The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionVatican engages a Jewish critic, new home for ex-Anglicans
by John L Allen Jr on Aug. 05, 2011
Here we touch the fundamental point, which is very delicate, of Jewish-Catholic dialogue, or rather the question of how one can reconcile the conviction -- binding also for Christians -- that God’s covenant with the people of Israel has permanent validity, with Christian faith in the universal redemption in Jesus Christ. On the one hand, Jews should not have the impression that Christians see their religion as obsolete; on the other, Christians must not renounce any aspect of their faith. Without doubt, that fundamental question will occupy Jewish-Christian dialogue for a long time. Here, it can be mentioned only briefly. In any event, this is certainly not an obstacle to the fact that Christians and Jews, with mutual respect for their respective religious convictions, commit themselves to promote peace and reconciliation and thus to journey together towards Assisi.
L’Osservatore Romano normally isn’t the place to seek Vatican criticism, in the same way that no one watches Fox News for satires of the Tea Party, or reads the New York Times for send-ups of snobbish secular liberalism. Whatever their business model, media outlets usually aren’t in the habit of biting the hand that feeds them.
Yet, mirabile dictu, the July 29 edition of L’Osservatore offered one of the most pointed brief critiques of a Vatican statement you’ll ever see. It came from Italian Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni, in reply to a July 7 essay by Swiss Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, about the “Interreligious Meeting for Prayer for Peace” convened by Pope Benedict XVI and set for Oct. 27, 2011, in Assisi.
Di Segni, 62, is the Chief Rabbi of Rome. (He’s also a medical doctor and head of the radiology department at Rome’s San Giovanni hospital.) Di Segni is well known in the Vatican; in the past, he’s contested the legacy of Pope Pius XII, refused to attend Vatican events featuring Jewish converts for fear of sanctioning proselytism, and rejected attempts to compare criticism of the church on sex abuse to anti-Semitism.
Thus L’Osservatore knew perfectly well who it was publishing: A dialogue partner, yes, but hardly a lapdog.
Below, I’ll summarize the exchange between Koch and Di Segni. Then I’ll offer three observations about its implications -- for L’Osservatore Romano, for Jewish/Catholic relations, and for the October interreligious summit in Assisi.
* * *
Koch, 61, took over from German Cardinal Walter Kasper as the Vatican’s top official for ecumenism and relations with Judaism last year. He’s a less exuberant figure than Kasper, but very much a uomo di fiducia, or man of trust, with Benedict XVI.
On July 7, Koch published an essay laying out the theological and spiritual basis for October’s interreligious summit. He argued that that in a violent world, religions must be agents of peace, and that migration and globalization make interreligious harmony more critical than ever. Perhaps reflecting muscle memory of how Catholic traditionalists blasted the ’86 version of Assisi for promoting relativism, Koch also stressed that dialogue must not come at the expense of truth.
“Naturally,” he wrote, Assisi “should not be misunderstood as a syncretistic act.”
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Toward the end, Koch sketched a brief Christian theology of prayer for peace. For Christians, he wrote, the Cross of Jesus “cancels every desire for vendetta and calls all to reconciliation.”
In an arresting image, Koch said the Cross rises above us as “the permanent and universal Yom Kippur,” referring to the Jewish Day of Atonement.
“The Cross of Jesus is not an obstacle to interreligious dialogue,” Koch wrote. “Rather, it indicates the decisive path which, above all, Jews and Christians, but also Muslims and followers of other religions, should welcome, thereby becoming ferment for peace and justice.”
It was that last bit which brought an objection from Di Segni.
Despite Koch’s “fraternity and good will,” Di Segni wrote, his words “reveal the limits of a certain way of doing dialogue on the part of Christians.”
There’s nothing wrong, Di Segni said, with Koch affirming the significance of the Cross for Christians: “One certainly cannot ask, in the context of dialogue, that one of the two interlocutors renounce, or hide, or avoid giving witness to his faith, on the basis of a misunderstood sense of respect for the other. Dialogue presupposes difference.”
Di Segni also welcomed Koch’s effort to convince Christians that dialogue is rooted in their faith, because “there may be a minority of Catholics who do not share these ideas.”
Yet, Di Segni wrote, it’s an entirely different matter when Koch says that the Cross of Christ is “the decisive path” for dialogue. Such a formula, he charged, suggests to Jews that Christian symbolism is being presented as a “substitution” for their own rites and symbols.
“Christian believers certainly can think that the Cross fulfills the day of Yom Kippur,” Di Segni wrote. “But if they want to dialogue sincerely and respectfully with Jews, for whom Yom Kippur remains equally valid in a permanent and universal sense, Christian beliefs must not be proposed to Jews as tests of the ‘decisive path.’”
“At that point, the risk truly becomes returning to the theology of substitution, and the Cross becomes an obstacle,” Di Segni wrote.
The notion of substitution is always a risk in Jewish/Christian relations, Di Segni wrote, because Christians believe God’s promises to the Jews were realized in Christ. But that conviction, he said, “cannot be proposed as the model to follow,” calling it a passage from a “both/and” approach to “either/or.”
“The language of dialogue has to be common, and the project must be shared,” he wrote. “If the terms of the conversation point Jews toward the path of the Cross, they won’t understand the logic of the dialogue or the logic of Assisi.”
In the same issue, L’Osservatore gave Koch a chance to reply.
It’s understandable, Koch wrote, that Di Segni reacted with sensitivity to the notion of substitution, which “not only has heavy connotations from a historical point of view, but which still today constitutes a difficult question in Jewish-Catholic dialogue.”
Koch makes three key points.
First, he said, his essay was directed at Christians. The aim was to underscore the duty of Christians to seek reconciliation, including with Judaism, “which derives from the very essence of their faith.” He invoked the Cross, Koch wrote, because it’s long been seen as an obstacle to dialogue, but in fact, for Christians, it’s the basis for all reconciliation.
