background, Christ as the ‘new Moses’ can be
connected with the Torah. Torah and Christ are the locus of the presence
of God in the world as this presence is experienced in the respective
worship communities. The Hebrew dabar means word and event at the same
time – and thus one may reach the conclusion that the word of the Torah
may be open for the Christ event.
4. The relationship between the Old and New Testament and the Old and New Covenant
27. The covenant that God has offered Israel is irrevocable. “God is not
man, that he should lie” (Num 23:19; cf. 2 Tim 2:13). The permanent
elective fidelity of God expressed in earlier covenants is never
repudiated (cf. Rom 9:4; 11:1–2). The New Covenant does not revoke the
earlier covenants, but it brings them to fulfilment. Through the Christ
event Christians have understood that all that had gone before was to be
interpreted anew. For Christians the New Covenant has acquired a
quality of its own, even though the orientation for both consists in a
unique relationship with God (cf. for example, the covenant formula in
Lev 26:12, “I will be your God and you will be my people”). For
Christians, the New Covenant in Christ is the culminating point of the
promises of salvation of the Old Covenant, and is to that extent never
independent of it. The New Covenant is grounded in and based on the Old,
because it is ultimately the God of Israel who concludes the Old
Covenant with his people Israel and enables the New Covenant in Jesus
Christ. Jesus lives during the period of the Old Covenant, but in his
work of salvation in the New Covenant confirms and perfects the
dimensions of the Old. The term covenant, therefore, means a
relationship with God that takes effect in different ways for Jews and
Christians. The New Covenant can never replace the Old but presupposes
it and gives it a new dimension of meaning, by reinforcing the personal
nature of God as revealed in the Old Covenant and establishing it as
openness for all who respond faithfully from all the nations (cf. Zech
8:20-23; Psalm 87).
28. Unity and difference between Judaism and Christianity come to the
fore in the first instance with the testimonies of divine revelation.
With the existence of the Old Testament as an integral part of the one
Christian Bible, there is a deeply rooted sense of intrinsic kinship
between Judaism and Christianity. The roots of Christianity lie in the
Old Testament, and Christianity constantly draws nourishment from these
roots. However, Christianity is grounded in the person of Jesus of
Nazareth, who is recognised as the Messiah promised to the Jewish
people, and as the only begotten Son of God who has communicated himself
through the Holy Spirit following his death on the cross and his
resurrection. With the existence of the New Testament, the question
naturally arose quite soon of how the two testaments are related to one
another, whether for example the New Testament writings have not
superseded the older writings and nullified them. This position was
represented by Marcion, who in the second century held that the New
Testament had made the Old Testament book of promises obsolete, destined
to fade away in the glow of the new, just as one no longer needs the
light of the moon as soon as the sun has risen. This stark antithesis
between the Hebrew and the Christian Bible never became an official
doctrine of the Christian Church. By excluding Marcion from the
Christian community in 144, the Church rejected his concept of a purely
“Christian” Bible purged of all Old Testament elements, bore witness to
its faith in the one and only God who is the author of both testaments,
and thus held fast to the unity of both testaments, the “concordia
testamentorum”.
29. This is of course only one side of the relationship between the two
testaments. The common patrimony of the Old Testament not only formed
the fundamental basis of a spiritual kinship between Jews and Christians
but also brought with it a basic tension in the relationship of the two
faith communities. This is demonstrated by the fact that Christians
read the Old Testament in the light of the New, in the conviction
expressed by Augustine in the indelible formula: “In the Old Testament
the New is concealed and in the New the Old is revealed” (Quaestiones in
Heptateuchum 2, 73). Pope Gregory the Great also spoke in the same
sense when he defined the Old Testament as “the prophecy of the New” and
the latter as the “best exposition of the Old” (Homiliae in Ezechielem
I, VI, 15; cf. “Dei verbum”, 16).
