Vatican fence-mending campaign with Jews draws mixed reviews

May I ask what are these principles in Nostra Aetate" are that the prayer for the Jews departs from (or rather that departs from Tradition, but I digress)?

The Church believes and teaches (and teaches, and teaches) that there is one way to salvation, through Jesus by means of the Church and Sacraments He instituted. The great mission of the Church is no secret, Christ laid it out quite plainly in the Great Commission (perhaps more accurately called the 'Great Omission' given our general avoidance of the subject, more on that later): "And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Mt 28:18-20)

Many of the Vatican's recent statements can be seen as a renewed emphasis on this neglected duty of all Christians. The re-emphasizing the proper form for Baptism, the changing of the prayer for the Jews (without removing the reference to conversion), the sanctions against priests who have taught against this final command. All can be understood as one action, reasserting the purpose of the Church on earth.

---

As to other religions praying for the conversion of Catholics, or of all people: I would find more reason to grieve if they excluded Catholics in their prayers for all to convert to what they see as the truth, for it would mean that they believe we are outside hope of salvation. If, on the other hand, they pray neither for our conversion nor the conversion of the world, then I cannot believe that they believe they have the truth; and if they do not believe they have the truth, why should I concern myself with what they believe? If you believe you are right, pray like it, if not convert: that is the message I would give to the ever-offended Mr Foxman.

++++++

*edited to fix link

Here today - You have said that you want to understand our views here. In that light of understanding, Nostra Aetate should be seen in light of the historical circumstances in which it was derived and conceived and toward a specific spiritual purpose. To fully understand Vatican II and the same issues that we find ourselves in disagreement over, please read The Catholic Church A short History by Hans Kung. I've quoted him to give you a summary of some of the understanding we have of the Prayer for the Jews within the context of Nostra Aetate and I hope it is helpful for you and for others here. There are reasons that we see the Prayer for the Jews as problematic to our relationship with the Jewish people, rather than helpful at this point historically, and that perhaps what we might need even more now is healing and reconciliation still in our dialogue with the Jewish people.

Nostra Aetate came about after considerable reflection after World War II of the Church's complicity in anti-Semitism and the death of millions of Jews. If one cannot grasp this central concept of the Church's complicity, one cannot understand Nostra Aetate and its full intention and meaning, as well as the meaning of Vatican II and its historical importance.

Vatican II "corrected Pope Pius XII - apart from his pioneering encyclical on Catholic biblical exegesis (Divino afflante Spiritu, 1943)-on almost all decisive points: reform of the liturgy, ecumenism, anti-Communism, freedom of religion, the modern world, and above all the attitude to Judaism." "For the first time in a council a 'collective guilt' of the Jewish people then or even now for the death of Jesus was strictly disavowed; any rejection or cursing of the old people of God was opposed-indeed, 'all outbreaks of hatred, persecutions and manifestations of anti-Semitism which have been directed against the Jews at any time by anyone' was lamented. At the same time 'mutual knowledge and respect' were promised."

Vatican II "attempted to implement two paradigm changes at once: it integrated fundamental features of both the Reformation paradigm and the paradigm of the Enlightenment and modernity." "Catholic complicity in the split in the church was recognized, as was the need for constant reform Ecclesia semper reformanda, constant renewal of the church in life and teaching according to the gospel, was now also the official Catholic view. The other Christian fellowships were finally recognized as churches. An ecumenical attitude was called for from the whole Catholic Church."

"There was a clear affirmation of freedom of religion and conscience and of human rights generally, which had been condemned for so long, again by Pius XII in 1953. There was a fundamental acknowledgment of complicity in anti-Semitism and a positive turn toward Judaism, from which Christianity derives. But there was also a new constructive attitude to Islam and the other world religions. It was recognized that in principle salvation is also possible outside Christianity, even for atheists and agnostics, if they act in accordance with their conscience. There was a new, fundamentally positive attitude to modern progress, which had long been ostracized, and to the secular world, science, and democracy generally."

"When it came to the understanding of the church in particular, the council's Constitution on the Church clearly dissociated itself from the understanding of the church as a kind of supernatural Roman empire which had been held since the eleventh century." ... "The decisive change which had finally been carried through was that all statements about the church hierarchy were prefaced by a section about the people of God. "People of God" is understood as a fellowship of faith which is constantly on the way in the world, a sinful and provisional pilgrim folk, ready for ever-new reform."

