Jewish-Catholic Relations
Since Vatican Council II, Jewish-Catholic relations have, for the most part, been moving away from the mutual animosity of the past . Sadly. some Jews and Catholics, however, have worked hard against this. Thankfully, the Israeli Ambassador to the Vatican does not show the same hostility and anger that other Jewish groups have had this week in regards to Pope Benedict’s decision to lift the excommunication from the SSPX.
Part of the problem comes from media misrepresentation of what Pope Benedict has done (since communion has not been re-established), and another part of the problem comes from the fact that this was handled poorly, because anti-Semitic statements from members of the SSPX were not properly addressed. Hopefully, as communication between the SSPX and the Vatican increase, anti-Semitism will be addressed and the SSPX will be required to make an open repudiation of anti-Semitism before full communion is established.
Cardinal Schönborn has recently pointed out that he believed mistakes were made in dealing with the SSPX. Hopefully this means that he will actively work to make sure the situation is rectified in further talks with them.
Comments are closed.
Part of the problem comes from media misrepresentation of what Pope Benedict has done . . . .
It’s always the fault of the media, isn’t it? :)
I would have to say that while I think everything that has been done to improve Catholic-Jewish relations is to be applauded, as someone whose Catholic education was in the 1950s and early 1960s, I see a real change in Church teachings. The relationship between Judaism and Catholicism was very clear-cut in those days (and going back almost 2000 years). Catholicism had supplanted Judaism, because Jesus had come to the Jews, and they rejected him. I just found these two items in the Baltimore Catechism No 3:
I find that shocking, and it could hardly be more different than the current understanding that God did not break the covenant he made with the Jews. If Mel Gibson had made The Passion of the Christ back when I was in Catholic school, he would have left in the line where the Jews say, “His blood be on our heads and on the heads of our children!” And as I understand what I have read so far of Joseph A. Fitzmyer’s book The One Who Is to Come, the Hebrew Bible is not filled with prophecies that a Messiah (Jesus) was coming — prophecies that the Jews misunderstood and even in retrospect can’t see the truth of.
I agree that the Vatican at times seems to have a PR department that needs to get back to speed.
I do think the Spirit is worjing in this.
It should be noted that has been mentioned that Bishop Williamson is perhaps dying and that might have factored into all this
On a bright note We see some significant things.Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos who is heading all this up seemed ot indicate in a interview that the SSPX does not have a real problem with Nostra aetate. Whatever talks have been going beind the scense they appear to be significant
Fitzmyer is a pretty big name, but I think he is dead wrong.
David,
The spiritual nation of Israel is the Church.
I challenge you to find any kind of real connection between mainstream “Judaism” and the religion of the Temple.
The Baltimore Catechism remains correct and Catholics should not partake in Jewish synogogue worship.
Veritas
I thought you had left us; moreover the BC does not remain correct, get a copy of VII and you will see elements of it correct errorneous ideas found within the local BC.
Fitzmyer is a pretty big name, but I think he is dead wrong.
About what?
Michael I
I think JB was saying he thinks Fitzmyer is wrong in suggesting the Tanakh had no messianic vision contained within it (and so referencing David’s comment). I think Fitzmyer is wrong, though there is an element of truth — not all that was messianic would have been recognized as such at the time of their writing, but would later be able to be seen as such. But I think it goes too far to suggest it’s all the creation of post-Christian communities to read messianic claims from the Tanakh just to prove Jesus’ claims.
Henry,
You are correct. I intended to write more, but was interrupted by the wee one. I think I would agree entirely with what you just wrote.
I find that shocking, and it could hardly be more different than the current understanding that God did not break the covenant he made with the Jews.
This seems a rather simple way of stating it and could lead to some erroneous theological conclusions, for instance the idea that “Jews do not need Christ because the Mosaic covenant is already in force and salvific”. This is the interpretation often proposed by the Anti-Defamation League, for instance, which took offense at suggestion that Christians still ought to pray for the salvation of the Jews in Christ.