30. This Christological exegesis can easily give rise to the impression that Christians consider the New Testament not only as the fulfilment of the Old but at the same time as a replacement for it. That this impression cannot be correct is evident already from the fact that Judaism too found itself compelled to adopt a new reading of Scripture after the catastrophe of the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70. Since the Sadducees who were bound to the temple did not survive this catastrophe, the rabbis, following in the footsteps of the Pharisees, who had already developed their particular mode of reading and interpreting Scripture, now did so without the temple as the centre of Jewish religious devotion.
30. This Christological exegesis can easily give rise to the impression that Christians consider the New Testament not only as the fulfilment of the Old but at the same time as a replacement for it. That this impression cannot be correct is evident already from the fact that Judaism too found itself compelled to adopt a new reading of Scripture after the catastrophe of the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70. Since the Sadducees who were bound to the temple did not survive this catastrophe, the rabbis, following in the footsteps of the Pharisees, who had already developed their particular mode of reading and interpreting Scripture, now did so without the temple as the centre of Jewish religious devotion.
31. As a consequence there were two responses to this situation, or more
precisely, two new ways of reading Scripture, namely the Christological
exegesis of the Christians and the rabbinical exegesis of that form of
Judaism that developed historically. Since each mode involved a new
interpretation of Scripture, the crucial new question must be precisely
how these two modes are related to each other. But since the Christian
Church and post-biblical rabbinical Judaism developed in parallel, but
also in opposition and mutual ignorance, this question cannot be
answered from the New Testament alone. After centuries of opposing
positions it has been the duty of Jewish-Catholic dialogue to bring
these two new ways of reading the Biblical writings into dialogue with
one another in order to perceive the “rich complementarity” where it
exists and “to help one another to mine the riches of God’s word”
(“Evangelii gaudium”, 249). The document of the Pontifical Biblical
Commission “The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the
Christian Bible” in 2001 therefore stated that Christians can and must
admit “that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in
continuity with the Jewish Scriptures from the Second Temple period, a
reading analogous to the Christian reading which developed in parallel
fashion”. It then draws the conclusion: “Both readings are bound up with
the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings are the
result and expression. Consequently, both are irreducible” (No.22).
32. Since each of the two readings serves the purpose of rightly
understanding God’s will and word, it becomes evident how important is
the awareness that the Christian faith is rooted in the faith of
Abraham. That raises the further question of how the Old and the New
Covenant stand in relation to one another. For the Christian faith it is
axiomatic that there can only be one single covenant history of God
with humanity. The covenant with Abraham, with circumcision as its sign
(cf. Gen 17), and the covenant with Moses restricted to Israel regarding
obedience to the law (cf. Ex 19:5; 24:7-8) and in particular the
observance of the Sabbath (cf. Ex 31:16-17) had been extended in the
covenant with Noah, with the rainbow as its sign (cf. “Verbum Domini”,
117), to the whole of creation (cf. Gen 9:9 ff). Through the prophets
God in turn promises a new and eternal covenant (cf. Is 55:3; 61:8; Jer
31:31-34; Ez 36:22-28). Each of these covenants incorporates the
previous covenant and interprets it in a new way. That is also true for
the New Covenant which for Christians is the final eternal covenant and
therefore the definitive interpretation of what was promised by the
prophets of the Old Covenant, or as Paul expresses it, the “Yes” and
“Amen” to “all that God has promised” (2 Cor 1:20). The Church as the
renewed people of God has been elected by God without conditions. The
Church is the definitive and unsurpassable locus of the salvific action
of God. This however does not mean that Israel as the people of God has
been repudiated or has lost its mission (cf. “Nostra aetate”, No.4). The
New Covenant for Christians is therefore neither the annulment nor the
replacement, but the fulfilment of the promises of the Old Covenant.