About Pope Pius XII "This man, who in other respects spoke on every possible theme in thousands of addresses, avoided any public protest against anti-Semitism, even the cancellation of the concordat, which the Nazis had constantly failed to observe from the beginning. The man who after the war would excommunicate all members of the Communist party throughout the world... had not the slightest thought of excommunicating the Catholics Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, and Bormann (Goring, Eichmann, and others were nominally Protestants). Pius XII was silent about the notorious German war crimes all over Europe, indeed although, since 1942 he was extremely well informed by the nuncio in Bern and Italian army chaplains in Russia, and was even raged at by his German confidante St. Pasqualina, he was silent about the Holocaust, the greatest mass murder of all times."

The resurrection of the Latin Mass and the "prayer for the Jews" represents to the Jews and to many Catholics a symbolism of the Church in a very real way backtracking from Vatican II and the very message of Nostra Aetate. This is a valid concern for Jews given the history of the Church towards them. This is a valid concern for many Catholics as well who don't want to see any backtracking of the Church to pre-Vatican II world views or attitudes.

Our conversion to Christ's teachings is ongoing and in process every day of our lives. If we fail to understand the Church's complicity in moral failures throughout history we are no longer credible and can no longer convert others if we are not credible witnesses ourselves. If we are not seen in the world as worthy of being trusted, we must reestablish trustworthiness and not backtrack or regress against valid witnesses of the truth.

The problem with this 'hermeneutic of rupture' is that Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict, and the Documents of the Council themselves don't support it. Nostra Aetate, for example, nowhere denies the necessity of Christ for salvation, something insisted upon by the previous Dogmatic Constitution, Lumen Gentium.

We can acknowledge past excess without denying the consistent teaching of the Church that there is one way to Heaven. If we deny selective truths, then we are even less credible witnesses than if we ignore historical events.

++++++

Remember that the concordat in Germany was the only thing standing between Catholics and full scale persecution, What Pius XII did was enable those in position to offer real relief (hiding Jews, smuggling them out of the country) the cover and ability to operate. The strongest defense of Pope Pius XII is that of the Jews of his own time, including the Chief Rabbi of Rome.

I am not sure what you are referring to in my post is a 'hermeneutic of rupture.' Would you please explain? Of course Nostra Aetate nowhere denies the necessity of Christ for salvation. Nostra Aetate was not written as a comment to "acknowledge past excess" or to "deny the consistent teaching of the Church." If anything, Nostra Aetate would elevate Church teaching and steer it in a forward direction that would lead the Church to a better understanding of other religions and peoples and set us on a course with our neighbors to that place of order and love we call "heaven."

We do not see eye to eye when it comes to the Concordat with Germany. The Concordat represented a means for the Hitler regime to begin their annihilation of the Jews. The true Christian response in that time required what you recently posted which was that "there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for another." That was not done and Hitler was given full reign with the Church's blessing to proceed. Pope Pius XII never spoke out against the Nazi Regime and allowed that regime to carry out the persecution of Jews. That is no mere "past excess" but a moral blunder of the highest order for a leader of the Catholic Church. It was not until the very end of the war that Pope Pius XII "worked hard with diplomatic approaches and charitable help to save individual Jews or groups of Jews, particularly in Italy and Rome."* *The Catholic Church - Hans Kung

'hermeneutic of rupture' (not in your words, but Kung's): "Vatican II "corrected Pope Pius XII - apart from his pioneering encyclical on Catholic biblical exegesis (Divino afflante Spiritu, 1943)-on almost all decisive points: reform of the liturgy, ecumenism, anti-Communism, freedom of religion, the modern world, and above all the attitude to Judaism."

"Vatican II "attempted to implement two paradigm changes at once: it integrated fundamental features of both the Reformation paradigm and the paradigm of the Enlightenment and modernity.""

I would refer you here and here for an overview on the circumstances. I agree that it may have been possible for him to do more, but it is also possible that this may have endangered the life of every Catholic in Axis territory, definitely preventing them from saving hundreds of thousands of Jews. The fact that, until 1963, the Jews led the world in their praise for Pius' actions, is rather telling. It was, in fact, a play in 1963 that sparked the controversy over whether the Pope did enough.