For some good discussions of the complexities of this issue, see:
Covenant and Mission, by Avery Cardinal Dulles. America October 21, 2002.
Judaism’s way to salvation, by Cardinal Schonborn. The Tablet March 29, 2008.
“Oremus pro conversione Judæorum.” Cardinal Kasper Takes the Field April 12, 2008.
I have not read that book by Fitzmeyer, but wouldn’t his claim be true in the sense that there are multiple messianic visions contained in the Hebrew scriptures? Christian communities did construct its understanding of Messiahship from these diverse messianic visions, but that is not to say that they were constructed out of nothing.
Michael I
I have not read it; but I am taking what David said on face value (in part, because it fits other things I’ve seen from Fitzmeyer before — he really didnt’ get Balthasar!); that it was suggested that the Tanakh was not filled with prophecies of a coming messiah. That, I think, is a rather new take on the Tanakh, based upon post-Christian Jewish interpretation, often of a secular sort, which tries to distance itself from all messianic notions (in part, to add support to Zionism, because the messianic claims ended up being anti-Zionistic).
So I would agree with you there are many prophecies, and certainly there was a construction; but the idea seems to be (not sure with Fitzmeyer, but with others) is that Christians created the notion ex nihilo and just read into the past without any previous pre-Christian exegetics making similar interpretations with the same texts in question.
I would add that messianic interpretations and expectations increased after the Jews returned from the exile, and so, like with interpretations of the state of the dead, development happened, but that development occured pre-Christ.
I intended to write more, but was interrupted by the wee one.
JB,
And an adorable wee one, at that. And a fine looking mom and dad, too. Congratulations!
This seems a rather simple way of stating it and could lead to some erroneous theological conclusions . . . .
Christopher,
Would you agree, though, with my feeling that the Baltimore Catechism questions and answers I reproduced are at odds both in tone and substance with Catholic attitudes toward Judaism after John Paul II?
Thank you kindly sir.
David Nickol,
Would you agree, though, with my feeling that the Baltimore Catechism questions and answers I reproduced are at odds both in tone and substance with Catholic attitudes toward Judaism after John Paul II?
Yes. (Those excerpts are strongly reminiscent of the kind of attitude towards Judaism which provoked Jules Isaac’s audiences with John XXIII).
I think there are two extremes — that characterized by the quotes you just mentioned, and the other extreme adopted by some within the ‘Jewish-Christian dialogue’ which would repudiate Christ as the savior of all and hold the Mosaic covenant as sufficient unto itself.
The late Fr. Neuhaus spoke well of the Christian position (a balance between the extremes) in “Salvation is from the Jews” (First Things 117 November 2001):
Our distinct traditions reflect differences within the one tradition of witness to the God of Israel and his one plan of salvation. It is misleading, I believe, to speak of two peoples of God, or of two covenants, never mind to speak of two religions. While it was not specifically addressed to Jewish-Christian relations, this was the truth underscored also by the statement in 2000 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus. It is not Christian imperialism but fidelity to revealed truth that requires Christians to say that Christ is Lord of all or he is not Lord at all. . . .
With respect to Judaism, Christians today are exhorted to reject every form of supersessionism, and so we should. To supersede means to nullify, to void, to make obsolete, to displace. The end of supersessionism, however, cannot and must not mean the end of the argument between Christians and Jews. We cannot settle into the comfortable interreligious politesse of mutual respect for positions deemed to be equally true. Christ and his Church do not supersede Judaism but they do continue and fulfill the story of which we are both part. Or so Christians must contend. It is the story that begins with Abraham who in the eucharistic canon we call “our father in faith.”