33. For Jewish-Christian dialogue in the first instance God’s covenant
with Abraham proves to be constitutive, as he is not only the father of
Israel but also the father of the faith of Christians. In this covenant
community it should be evident for Christians that the covenant that God
concluded with Israel has never been revoked but remains valid on the
basis of God’s unfailing faithfulness to his people, and consequently
the New Covenant which Christians believe in can only be understood as
the affirmation and fulfilment of the Old. Christians are therefore also
convinced that through the New Covenant the Abrahamic covenant has
obtained that universality for all peoples which was originally intended
in the call of Abram (cf. Gen 12:1-3). This recourse to the Abrahamic
covenant is so essentially constitutive of the Christian faith that the
Church without Israel would be in danger of losing its locus in the
history of salvation. By the same token, Jews could with regard to the
Abrahamic covenant arrive at the insight that Israel without the Church
would be in danger of remaining too particularist and of failing to
grasp the universality of its experience of God. In this fundamental
sense Israel and the Church remain bound to each other according to the
covenant and are interdependent.
34. That there can only be one history of God’s covenant with mankind,
and that consequently Israel is God’s chosen and beloved people of the
covenant which has never been repealed or revoked (cf. Rom 9:4; 11:29),
is the conviction behind the Apostle Paul’s passionate struggle with the
dual fact that while the Old Covenant from God continues to be in
force, Israel has not adopted the New Covenant. In order to do justice
to both facts Paul coined the expressive image of the root of Israel
into which the wild branches of the Gentiles have been grafted (cf. Rom
11:16-21). One could say that Jesus Christ bears in himself the living
root of the “green olive tree”, and yet in a deeper meaning that the
whole promise has its root in him (cf. Jn 8:58). This image represents
for Paul the decisive key to thinking of the relationship between Israel
and the Church in the light of faith. With this image Paul gives
expression to the duality of the unity and divergence of Israel and the
Church. On the one hand the image is to be taken seriously in the sense
that the grafted wild branches have not their origin as branches in the
plant onto which they are grafted and their new situation represents a
new reality and a new dimension of God’s work of salvation, so that the
Christian Church cannot merely be understood as a branch or a fruit of
Israel (cf. Mt 8:10-13). On the other hand, the image is also to be
taken seriously in the sense that the Church draws nourishment and
strength from the root of Israel, and that the grafted branches would
wither or even die if they were cut off from the root of Israel (cf.
“Ecclesia in Medio Oriente”, 21).
5. The universality of salvation in Jesus Christ and God’s unrevoked covenant with Israel
35. [And now a little bone to the Neo-cons] Since God has never revoked his covenant with his people Israel,
there cannot be different paths or approaches to God’s salvation. The
theory that there may be two different paths to salvation, the Jewish
path without Christ and the path with the Christ, whom Christians
believe is Jesus of Nazareth, would in fact endanger the foundations of
Christian faith. Confessing the universal and therefore also exclusive
mediation of salvation through Jesus Christ belongs to the core of
Christian faith. So too does the confession of the one God, the God of
Israel, who through his revelation in Jesus Christ has become totally
manifest as the God of all peoples, insofar as in him the promise has
been fulfilled that all peoples will pray to the God of Israel as the
one God (cf. Is 56:1-8). The document “Notes on the correct way to
present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman
Catholic Church” published by the Holy See’s Commission for Religious
Relations with the Jews in 1985 therefore maintained that the Church and
Judaism cannot be represented as “two parallel ways to salvation”, but
that the Church must “witness to Christ as the Redeemer for all” (No.I,
7). The Christian faith confesses that God wants to lead all people to
salvation, that Jesus Christ is the universal mediator of salvation, and
that there is no “other name under heaven given to the human race by
which we are to be saved” (Acts 4:12).