If followers of other religions don’t see the Cross that way, Koch said, it’s not up to him to pass judgment; it falls within the “freedom of religious convictions” that everyone enjoys.
Second, Koch said, “I absolutely do not hold that Jews must see the Cross as we Christians do in order to journey together toward Assisi.” Anything that undercuts mutual respect, Koch wrote, “would contradict the spirit in which Pope Benedict XVI has extended his invitation to participate.”
Third, Koch wrote that it was not his intent “to substitute the Cross of Christ for the Jewish Yom Kippur.”
Given the importance of the point, it’s worth quoting Koch at length:
* * *
I’m not in a position to evaluate the theological merits of either Di Segni’s objection or Koch’s reply -- that’s for the experts to hash out. What I can do, however, is offer three journalistic observations about the significance of the exchange.
1. For L’Osservatore Romano
I’ve written before about the revolution at L’Osservatore under editor Gian Maria Vian. The paper now offers a terrific synthesis of international news, timely interviews, and provocative essays on theology and history. Even its features have become, for lack of a better word, more “hip.” The Pravda days are over: Under Vian, reading the paper’s lines has become just as worthwhile as reading between them.
The back-and-forth between Di Segni and Koch forms part of this picture, and it couldn’t come at a better time.
The sexual abuse crisis has ripped the lid off accumulated anti-Vatican resentments in various parts of the world, prompting a natural, but basically unhelpful, instinct to circle the wagons. The Di Segni and Koch exchange illustrates that there’s a different way to engage critics -- without lending aid and comfort to enemies of the church (which Di Segni is not), but also without coming off as defensive in the face of legitimate concerns.
In addition, there’s a therapeutic value to the intervention by L’Osservatore. Without it, Jewish resentment over Koch’s essay might have festered, with potentially damaging consequences for the Assisi summit. In effect, that boil now has been lanced.
Perhaps the Di Segni/Koch feature will not be the beginning of a regular element in L’Osservatore, which could have a positive effect on Vatican psychology: Constructive engagement with serious criticism, wherever it originates.
2. For Jewish/Catholic Relations
All by itself, the fact that L’Osservatore published Di Segni’s essay is testimony to how seriously the Vatican takes Jewish sensitivities. After all, the Vatican is involved in dialogue with the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, whose leadership has voiced plenty of objections to the Assisi gathering, but none of that has shown up in the Vatican newspaper.
Fundamentally, the exchange can be interpreted as a sign of health in Jewish/Catholic relations, for this reason: The right people are talking to each other.
Here’s why. Catholic/Jewish relations have experienced a boom since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), as have the church’s ties with other faiths. Yet with the very best of intentions, these dialogues sometimes have been entrusted to experts in the various traditions who, over the decades, have developed a shared language, rituals and worldview. The net effect is that professional dialoguers sometimes have more in common with one another than with the mainstream of the faiths they purportedly represent.
To put that point in crude political terms, formal interreligious dialogue is often dominated by the liberal wings of the various faiths. In a time when the momentum in Catholicism seems squarely with the “evangelicals,” however, outsiders may fairly wonder if liberals can really commit the institutional church. (A similar question could be asked about other traditions, with the well-known skepticism surrounding “moderate Islam” as the most obvious example.)
The point about Koch and Di Segni is that they are not part of an interreligious avant-garde. Instead, they embody the thinking of the leadership of their faiths. For his part, Koch is a convinced Ratzingerian who moves comfortably in the intellectual circles around the pope.
In that sense, they may struggle a bit more to find common ground, but when they do, you can take it to the bank.
3. For the Assisi Summit
Finally, the L’Osservatore exchange illustrates just how much the Vatican wants Assisi to go well.
Movers and shakers in Rome are well aware that John Paul II’s 1986 interreligious summit was among the iconic moments of his papacy. It helped make the pope a global point of reference, it enhanced the effectiveness of Vatican diplomacy, and it boosted the moral authority of the church.
Today, the Vatican could use another win like that in the court of public opinion. In the West, it faces a hostile political and legal environment, with Ireland even threatening to breach the sanctity of the confessional. In other parts of the world, it needs the good will of governments and leaders of other faiths to protect Christians under fire. Tuesday’s car bomb attack against a Syro-Catholic church in Kirkuk, Iraq, offers tragic proof of the point.
A high-profile public event such as Assisi, which showcases the papacy’s unique capacity to bring religions together, could be a real boon -- provided, of course, it doesn’t turn in to another PR debacle.
Assisi is also important to Benedict XVI. Although he’s made great strides in inter-faith relations, especially with Islam, in some quarters he’s still dogged by the image of a cultural warrior associated with a September 2006 speech in Regensburg, in which he quoted a Byzantine emperor critical of Muhammad. (It’s frightening that a nutcase can recognize what many pundits and alleged experts can’t, or won’t. In his rambling manifesto for Europe, Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik called Benedict XVI a “cowardly, incompetent, corrupt and illegitimate pope” because his outreach to Muslims supposedly fuels “the deliberate and systematical annihilation of European Christendom.”)
Given all that, one can expect Vatican officials to act with alacrity to put out any potential fires related to the Assisi summit.
Naturally, the fact that then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was among those seen as ambivalent about Assisi back in ’86 also lends subtext to the October edition. In light of that history, Vatican officials will bend over backwards to insist that this is not, as Koch put it, a “syncretistic act.”
* * *
While I was in London recently, I had the chance to speak with several people about the new “Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham,” a structure provided for by Pope Benedict XVI two years ago to welcome groups of Anglican clergy and laity into the Catholic fold, which is now a going concern in the U.K.
The ordinariate currently numbers roughly 900 laity and 60 clergy, including some newly minted Catholic priests who had already retired from Anglican ministry at 70.