There is no avoiding the much vexed question of whether this means that Jews should enter into the further fulfillment of the salvation story by becoming Christians. Christians cannot, out of a desire to be polite, answer that question in the negative. We can and must say that the ultimate duty of each person is to form his conscience in truth and act upon that discernment; we can and must say that there are great goods to be sought in dialogue apart from conversion; we can and must say that we reject proselytizing, which is best defined as evangelizing in a way that demeans the other; we can and must say that Jews and Christians need one another in many public tasks imposed upon us by a culture that is, in large part, in manifest rebellion against the God of Israel; we can and must say that there are theological, philosophical, and moral questions to be explored together, despite our differences regarding Messianic promise; we can and must say that friendship between Jew and Christian can be secured in shared love for the God of Israel; we can and must say that the historical forms we call Judaism and Christianity will be transcended, but not superseded, by the fulfillment of eschatological promise. But along the way to that final fulfillment we are locked in argument. It is an argument by which—for both Jew and Christian—conscience is formed, witness is honed, and friendship is deepened. This is our destiny, and this is our duty, as members of the one people of God — a people of God for which there is no plural.
So that Baltimore Catechism was a humorous book then.
I’ll help you settle all the true religion squabbles. I have True Religion! In fact, I am wearing it right now. True Religion is a designer jeans brand from Los Angeles, featuring a guitar-playing Maitreya Buddha.
I will give the Baltimore stuff credit – it’s much easier to run a religion that way. Question, answer, done. If you want to uphold that you’re “it”, differentiating will only undermine your lofty claim.
In the end, every dialogue between groups with absolute claims is pointless. After stealing the Jews’ book, writing a seque and disowning them, persecuting, marginalizing and killing them, exactly what is the Catholic Church supposed to say to Jews ? “Uh….sorry y’all. But, we’re still the true religion.”
“We’re 100% right but, congrats, you’re also right inasmuch as you agree with us, so let’s have some cawffee and tawk” That’s the gist of Catholic ecumenism/inter-religious dialogue.
I agree that the Vatican at times seems to have a PR department that needs to get back to speed.
Response:
I have a big problem with the Church getting herself into the soundbite mode. I think it’s ridiculous to think that the Church must somehow fit this modern mentality where a law, a policy, a statement, etc. must be made when there is a problem. The priest abuse came up: oh, let’s make a policy! There is liturgical abuse: the Vatican needs to enforce her liturgical rules! The Pope was silent about Williamson: make a statemet! As if the Church doing all these things is enough. That is not how God works. He lets things run through. The Church drags sin with her and carry her problems. The problem is, we do not know how to suffer anymore, don’t know how to carry problems, and we do not know how to get to the depth of things. A statement, a law, a policy, the American way of solving problems, is not the Christian way.
Here is the heart of the question, Mr. Blosser, which neither you (I hope) nor Neuhaus wish to wrestle with:
When many who are superficially Christian hear this phrase:
There is no avoiding the much vexed question of whether this means that Jews should enter into the further fulfillment of the salvation story by becoming Christians.
When they, the “great unwashed” listening to this discussion, hearing this and liking what you and the late Neuhaus say on this subject, they read “should” in the above statement as “MUST,” and presume to infer from what you and Neuhaus say that Judaism has no soteriologic virtue at all. That latter thing DOES mean that the “covenant” with the Jews is broken and that Jews who do not accept the Christ as their Saviour are damned to hell, and when you start staking out exclusive claims to an afterlife for one religion and denying the “salvific” qualities of another, you are waging CULTUAL WAR upon the people whose religion you are degrading. That is what Christians have tended to do in their “dialoges” with all other religions for centuries.
Most modern folks–especially youth I know who are genuinely spiritual, and, in particular, genuinely spiritual young Catholics–do not understand why there cannot be equally valid, equally efficacious “spiritual paths” for peoples of radically different cultural and religious and philosophic backgrounds. Not everyone is the same mentally or spiritually. I think the real fear of ecclesiastics regarding “interfaith dialogue” is that a whole lot of Christians might find that some polytheistic or atheistic system works better for them; why not assume that many polytheistic or atheistic people might just as easily discover that monotheistic Christianity works better FOR THEM?
It’s a shame you’ll end up at the stake now, you’re such a nice guy :-) charges: relativism, indicferemtism and syncretism.
I always tell fellow nonreligious people to not hold Christianity against Jesus, since he wasn’t a Christian. He also doesn’t care about sports scores or Grammies.