36. [And now, back to the Apostasy. The Vatican is saying that you do not need to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.] From
the Christian confession that there can be only one path to salvation,
however, it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from
God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the
Messiah of Israel and the Son of God. Such a claim would find no support
in the soteriological understanding of Saint Paul, who
in the Letter to the Romans not only gives expression to his conviction
that there can be no breach in the history of salvation, but that
salvation comes from the Jews (cf. also Jn 4:22). God entrusted Israel
with a unique mission, and He does not bring his mysterious plan of
salvation for all peoples (cf. 1 Tim 2:4) to fulfilment without drawing
into it his “first-born son” (Ex 4:22). From this it is self-evident
that Paul in the Letter to the Romans definitively negates the question
he himself has posed, whether God has repudiated his own people. Just as
decisively he asserts: “For the gifts and the call of God are
irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). That the Jews are participants in God’s
salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible
without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable
divine mystery. [In
other words, there is absolutely no theological justification for
making this statement. Because they just made it up to satisfy the
Zellerbachs of the world and his bosses in the State Department and
beyond]It
is therefore no accident that Paul’s soteriological reflections in
Romans 9-11 on the irrevocable redemption of Israel against the
background of the Christ-mystery culminate in a magnificent doxology:
“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How
inscrutable are his judgments and how unsearchable his ways” (Rom
11:33). Bernard of Clairvaux (De cons. III/I,3) says that for the Jews
“a determined point in time has been fixed which cannot be anticipated”.
37.
Another focus for Catholics must continue to be the highly complex
theological question of how Christian belief in the universal salvific
significance of Jesus Christ can be combined in a coherent way with the
equally clear statement of faith in the never-revoked covenant of God
with Israel. It is the belief of the Church that Christ is the Saviour
for all. There cannot be two ways of salvation, therefore, since Christ
is also the Redeemer of the Jews in addition to the Gentiles. Here
we confront the mystery of God’s work, which is not a matter of
missionary efforts to convert Jews, but rather the expectation that the
Lord will bring about the hour when we will all be united, “when all
peoples will call on God with one voice and ‘serve him shoulder to
shoulder’ ” (“Nostra aetate”, No.4). [Outright apostasy explicitly basing itself on a document of Vatican II. But we can still go to our "Latin Mass"!]
38. The Declaration of the Second Vatican Council on Judaism, that is
the fourth article of “Nostra aetate”, is located within a decidedly
theological framework regarding the universality of salvation in Jesus
Christ and God’s unrevoked covenant with Israel. That does not mean that
all theological questions which arise in the relationship of
Christianity and Judaism were resolved in the text. These questions were
introduced in the Declaration, but require further theological
reflection. Of course, there had been earlier magisterial texts which
focussed on Judaism, but “Nostra aetate” (No.4) provides the first
theological overview of the relationship of the Catholic Church to the
Jews.
39.
Because it was such a theological breakthrough, the Conciliar text is
not infrequently over–interpreted, and things are read into it which it
does not in fact contain. An important example of over–interpretation
would be the following: that the
covenant that God made with his people Israel perdures and is never
invalidated. Although this statement is true, it cannot be explicitly
read into “Nostra aetate” (No. 4). This statement was instead first made
with full clarity by Saint Pope John Paul II when he said during a
meeting with Jewish representatives in Mainz on 17 November 1980 that
the Old Covenant had never been revoked by God: “The first dimension of
this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of God of the Old
Covenant, never revoked by God … and that of the New Covenant, is at
the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the
first and the second part of her Bible” (No.3). The same conviction is
stated also in the Catechism of the Church in 1993: “The Old Covenant
has never been revoked” (121). [Can you see the problem with this man being designated as a "saint"? Even if he was "pro-life"?]
6. The Church’s mandate to evangelize in relation to Judaism
40. It is easy to understand that the
so–called ‘mission to the Jews’ is a very delicate and sensitive matter
for Jews because, in their eyes, it involves the very existence of the
Jewish people. This question also proves to be awkward for Christians,
because for them the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ and
consequently the universal mission of the Church are of fundamental
importance. The Church is therefore obliged to view evangelisation to
Jews, who believe in the one God, in a different manner from that to
people of other religions and world views. In concrete terms
this means that the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any
specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews. While there
is a principled rejection of an institutional Jewish mission, Christians
are nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ
also to Jews, although they should do so in a humble and sensitive
manner, acknowledging that Jews are bearers of God’s Word, and
particularly in view of the great tragedy of the Shoah. [So
the Church can no longer try to convert Jews because of the "Holocaust"
--- especially since the great Holocaust of Jesus Christ offering
Himself on the Cross to His Father is now merely a "theory of St.