One of the more interesting conversations came with Fr. Mark Woodruff, a former Anglican who entered the Catholic church long before the ordinariate, but who has served as an advisor for some of its groups. A veteran ecumenist and a deeply thoughtful soul, Woodruff sketched some of the promise, and the challenges, facing the new venture.
Woodruff not only took the time to answer my questions in person, but he also fleshed out his thinking in e-mail correspondence. The following are excerpts from our exchange.
* * *
What does the ordinariate mean?
I think it’s genuinely an attempt to signal that in the universal church, which we believe subsists in the Catholic Church, there is endless space, with the possibility of embracing Christian tradition in its entirety and its integrity. ... This is an immense affirmation of Anglicanism and its riches. It’s possible for them to be in communion, united not absorbed tout court. Furthermore, we as a Catholic Church to some extent internalise Anglican tradition and make it our own. This is an immensely valuable tool ecumenically that we have not had before. It’s not about poaching, it is about internalising in the Catholic Church what already belongs to it, the ultimate dimension being the visible unity of the whole of Christ’s body.
What’s the background to the ordinariate?
The practical shape and detailing of it has been under discussion for twenty years or more. There were negotiations for something along these lines in the late 1980s. A grouping called the Congregation for the English Mission was involved in discussions with Cardinal [Basil] Hume when there was a crisis for Catholic-minded Anglicans and papalist Anglicans in those days.
At that time, the Catholic bishops here didn’t want a multiplication of jurisdictions. They wanted an integrated diocesan structure. The effect was that, when there was an influx of Anglicans in large numbers in the early 1990s -- since that time we’ve had about 500 priests in England and Wales who have come from the Anglican tradition -- it broke up relationships, traditions and shared outlooks, as people made their own way. They did so in great number, but you lost that esprit de corps.
What did that say about what we really thought of ecumenical reconciliation? Our message was that, to be in communion with the Catholic Church, you had to relinquish your old life together and simply ‘convert’ to Roman Catholicism. As we lost sight of the principle of corporate reunion, we also lost sight of our own principle that the church is a community of communities. That communion has not been broken up this time around. You’ve got some kind of ecclesial, Eucharistic, corporate identity, and that’s something to build on.
There are 900 laity and 60 clergy in the ordinariate. Ten years from now, what will those numbers be?
Partly, it depends on finding resources and buildings from which the Ordinariate parishes can conduct their mission. Perhaps there will be some sharing with other denominations, or existing Catholic parishes. A big concern is how to pay the clergy too, not least those with families. There are hospital, school, and prison chaplaincies that can help with this, and some have arranged to take secular employment, as permitted by the norms.
The liturgical rite is being developed and hopefully will be in use early next year. In my view, it’s a risk not to have it ready now, as inevitably people may drift from their groups into the parishes where they are now getting accustomed to church life. But when it is in use, there is no reason why it shouldn’t be a draw to other Christians who want to be built up in this way. Other Catholics will be free to attend and take part and, it may even be that, with this rite as normative, the Ordinariate will be among the most enduring manifestations of the Anglican tradition in this culture and country.
I believe that God has not gone to all these lengths for something that is merely transitional.
Is it an open question how large the ordinariate may become?
I happen to think that if the ordinariate project gets its liturgical life together, and it maintains a distinctive Anglican theological and spiritual tradition, it will be a great addition to the Catholic church in this country. It will embody something to which people will respond. It will have classic Anglican liturgy, it will express Catholic faith in a classic Anglican way, and it won’t have the sort of dichotomy within itself between orthodoxy and relativism that I think is troubling the Church of England.
Are the members of the ordinariate right-wing ideologues?
No, I don’t think they are. I think most people are ordinary Anglican churchgoers coming from the broad range of Anglican-Catholic traditions. Externally, some will be used to a fairly elaborate liturgy, others will be coming from more choral-civic ‘Prayer Book’ tradition, others will have been very consciously ‘Vatican II’ and not theologically all that different from Roman Catholics. Sociologically and demographically, they will have different perspectives, but from what I have seen there is both the sheer normality of the people and clergy, and also a range of views and their expression – from very conservative, to very academic, very ‘Anglican’, very pastoral, very spirituality-focused, to very social gospel-focused, to everything else that we can find in our regular Catholic churches.
What’s been the Anglican reaction?
I think there has been a great deal of neuralgia. In the English situation, the Church of England does not quite occupy the position in national life that it once did, but it still has this important position of leadership and engagement with the state and with civil society that is vital, I think, also to the mission of the Catholic church. We are absolutely bound to work together and, besides, we respond to different parts of society, and they respond to us. There has to be a partnership.
We mustn’t settle for the Ordinariate as the last word in somehow embracing an Anglican tradition within the Catholic community. The work that still needs to be done is the union of all Christians, and that has to be happening because it’s the will of Christ. The Church of England entire and the Catholic church entire have at some point to be in complete union.
I’ve stressed time and time again to these friends of mine who have come into the Catholic church: I do not want you to come in and pull the ladder up. This is not about you finding a safe haven. You are now somebody who is embedded within us, who adds something to us in terms of our understanding of Anglicanism, which helps us reach out and embrace and be friends and collaborate even more deeply. We want you, therefore, to be part of that ecumenical outreach and engagement.
It is clear to me, too, that the church in this country cannot simply go on as it is, with all of our ‘denominations’ experiencing a declining grip on the imagination of people. No one church can address the deepest longings in those imaginations on its own. We need each other, we relate to people differently, and even though we are disunited we urgently need to collaborate and realise more and more an ecumenism of life.
There’s also an ecumenical vocation to the ordinariate?
If it forgets that, it must fail. It has to be about unity, because it really does have to be about the struggle for the soul of Europe and re-evangelization. It has to be at the centre of that. Otherwise, it’s just going to be an ‘ecclesiastical granny flat’. No one wants that.