The German government (with whom he had drafted the Reichskonkordat) opposed his election to the Papacy because of his opposition to the Nazi party: "They [The Nazis] are in reality only miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel. It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of the social revolution, whether they are guided by a false conception of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult." (from a speech at Lourdes, 1935)

The Pope's reservations against a backlash, not only against Catholics but the Jews, were well founded (based on the reaction to protests in Holland and retaliation on priests held in concentration camps). Again in his own words: "We leave it to the [local] bishops to weigh the circumstances in deciding whether or not to exercise restraint, ad maiora mala vitanda [to avoid greater evil]. This would be advisable if the danger of retaliatory and coercive measures would be imminent in cases of public statements by the bishop. Here lies one of the reasons We Ourselves restrict Our public statements. The experience We had in 1942 with documents which We released for distribution to the faithful gives justification, as far as We can see, for Our attitude." (from a letter to Bishop von Preysing)

His intentions cannot be doubted, nor can the fact that he did much good. I dare say those who criticize him on this would have done no better themselves.

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

I would like to thank you for pointing out that the "hermeneutic of rupture" was not in my words. As you must realize there are so many historical accounts from many different people from all walks of life and while I am trying to sort this all out, one book or read at a time, and the path is steep and an immense undertaking, I appreciate your patience and writing back and providing the links.

I very briefly looked at the first link you provided and see that there is more to the story than what seems most obvious, which was Pope Pius's silence, which as a Catholic I have felt ashamed and questioned as to why and how that could have been. The links could be the starter to an antidote, the information I have needed to understand how Pacelli, prior to becoming Pope, could sign any kind of pact with the Nazis. However, the first link provides some of the backdrop historically, in which it says it recognizes the Nazi forces in place at the time put baffling and difficult constraints on Catholics and their desires to go underground against such a rabid force as the Nazis or they would be killed and of no help to anyone. I can understand such rationality when circumstances get so out of control at gunpoint. I still ask the question with grief, how could this have happened? I know that many things led to the great carnage and suffering of that era. In pursuit of knowing what those things were that led to such atrocities I think will be the answers and it always is because of sin; hatred, anger, despair and scapegoats to take it all out on.

That period of history is so difficult to look back on, but in many respects it is important to understand so as to not repeat it in any way shape or form against any people or race or nation. I hope that the Vatican will work on releasing more historical information that will be helpful to our understanding of the time and of Pope Pius XII, whom Kung has a low opinion. It might even be helpful if Pope Benedict also speaks about his experience as a child and young man growing up in that period.

I think that Fr. Hans Kung is coming from a different perspective, as a priest from Germany, and his expectations of the Papacy and the hierarchy in general and that would account for his stance. He insists that the Roman Curia during that period was anti-Semitic. Whether he is privy to information that we do not have, I do not know. I will certainly take a good look into the links and get a different, as well as broader perspective on this I am sure. Again, thanks for providing them for me.

My reflections on that period of history so far are probably not from a broad enough exposure to all that is out there. Some very stark impressions, however, were given to me by a documentary film called Bonhoeffer, with Nazi flags in a Catholic Church wedding ceremony. I wanted to die when I saw that picture. How could this be, I asked. I am just someone searching for the truth in a time when it seems there are distorted truths everywhere because somehow we are all distorted by this world. The only truth I know I can count on is Jesus Christ.

I'm glad I could help, and certainly there were some problems with Catholics who cooperated with the Nazis, as the documentary you point out shows. Pope Benedict apparently would have some profound input, and I wish he would at least have some one write up an explanation of his experiences in WWII Germany.

The stories that the Pope was in the Hitler Youth (as were all boys of age in Germany), served in the Army (He was drafted into an anti-aircraft detachment at school, which he deserted and spent time in an American POW camp after his defection), and according to a recent article I read, had a relative who was taken and killed by the Nazis because he had Downs syndrome. I would love to here his perspective, as a German and as Pope, on Pius XII and the conditions for Catholics and the Church in Germany.

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

I, too, would like to hear his story. My mother grew up in Nazi Germany completely oblivious to the fate of the Jews there. She recalled a Jewish acquaintance of her family actually being an ardent supporter of Hitler because of how the German economy and mentality were improving once he took control. While they hated the war, they seemed not to find fault with Hitler because of it.

This is a LIE: " That was not done and Hitler was given full reign with the Church's blessing to proceed." The internet will become a valuable source for exposing lies as information is made available for everyone to view. Sorry, butterfly.

From what I know now, after reading both of the links from heretoday, I was misled by a Catholic Priest whom I trusted way too much for his historical account of Pope Pius XII. He left out a majority of the facts about him and the role of the Catholic Church during World War II. Fr. Hans Kung apparently has not read the entire history - his rendition of the reality of the times discredits him.