Anselm."]
41. The concept of mission must be presented correctly in dialogue
between Jews and Christians. Christian mission has its origin in the
sending of Jesus by the Father. He gives his disciples a share in this
call in relation to God’s people of Israel (cf. Mt 10:6) and then as the
risen Lord with regard to all nations (cf. Mt 28:19). Thus the people
of God attains a new dimension through Jesus, who calls his Church from
both Jews and Gentiles (cf. Eph 2:11-22) on the basis of faith in Christ
and by means of baptism, through which there is incorporation into his
Body which is the Church (“Lumen gentium”, 14).
42. Christian mission and witness, in personal life and in proclamation,
belong together. The principle that Jesus gives his disciples when he
sends them out is to suffer violence rather than to inflict violence.
Christians must put their trust in God, who will carry out his universal
plan of salvation in ways that only he knows, for they are witnesses to
Christ, but they do not themselves have to implement the salvation of
humankind. Zeal for the “house of the Lord” and confident trust in the
victorious deeds of God belong together. Christian mission means that
all Christians, in community with the Church, confess and proclaim the
historical realisation of God’s universal will for salvation in Christ
Jesus (cf. “Ad gentes”, 7). They experience his sacramental presence in
the liturgy and make it tangible in their service to others, especially
those in need.
43. It is and remains a qualitative definition of the Church of the New
Covenant that it consists of Jews and Gentiles, even if the quantitative
proportions of Jewish and Gentile Christians may initially give a
different impression. Just as after the death and resurrection of Jesus
Christ there were not two unrelated covenants, so too the people of the
covenant of Israel are not disconnected from ‘the people of God drawn
from the Gentiles’. Rather, the enduring role of the covenant people of
Israel in God’s plan of salvation is to relate dynamically to the
‘people of God of Jews and Gentiles, united in Christ’, he whom the
Church confesses as the universal mediator of creation and salvation. In
the context of God’s universal will of salvation, all people who have
not yet received the gospel are aligned with the people of God of the
New Covenant. “In the first place there is the people to whom the
covenants and promises were given and from whom Christ was born
according to the flesh (cf. Rom 9:4-5). On account of their fathers this
people remains most dear to God, for he does not repent of the gifts he
makes nor of the calls he issues (cf. Rom 11:28-29)” (“Lumen gentium”,
16).
7. The goals of dialogue with Judaism
44. The first goal of the dialogue is to add depth to the reciprocal
knowledge of Jews and Christians. One can only learn to love what one
has gradually come to know, and one can only know truly and profoundly
what one loves. This profound knowledge is accompanied by a mutual
enrichment whereby the dialogue partners become the recipients of gifts.
The Conciliar declaration “Nostra aetate” (No.4) speaks of the rich
spiritual patrimony that should be further discovered step by step
through biblical and theological studies and through dialogue. To that
extent, from the Christian perspective, an important goal is the mining
of the spiritual treasures concealed in Judaism for Christians. In this
regard one must mention above all the interpretation of the Sacred
Scriptures. In the foreword by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the 2001
document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission “The Jewish People and
their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible”, the respect of
Christians for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament is
stressed. It highlights that “Christians can learn a great deal from a
Jewish exegesis practised for more than 2000 years; in return Christians
may hope that Jews can profit from Christian exegetical research.” In
the field of exegesis many Jewish and Christian scholars now work
together and find their collaboration mutually fruitful precisely
because they belong to different religious traditions.