[John L. Allen Jr. NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail is jallen@ncronline.org]
It escapes why the Anglican
It escapes why the Anglican Church does not form a Roman Catholic Ordinariate for Catholics who want to retain their traditions while moving ahead on married clergy, full recognition and ecclesiastical rights for gays, and a governance that keeps the role of bishops while adding certain democratic aspects (as in the ancient church).
As long as one in hell-bent
As long as one in hell-bent on pursuing the way of the world rather than conforming to God's will, the reason will continue to escape you.
Wow - you really don'tknow
Wow - you really don'tknow anything about the Church's position and theology regarding the Church in the World. You may want to read up on it. The Church HAS to be in the real world - that's where Christ Himself ministered and sent his apostles and followers. So your statement seems to indicate another agenda.....
As long as one is hell bent
As long as one is hell bent on substituting the certain security of Vatican pronouncements from fallible men for the glorious and awe inspiring reality of living the Gospel, one will never get It.
Or perhaps it is you that is
Or perhaps it is you that is hellbent on not conforming to God's will and that is why the reason will escape you.
So God's will calls for a
So God's will calls for a church governed by an absolute monarch with immense wealth and unlimited dictatorial powers, institutionalizes male hegemony and excludes all women from having any official power or authority, denies its clergy (in most cases) the God given option to marry and multiply, condemns all other believers as "flawed Christians," contends that condoms cause AIDS, allies itself with corrupt, right wing rulers in impoverished countries, conducts an on-going, world wide cover up to shield certain pedophile priests from the reach of justice, and fights its own laity from having any say how it's governed.
God does have a sense of humor, but irony isn't known to be His strong suit. As an Anglo-Catholic, I can have my cake and eat it too. Talk to me after the next Reformation.
I completely agree, Ms.
I completely agree, Ms. Ramplen.
It may be God's will given
It may be God's will given the decline of western Catholicism. Why? Because of corruption, venality, and the growing irrelevancy of the papacy and hierarchy to the healthy existence and expansion of the Church.
Eastern Orthodoxy has to pick up the gauntlet for the ecumenical movement now. Rome goes through the motions, but it has quietly put it on the shelf in order to placate the SSPX. Most evangelical Christians and Anglicans are more attracted to the Byzantine Orthodox churches and always have been. They're more likely to convert to it rather than to Rome.
John Paul II and Pope Benedict frittered away their authority and power by turning the Church into a stage for their own cult of personality and into a private fiefdom. They've made the idea of the "sacred magisterium" and "papal infallibility" appear supremely absurd and totally without historical foundation.
John M, An excellent idea.
John M, An excellent idea.
I agree...I think all the
I agree...I think all the dissidents and heretics should get together and leave the Church as they did in the first protestant revolution. At least then they were more honest.
On Assisi, the first one was a disaster that cost the Church tremendously in its credibility and moral authority. My question is, with all the dialog since Vatican 2, why has it resulted in nothing but more dialog? Dialog, in itself, is not an answer. We have had nearly 50 yrs of "interfaith dialog" and the Anglican Ordinariate is the only stab at any kind of unity that's been undertaken. And the Anglo-Catholics had been trying to initiate that for years, but the hierarchy was too busy "dialoging" with Canterbury. And why is it that the Catholic Church is always the one on the defensive in these exchanges?
One last point, all this talk about "evangelical catholics" is nothing but divisive. There is only the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and that's all there ever will be. The hard part is trying to figure out where it is.
The only problem is that I
The only problem is that I don't think that there are groups of Roman Catholics (Catholicorum Romanorum Coetibus) petitioning for corporate communion with the See of Canterbury. Where is the parallel to Anglo-Catholics in the Roman Church? "Roman Anglicans"? Sounds very elitist! Do they celebrate "Common Worship" or the "Book of Common Prayer"? And do they deny the sacramentality of everything except Baptism and Communion?
No, the converts to Anglicanism are not looking for reunification but just for change - a justified motivation but hardly the same thing.
The one thing that Catholics
The one thing that Catholics who leave the Church are seeking is an escape from obedience to God. Will this ever be found in this world or the next, is the question. Hmmmm!
Dear John M. I couldn't agree
Dear John M.
I couldn't agree more. This is really a real case of "poaching", as someone else says. If I'd have any value, I would offer myself to be "poached": a kind of Catholic "hostage" to help to repay this ugly move. By the way, I've the deepest respect for the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. A man with a great intelect, with a profound theological formation and an humble and humane spirit, that could teach many things to Benedict XVI and his cohort. Not to speak of an understanding of the modern times and the troubles and suferrings that the pople are going through nowadays, something the Vatican completly lacks.
If you want to sense the Anglican spirit and learn something about true reporting and real transparency I recommend this piece published by the Finantial Times: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/b240ec06-b8ca-11e0-8206-00144feabdc0.html...
John M., I have read and
John M.,
I have read and heard similar remarks for several months now. When I have heard them in person it has always been clear from tone and context that what the speaker really meant was 'why don't those Anglicans give the Roman Catholic Church a taste of their own medicine?', which of course is not only infantile and specifically against Christ's injunctions against retribution, but, more fundamentally, assumes there is some sort of injury to the Anglican Communion requiring a reponse.
Let's assume that that is not where your remarks are coming from.
Taking your question at face value,then, the answer is that the Church of England already IS an "Ordinariate for Catholics who want to retain their traditions while moving ahead [sic] on married clergy, full recognition and ecclesiastical rights for gays, and a governance that keeps the role of bishops while adding certain democratic aspects (as in the ancient church)."
Oh, very good Anonymous! You
Oh, very good Anonymous! You hit the nail on the head. Also a very amusing and apt analysis. Good for you.
@John M -- the
@John M -- the Anglican/Episcopal Church does not have to do that. In my experience it accommodates Roman Catholics nicely, and has never had to go trolling in the R C waters for members. Those who are attracted to the fact they have the same basic structure with specific differences seem to be able to find it just fine...