I trust the links and the accounts of the reasons for the Pope's silence. God Bless Pope Pius XII. I think he did all he could have done under the extremely hostile circumstances he was dealt.

Butterfly~ Given that Father Kung, as a German contemporary, lived through the 'history' and is himself an eminent scholar and is not alone in his views, along with your priest friend, it would be reasonable to ask by what principles and standards Pius should be evaluated. There are more 'credible' sources than the two referred to.

Here I go replying to myself? I misspoke when I wrote "There are more 'credible' sources than the two referred to". I apologize to one and all for my wording. I did not mean to cast any aspersions on the validity of the reference but to suggest that they are not the only credible sources.

Dennis, I replied before and it is below this posting and I'm not sure you have read it yet. The other point I'd like to make now is that Hans Kung's book is "A Short History" and that would account for him not elaborating on how he arrived at his stance. I will be looking into this more from many other sources before I come to any conclusions. There was an interesting article about all of this here: http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c36_a8527/News/New_York.html# which indicates that many are asking the same sort of questions.

Butterfly I wouldn't necessarily throw out Hans Kung's opinion. He too, as a contemporary of Benedict's, lived his childhood under Nazi Germany. He may have very good reasons for taking a harsher stand.

I personally believe that Pius XII could have been far more forceful with his bishops than he was. The Austrian Anschluss is a case in point. Hitler was most certainly given great help from the pulpit. Feelings of nationalism over took any concern for the Universal Church. Polish Catholics just like Polish Jews, almost immediately paid the price.

I sometimes wonder if Pius XII placed too much hope in the success of the Italian concordat with Mussolini, when he so strenuously pushed for the one with Germany. If that's the case, then he was thoroughly bamboozled by Hitler, or blinded by his own fear of godless communism, seeing in that a much bigger threat than racist nationalism. I imagine he suffered quite a bit of indigestion when Hitler signed his treaty with the Soviet Union. So much for the German bulwark against communism.

Whatever one thinks of his performance during the war, his performance before the war deserves the same kind of villification given to Chamberlain and all the other 'appeasers'. Maybe more, because there's no question too many German, Austrian, Croation, and Ukranian bishops not only welcomed Germany, but abetted Germany in all it's goals. Like the abuse crisis, Rome stayed too silent when it came to her sheperds.

colkoch.blogtoolkit.com

"LIE"!? A bit over the top and strident. Your denial is more than the reasonable expression of an opinion. Even if you read just the introduction to the Concordat it gives the impression of a relationship between the RC Chruch and the Reich which is unseemly. Granted it was concluded in 1933 but, as one commentator stated, Pacelli had been working towards it for years, so there was a past and undeniably at least a vague appreciation, if that's the word, of the Reich's broad intentions. It would be interesting to know if Pacelli/Pius rescinded the concordat when it became undeniably obvious, in fact, that the 'final solution' was being acted upon.
When the sanctimonious are so firm in their zeal for rightiousness and their consequences in, for example, the annhiliation of Sadam and the Iraqi nation, the absolute denial of abortion for any reason and living with the consequences of absolute orthodoxy, it would seem a rather clear expectation that the church should have accepted the principle and consequences of the sacredness of human life 'even' if it happened to be Jewish.

A lie is a lie is a lie.

I have to agree with you Dennis that "LIE was over the top and strident." Non-deliberate omission of certain factual information cannot be on the same level as a deliberate and intentional lie. Many of us are not going to agree at certain times about issues or have the same information and it is important to ask the questions and listen to what others are saying before jumping to presumptions or conclusions. An offering of opinion in a tone that is representative of a civil nature with kindness of heart will get one further and bring the discussion a lot further as well. At least, that is how I see it.

I just read the Concordat today and I still need more information about that period of 1933. I still have questions about that pact and how and why it even came about. Another question I have is were there similar pacts with the Protestants? On the other hand, Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran pacifist Minister, was outspoken against the Nazi's and gave radio addresses against them from the start. He was eventually shut off the air by the Nazi's. If you read the links provided by heretoday it seems clear that as time went on that Pope Pius was against the Nazi regime and their ideology as he is quoted as saying so and because the Nazi's were aware of his statements and complained about him becoming Pope.

The issue of the Prayer for the Jews, even with its new replacement, however, is still an issue and one that at least to me still seems to backtrack from Vatican II and Nostra Aetate and I still find myself in agreement with Mr. Foxman of ADL who might have legitimate concerns and fears about it and its symbolism for the Jews. One can hardly blame them for any angst over it given the history and of any semblance of turning back the pages of time to ideals that might lead to any hint of anti-Semitism in any institution. I think we can keep them in our prayers often without pushing any sensitive or possibly legitimate hyper-sensitive buttons in public prayers on Good Friday.