45. This reciprocal acquiring of knowledge must not be limited to
specialists alone. Therefore it is important that Catholic educational
institutions, particularly in the training of priests, integrate into
their curricula both “Nostra aetate” and the subsequent documents of the
Holy See regarding the implementation of the Conciliar declaration. The
Church is also grateful for the analogous efforts within the Jewish
community. The fundamental changes in relations between Christians and
Jews which were initiated by “Nostra aetate” (No. 4) must also be made
known to the coming generations and be received and disseminated by
them.
46. One important goal of Jewish-Christian dialogue certainly consists
in joint engagement throughout the world for justice, peace,
conservation of creation, and reconciliation. In the past, it may have
been that the different religions – against the background of a narrowly
understood claim to truth and a corresponding intolerance – contributed
to the incitement of conflict and confrontation. But today religions
should not be part of the problem, but part of the solution. Only when
religions engage in a successful dialogue with one another, and in that
way contribute towards world peace, can this be realised also on the
social and political levels. Religious freedom guaranteed by civil
authority is the prerequisite for such dialogue and peace. In this
regard, the litmus-test is how religious minorities are treated, and
which rights of theirs are guaranteed. In Jewish-Christian dialogue the
situation of Christian communities in the state of Israel is of great
relevance, since there – as nowhere else in the world – a Christian
minority faces a Jewish majority. Peace in the Holy Land – lacking and
constantly prayed for – plays a major role in dialogue between Jews and
Christians.
47. Another important goal of Jewish–Catholic dialogue consists in
jointly combatting all manifestations of racial discrimination against
Jews and all forms of anti-Semitism, which have certainly not yet been
eradicated and re-emerge in different ways in various contexts. History
teaches us where even the slightest perceptible forms of anti-Semitism
can lead: the human tragedy of the Shoah in which two-thirds of European
Jewry were annihilated. Both faith traditions are called to maintain
together an unceasing vigilance and sensitivity in the social sphere as
well. Because of the strong bond of friendship between Jews and
Catholics, the Catholic Church feels particularly obliged to do all that
is possible with our Jewish friends to repel anti-Semitic tendencies.
Pope Francis has repeatedly stressed that a Christian can never be an
anti-Semite, especially because of the Jewish roots of Christianity.
48. Justice and peace, however, should not simply be abstractions within
dialogue, but should also be evidenced in tangible ways. The
social-charitable sphere provides a rich field of activity, since both
Jewish and Christian ethics include the imperative to support the poor,
disadvantaged and sick. Thus, for example, the Holy See’s Commission for
Religious Relations with the Jews and the International Jewish
Committee on Interreligious Consultations (IJCIC) worked together in
2004 in Argentina during the financial crisis in that country to
organise joint soup kitchens for the poor and homeless, and to enable
impoverished children to attend school by providing meals for them. Most
Christian churches have large charitable organisations, which likewise
exist within Judaism. These would be able to work together to alleviate
human need. Judaism teaches that the commandment “to walk in His ways”
(Deut 11:22) requires the imitation of the Divine Attributes (Imitatio
Dei) through care for the vulnerable, the poor and the suffering
(Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 14a). This principle accords with Jesus’
instruction to support those in need (cf. eg. Mt 25:35–46). Jews and
Christians cannot simply accept poverty and human suffering; rather they
must strive to overcome these problems.
49. When Jews and Christians make a joint contribution through concrete
humanitarian aid for justice and peace in the world, they bear witness
to the loving care of God. No longer in confrontational opposition but
cooperating side by side, Jews and Christians should seek to strive for a
better world. Saint Pope John Paul II called for such cooperation in
his address to the Central Council of German Jewry and to the Conference
of Rabbis in Mainz on 17 November 1980: “Jews and Christians, as
children of Abraham, are called to be a blessing for the world … , by
committing themselves together for peace and justice among all men and
peoples, with the fullness and depth that God himself intended us to
have, and with the readiness for sacrifices that this goal may demand”.
10 December 2015
Cardinal KURT KOCH
President
President
The Most Reverend BRIAN FARRELL
Vice–President
Vice–President
The Reverend NORBERT HOFMANN, SDB
Secretary
Secretary