--Andy Jo--
And yet it is not the Lord
And yet it is not the Lord who puts up all the barriers between us, nor does He appreciate them - this is sibling rivalry and really very silly.
In the American context of an
In the American context of an Episcopal Church that has a majority of former Catholics within its ranks, an "ordinariate" makes little sense. The historic practice with the Episcopal Church is for some parishes to tend toward the "Anglo-Catholic" extreme complete with Marian devotions, while tend toward a stricter Protestantism. Movement within the denomination has been in the Catholic direction; this is enhanced by a greater reluctance to leave behind certain practices inherited from the Mother Ship like altar rails, ancient hymns and pew aerobics.
Incidentally, the new English translation of the Nicene Creed in the Roman Missal is close to the one we've been using in our Book of Common Prayer. The new translation of the Eucharistic Prayer is most certainly not (which was probably the idea). Starting this Advent, you'll be exchanging peace at the same time we are between the Word and the Eucharist.
That already exists: it's
That already exists: it's called the Episcopalian Church.
The reason is that we
The reason is that we Anglicans already have plenty of Roman Catholics who join us week by week without fanfare.
Another excellent article. I
Another excellent article. I do not understand the attacks on Mr. Allen. I don't always agree with him, but he is a real journalist who seeks the truth.
As an Orthodox Jew, I have to
As an Orthodox Jew, I have to generally agree with Allen's analysis on Jewish - Catholic relations/dialog on this specific interchange. It is a reasonable analysis. But Catholics, despite their efforts, still do not understand our sensitivity about wording that implies "substitution" of symbols, beliefs or practices.
First, the two religions are asymmetric on any number of criteria. Judaism is not merely a faith or religion - its a people and a nation. The philosophy of faiths has some elasticity - the aspect of peoplehood and nationhood do not. Anything that challenges the legal, ethnic and national integrity of the Jewish people, enshrined in the Torah as G-d's law, is sinful. This causes tension in any "sharing" of faith since Catholicism lacks any sense of peoplehood or nationhood that is part of its self-definition. And Christian faith statements can be interpreted to overshadow or even contradict the other asymmetrical religious elements in Judaism.
Second, the cross as a symbol is not seen as a positive thing in and of itself by the Jewish people. People over historical time come to see things in iconic terms: black color is darkness, red color is a sign of danger, etc. The cross to many surviving Jews holds negative connotations by experience, intent and words. The cross may symbolize peace and reconciliation in some way, theoretically. But in the living experience of the Jews, their sages, rabbis and laity, it has not become that on the level of social knowledge or even in abstract certainty. The change in iconic psychological status will take time and effort on the part of the Church to demonstrate its true intentions. Give it at least another 50 to 100 years of sustained Catholic effort and such changes will come more naturally in the general public.
Third, the Jews are a millenial people, with long memories, survivors of all of its opponents, now empowered by G-d's blessings in the re-incarnation of Israel, its growing and appropriate place in Jewish self-identification, and rebirth of Jewish creativity. Catholics, born since 1965 during Vatican II may have more philo-semitic feelings, but pre-Vatican II Catholics understandably do not. So too, the Jewish people who are younger, at least in democratic nations, may have a more open feeling to the religious other. But undertsandably, many of us who are over 40 years old have too many memories of our grandparents, parents and even ourselves among hostile Christian populations to be more than cautiously open to the possibility that the "leopard has changed its spots". Add to this that Christianity includes over 40 denominations claiming Christian identity, only half of which is Catholic. Some of them are unreconstructively still openly anti-semitic in theology and behavior. There is a spill over of reaction to hostile groups of Christians causing suspicion on Catholics regretably in Jewish minds that should be at least understandable. One Christian group uses its symbols and beliefs to substitute, supersede and subsume Jews/Judaism and Israel using almost the same words as non-supersessionist Catholics. It is unrealistic to assumee we can sort out all Christian players and true beliefs - true philo-semites, hidden anti-semites, overt anti-semites by words alone. Only actions can be seen as either consistent or inconsistent. I humbly suggest consistency in actions, not just words. If those actions are truely philo-semitic, it will be recognized. That time will also give the Church to to refine its outreach in teaching the sin of any form of anti-semitism, refine its theological message with possibly less ambiguous terms and it will be heard by a very literate people. But, it will take time.
Since Jesus came to fulfil
Since Jesus came to fulfil the prophecies of the Old Testament, it seems logical that there should be, not a substitution of symbols, beliefs and practices, but a continuation of them. The continuation of these symbols is, to me, a sign of their validity. As long as the Jewish people fail to understand this, they will continue to resent the perceived substitution of these symbols. Nevertheless, God is God and He may surely claim the right to continue to use these symbols.
I can understand and sympathize with the sensitivities of the Jewish people because of the history of attacks on them brought about by a deluded humanity that still fights against God’s commandments of love that are the formula for peace and harmony among men. As long as people fail to carry out God’s commandments there will always be this kind of evil. Hindu against Christian, deluded Christian against Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, whoever and visa versa. Satan is very clever and very experienced; he has countless centuries of experience while each human being coming into this world is a mere babe by comparison; to delude humanity is child’s play for him – there is a sucker born every minute, so to speak. Nevertheless, to sink into a hole of fear, hatred, suspicion or exclusionism is self-defeating; rather, reach out to others cautiously and in love in order carry out His command: love your neighbour as yourself. In one of Jesus’ messages in our day, He said: ‘Do not allow the sin of another to lead to your own condemnation’. Good advice, I would say, and well worth pondering.
May God soon restore His people, through whom He has blessed the rest of humanity, according to His promise.