"Edited to fix name misspelling.

"May I ask what are these principles in Nostra Aetate" are that the prayer for the Jews departs from (or rather that departs from Tradition, but I digress)?"

Since you ask, I will be more than happy to answer. Nostra Aetate says that God's covenant with the Jews is still intact. Even if Grace received through Christ is normative, the Jews are still part of God's economy of salvation. Furthermore, it also calls for the removal of all signs of disrespect. This new Good Fridays prayer directly hearkens back to "perfidious Jews" that John XXIII, who actively saved Jews during the Shoah, removed from the Tridentine Rite. Those two words represented in microcosm the charge of deicide and the tradition of anti-Semitism that included the massacre of Jews during the crusades, the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, and the herding of the Jews into ghettos all over Europe. Why should we hearken back to that?

Furthermore, if we believe in conversion why should the Jews be singled out, especially in the very place where hatred of Jews was openly expressed before the time of Good Pope John? If we are going to call for conversion it should be for everyone. This new prayer implies that Jews are damned if the do not convert.

Steve

PS. Who is Mr. Foxman?

Can you give me the quote? I can't seem to find it. Seriously, if it is in there and I am missing it, please, give me the exact wording (even three or four exact words will be enough).

In the same prayers we seek that God would "open the ears of [the]hearts" of the catechumens (after the prayers for the Church, Pope, and all clergy), for all heretics and schismatics (which included all Christians who are separated from the Church)*, and all pagans (again, this meant everyone else, and still really does even if it is not P.C. to say so). The Jews are singled out (as in meriting their own prayer) because they are our elder brothers in the faith; because the Law, Prophets, even Christ comes from them.

If we truly believe that Jesus is the Messiah, born of a Virgin, who suffered and died for our sins, and was raised again, in fulfillment of the Scriptures, then we must be honest with ourselves in our approach to other faiths. If we truly believe in Jesus, then we should earnestly desire that all should know and follow Him. Those that follow Him, but are mistaken in some aspect (other Christians) are less in need of our prayers, and we have a further debt to the Jews as our elder brothers.

++++++

*The church has moved away from this language for our separated brethren, and since most have not left the Church, but were raised outside of it (which was not the case until around 1700). I do think that the Church took a little long to do this, but there are still many cases where these terms would apply still.

Abraham H. Foxman is chairman of the ADL.

"God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).(12)"

This makes quite clear that God's covenant with the Jews is not broken. It calls for unity of worship among all people someday, but it does not call for the special need for the conversion of the Jews as the new Good Friday prayer does.

Steve

Why chop the first sentence?

"As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).(12)

Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. 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. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.
>snip<

Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows."

The Church, the "new people of God", proclaims the cross of Christ "as the fountain from which every grace flows". "All men are called to belong to the new people of God." (Lumen Gentium,13) "All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the people of God which in promoting universal peace presages it. And there belong to or are related to it in various ways, the Catholic faithful, all who believe in Christ, and indeed the whole of mankind, for all men are called by the grace of God to salvation." (ibid.)

So unless Vatican II is divided against itself, there remains the need for conversion, and the Old Covenant is replaced by the New.

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

Before one can press on to try to convert others "this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies a well as of fraternal dialogues."

There first should be a "mutual understanding and respect" for the Jews. The Prayer for the conversion of the Jews puts the cart before the horse. In John Allen's article he specifically quotes Jewish people who say that this prayer for conversion in TLM is problematic for many of them. Let's not forget the history of the Church that has long been anti-Semitic and for long periods in its history forced people to convert. The Jewish people have not forgotten and we should respect that and try to understand that truth and fact.

It is not just by prayer alone, but by example that we bring the message of Jesus Christ to everyone on earth. The example we set reveals our prayers and the fruit of our labors.

A covenant is a living relationship with God. A relationship needs to continue to be nurtured if it is to be considered a relationship. To deny Christ is to deny the One who sent Him. God's covenant with the Jews requires that they have a relationship with The Blessed Trinity, God.

P.S. Cashelguy, just so you know, Charity requires that we help everyone get to that day. Prayer is a beautiful Gift of Charity for someone.

God said [He] would always keep [His] relationship with the Jewish people. That's the covenant. You don't get to limit the relationship from the sidelines, anneD.