Thank you for such
Thank you for such sentiments, but let me correct your misperceptions. Jews have not acted as "sinking into a hole of fear, hatred, suspicion or exclusionism is self-defeating". We have rebuilt our communities and continue to do so over all forces of discrimination, repression and bigotry; we have rebuilt our nation in its own land and recovered the so-called dead language of Hebrew. Our material rebirth is obvious, the spiritual rebirth continues and grows each day as we physically recover from WW2. That is hardly self-defeating, its self-respecting adn self-affirming. No where do Jews attack other religions in free countries, and even in Israel they protect Christians from Muslim violence by rule of law and Christians prosper more in Israel than in Muslim nations.
As for "reaching out to others cautiously and in love in order carry out His command: love your neighbour as yourself", I would say we have done that as well, with an emphasis on "caution", which was really my intent. Our caution has to do with the reality of our minority size in the world, and the as yet internalized Christian messages among the huge Christian masses. Clearly you have that message, but its not clear its the majority view yet. Jews donate to many causes, work with other faiths on joint projects and Israel was even the first on the ground in Haiti after is recent devastastion with a working hospital to help others, Israel's aid was offered and rejected by Iran, Turkey and Indonesia when they had tragedies as well. So reaching out is what we have done for millenia, and still people reject it.
You mention a religious teaching ‘Do not allow the sin of another to lead to your own condemnation’, which the above examples show were acted upon as it comes from basic Judaic teachings that predate Christianity.
And, thank you for your blessings.
I do not agree that
I do not agree that Catholicism lacks any sense of peoplehood or nationhood: Catholics believe that they are united as children of God in a heavenly kingdom, a heavenly people.
There may be a sense of
There may be a sense of peoplehood among Catholics, but it cannot compare to the sense of peoplehood and nationhood belonging to the Jewish people and rooted in millenia of history--as a nation as well as a faith. Even the ghettoization of Jews in Europe was based on the view of their "otherness" as a nationality as well as religion.
The sense of nationhood, its culture and customs, language and literature, is much deeper among the Jewish people than we as Catholics can understand.
Thank you, Alan, for your thoughtful and thought-provoking post.
I think you missed my point
I think you missed my point here. A heavenly kingdom does not have to feed, house, care for and protect its people - heavenly 'people' are beyond those needs. The peoplehood I speak of are the living people we do goodness to on a daily basis as part of our national culture, living the prophecies and gifts granted to us by scriptural authority on this world. As an aside, there is no heavenly nation per see. Once ascend our souls to Olam Habah ("the next world"), we are relieved of those obligations.
Your disagreement may be a theological disconnect that assumes nothing we do on earth counts, but belief. We put our beliefs into action as a people and as a nation as part of Jewish civilization restored to us by G-d Himself, as I assume the Church does. The difference is we are obligated to rescue our own while we help others and not subsume our existence to become anonymous to be true to our calling. I do not think you meant to imply we give that up.
Alan, your comment is
Alan, your comment is well-put, especially in the first paragraph, point #2,and your final statement: "But it will take time."
Age-wise, I'm pre-Vatican II but I'm also among some of the early Gentiles to have visited in solidarity with Moscow families of Soviet Jews. For me any anti-anything is of a political/humanitarian nature, not ideological. My nephew, in order to marry the woman of his dreams, converted to Judaism with no animosity from me, and is faithful/active in his reform synagogue. Etc., etc. I say this only to accent that any kind of universal attribution fails somewhat. Not every one of us pre-Vatican II catholics harbor anti-semitism in our bones.
It's my intent here basically to emphatically underline your point #2. Several years ago, a locally well-known Jew and I periodially engaged in unofficial, friendly conversations regarding our respective faiths. My friend, widower, had re-married a Catholic woman. Being also a man of reflection, depth and veracity the difference in their faiths grew in prominence (but never more than that) No matter the direction our conversations took, focus eventually came to the cross. Although they occured almost 40 years ago I still remember him saying(more than once)and myself understanding his gist: "If you could take Jesus off the cross, I might be better able to accept him." My reply always was that it's literally impossible. Jesus on the cross is definitely the crux (pun intended)of the matter, that on which Jews and Christians/Catholics have a fundamental difference. It was that way right from the start of christianity and has never changed. Catholics can no more accept a Jesus without the cross than Jews can accept him on the cross and still remain Jewish. It is precisely the cross that divides us. In all else we can and should seek common ground. "But it will take time."
Thank you again for your thoughts.
Thank you Joan for your
Thank you Joan for your understanding and perception. My original response of course did not mean to over generalize, just reflect common Jewish experiences (including my own) with Christians in general. Certainly there are righteous people in all faiths and groups, regardless of age -as taught by Judaism for over 3 millenia. We as Jews have institutionalized such beliefs in places like Yad V'Shem and in books we write - where we seek the righteous of other groups to honor, praise and even assist them. We take each person as they present themselves to us.
As to the issue of the cross...theologically its not a matter Jesus on or off a cross and emotional reaction to the cross. The cross was a brutal torture device that thousands of Jews suffered, not just one Jew - all our people suffered on it. It will remain that in history for us. That it was adopted by another religion as a symbol complicates that because one would like to respect others and their symbols, but symbols can have multiple meanings based on historic facts and actions - and facts of history do not change and pius memory of our fallen and afflicted must be honored (i.e, the cross was used abusively on Jews and by the Church). We memorialize those events and the fallen of our people by whatever agency in our kinot prayers on certain holidays. That too is part of peoplehood and nationhood (like any nation's holidays).
Jesus as a person may be viewed a variety of ways, but G-d's Torah commands us to not represent G-d as anything that "walks, swims or flies" and is "incorporeal" (both of which are in the 10 commandments) - nothing alive can represent Him. So a human as a divine being is beyond and contradictory to Jewish beliefs, commandments for Jews, as mandated by G-d to us, but not prohibited to others in any intercessionary way (its not part of the Noachide laws in the dual covenant). The concept of messiah originated with the Jews, predating Christianity, and the concept differs in significant ways from yours. We do not see those events and personalities as continous Jewish history, but divergent from the authentic Jewish history. As such, history has proven our view to us and for us alone, that Jesus did not become the messiah of or for the Jewish people, based on revealed understandings of our Torah. So, whatever Jesus is to you is fine, but he has little relevance to us other than to serve as some kind of historical connection to Christians - may he continue to bless you. Our King Messiah, based on our previously revealed scripture, serves a different purpose and meaning to us as a messenger from what G-d, our Father in heaven, has done and will do in the future.
Thank G-d that time approaches based on the prophetic signs we have seen since 1948. We sing this at many holidays: "Ata takum terachem Zion, ki es l'chenena ki va moded" - "Arise and have mercy on Zion, for her time for Divine grace has come, for the appointed season has arrived". The rebirth of Israel, the improving circumstances of the Jewish people, the amazing achievements of a beleaguered people, and the growing religious literacy of the Jewish people (even attacked as we are in 75 countries) are poised for Jewish redepmption and Jewish salvation - as promised, independent of, but in solidarity with, other religions and peoples. We have 'emunah' - faith, may it happen in our day.
. . . Very impressive
. . . Very impressive response to John's very impressive article.
We Jews have a teaching: we
We Jews have a teaching: we are required to say a 'bracha' (a blessing) when we encounter a wise person - Jew or Gentile. My response was to recognize such wisdowm and acknowledge it (I had said the bracha before writing). I took it as an opportunity to respond and expand on the author's theme to clarify one small detail, in the hope I could further such wisdom. As the author appears to often write on themes that involve the Jewish people in a sensitive and scholarly way, I look forward to his further insights.
The question one must ask,
The question one must ask, who really has the truth? Maybe we all need to listen to the Holy Spirit for more guidance or follow in the footsteps of Jesus, for He is the way, the truth and the light, and back off on dogma and things that divide.
I don't think this Anglican
I don't think this Anglican Ordinariate is at all new, and Fr. Mark Woodruff's remarks have deepened my view that this is just another "uniate" church. When many of the byzantine-rite Catholic churches formed by poaching from Orthodoxy were first formed, they too were seen as bridges towards eventual unity by Rome and by their adherents. Now they are largely understood by the Orthodox as serious obstacles to reunion.
For the moment, Anglicans appear to be a peace with this movement because it provides a home for disaffected brothers and sisters. But what if the Ordinariate begins to grow by drawing in Anglicans that are not now disaffected? That does seem to be what Fr. Mark is anticipating.
If that starts to happen, then the Anglicans are not likely to be quite so much at peace with Anglican-rite Catholics.
What you say about the
What you say about the Eastern Uniate Churches is mostly quite true. But my question is different: What if the Ordinariate begins to grow by drawing in "regular" Roman Catholics that are now disaffected, or soon will be?
This was a very rich &
This was a very rich & nuanced article, and the news about the Osservatore is heartening.
I also love the fact that
I also love the fact that L’Osservatore Romano published this dialogue. I agree that much of the interfaith dialogue nowadays is occurring between liberals of the various religions. Not that this is a bad thing, but I have been to many interfaith gatherings where I left feeling all warm and fuzzy. I wasn't challenged in my faith or my understanding of the different religions at all. This dialogue between two very different people of two different faiths is challenging. It brings up a very painful aspect of Christian/Jewish history, the theology of substitution. As a point of conflict it allows both sides to clarify their ideas and truly understand one another.
"Koch is a convinced
"Koch is a convinced Ratzingerian who moves comfortably in the intellectual circles around the pope."
This quote from John Allen says it all. Full stop.
Has this Pope done anything ecumenical? He cannot because he is not comfortable with it. Has he done anything but make mistakes? The insistance on a cross at Assisi at a meeting that is with Jews is ridiculous at best.
John Allen is chief apologist for the Vatican. The Jews and the Anglicans are not happy. It is because their separateness and sovereignty are not respected. The Pope sees only the Roman Catholic Church as the answer to all problems, and he will dialogue until you agree with him.
"The Pope sees only the Roman
"The Pope sees only the Roman Catholic Church as the answer to all problems, and he will dialogue until you agree with him".
Virginia,
That's why the Ordinariate in concept is faulty and it will fail in execution. Anglicans weren't born yesterday and they aren't simple country boobs duped into buying the snake oil certain deeply disaffected and alienated extreme Anglo Catholics seem to have bought from him.
This pope has done more for
This pope has done more for ecumenism in 5 years then guys like Kasper in their lifetimes! Relations with Moscow and Constantinople and better than ever, real progress is made with Anglicans through the ordinariate. While the liberals keep wasting time and money on endless "dialogue" Benedict XVI has done actual work.
real progress is made with
real progress is made with Anglicans through the ordinariate.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yes, progress indeed with a misogynistic and virulently anti-gay minority within Anglicanism,but Anglicans largely alienated from the larger worldwide Anglican Communion. The dream of Rome acquiring the churches lost since the Reformation, the magnificent cathedrals with their boys choirs, and the hope of absorbing the idea set forth by King Charles I's archbishop of Canterbury, Laud, of "the beauty of holiness and the holiness of beauty" as guiding principles from which the Latin rite can itself draw sustenance and inspiration towards reform still remains nothing more than a dream.
The Anglican patrimony of married priests, extending the communion chalice to the laity without except, providing for a large measure of local decision-making and synodical control by both clergy and laity, and great tolerance for liturgical experimentation and flexible rubrics will not be honored by the Church of Rome under the Ordinariate.
The Vatican is already salivating at the prospect of imposing a Latin rite culture upon the Ordinariate eventually. Just as it has done with eastern uniate rites down through the centuries. Rome's perfidious and deceptive ways come through loud and clear. As evidenced recently by Cardinal Bertone, as usual letting the cat out of the bag, by alluding to Anglican liturgical traditions eventually being replaced by Latin practices.
Your placing this in a
Your placing this in a conservatives vs. liberals view is divisive and way off the mark. This is not, by any means, a us vs them discussion - it is a rather serious and thoughtful discussion on valuable theorlogical topics. Unfortunately, your comments have added nothing to it.
What does the ordinariate
What does the ordinariate mean?
"I think it’s genuinely an attempt to signal that in the universal church, which we believe subsists in the Catholic Church, there is endless space, with the possibility of embracing Christian tradition in its entirety and its integrity. ... This is an immense affirmation of Anglicanism and its riches. It’s possible for them to be in communion, united not absorbed tout court. Furthermore, we as a Catholic Church to some extent internalise Anglican tradition and make it our own. This is an immensely valuable tool ecumenically that we have not had before. It’s not about poaching, it is about internalising in the Catholic Church what already belongs to it, the ultimate dimension being the visible unity of the whole of Christ’s body."
This definition by John Allen is an insult to the Anglican Church. It is trimphalism in the extreme.
It's not about poaching? It is worse than poaching. It is the audacity, temerity and pride of the Catholic Church at its worst.
Dear Virginia, I think I
Dear Virginia,
I think I appreciate your sentiments, but may I suggest that you have not quite understood what John Allen has been trying to say in the section of the article which you quoted.
Allow me to quote from Pope Benedict's ecumenical address in Cologne in 2005: "Ecumenism does not mean what could be called an ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history – it does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline." And then the words he addressed th British Catholic bishops in 2010 about what he calls the "ultimate goal of all ecumenical activity: the restoration of full ecclesial communion in the context of which the mutual exchange of gifts from our respective spiritual patrimonies serves as an enrichment to us all".
This, I am sure you will agree, is not in the least triumphalistic. Recognising the individual faith history of Anglicans and the "gifts from our respective spiritual patrimonies" suggests a much more humble approach, don't you think? And I don't think John Allen was trying to saying anything else.
Anglicanorum Coetibus is about reunification for those who long for this, not proselytisation or conversion, not the "opening of eyes" for those as yet blind.
Pax et bonum
David Murphy
Don't worry Virginia, the
Don't worry Virginia, the vast majority of Anglicans will not avail themselves of the pope's "generous" invitation to join the Ordinariate because they see it as largely an effort to reform the Latin rite liturgy through the Ordinariate's competing English rite, yet to be approved; that it offers an English-speaking liturgical alternative to the SSPX and Sedevacantist generated move toward the Tridentine (1962) Mass, and that the Ordinariate is really designed largely with Anglo Catholics (a tiny minority within Anglicanism) in mind.
If anything, a "Catholic Ordinariate", if established by the Church of England or by other branches of Anglicanism, would, more than likely, be far more successful in attracting Roman Catholics to Anglicanism, especially priests and bishops than the other way around.
This definition by John Allen
This definition by John Allen is an insult to the Anglican Church. It is trimphalism in the extreme.
This quote does not come from John Allen but is the answer given to him by Fr. Woodruff, a member of the Ordinariate. Criticise John Allen by all means, but try to be fair to him.
Those in the Jewish faith, it
Those in the Jewish faith, it not being hierarchical in structure, don't have a "leader" to whom they can go for statements on behalf of the faith. Thus dozens, hundreds, thousands stand ready to take positions when anybody makes a statement that might effect Jews. There always seems to be one of them who stands ready to deliver objections. Islam, also.
You are correct, however this
You are correct, however this requires some thinking. The "thousands who stand ready to take positions" may be those uneducated or educated. Those of us who are "educated" in our own faith, history and theology are given the tools to "take a position". In Christianity, I believe this is referred to as "witnessing" or providing an evangelical moment of a non-proselytizing nature. If we are to avoid thinking with double standards, then the educated masses of those in other faiths SHOULD in fact take a position. How else can the religious other learn about legitimate and holy differences?
"Here we touch the
"Here we touch the fundamental point, which is very delicate, of Jewish-Catholic dialogue, or rather the question of how one can reconcile the conviction -- binding also for Christians -- that God’s covenant with the people of Israel has permanent validity,"
That is simply not true. The Old Covenant, The Mosaic Covenant, has been superseded; it has been replaced by the New Covenant.
The rabbi may desire that we Christians agree with his theological error but truth is truth and we Catholics do nobody any favors if we do not speak the truth about this matter.
Hebrews 7:18: “On the one hand, a former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness...”;
• Hebrews 10:9: “Then he says, ‘Behold, I come to do your will.’ He takes away the first [covenant] to establish the second [covenant]...”;
• 2 Corinthians 3:14: “For to this day when they [the Jews] read the Old Covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away”;
• Hebrews 8:7: “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another”;
• Colossians 2:14: “Having canceled the written code, with its decrees, that was against us and stood opposed to us; He took it away nailing it to the cross”;
• Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, para. 29: “...the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished...but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross”;
• The Catechism of the Council of Trent: “...the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law...”;
• Council of Florence: “that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law...although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began”;
• Council of Trent: “but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom”;
• Cardinal Ratzinger: “Thus the Sinai [Mosaic] Covenant is indeed superseded” (Many Religions – One Covenant, p. 70).
• St. John Chrysostom: “Yet surely Paul’s object everywhere is to annul this Law....And with much reason; for it was through a fear and a horror of this that the Jews obstinately opposed grace” (Homily on Romans, 6:12); “And so while no one annuls a man’s covenant, the covenant of God after four hundred and thirty years is annulled; for if not that covenant but another instead of it bestows what is promised, then is it set aside, which is most unreasonable” (Homily on Galatians, Ch 3);
• St. Augustine: “Instead of the grace of the law which has passed away, we have received the grace of the gospel which is abiding; and instead of the shadows and types of the old dispensation, the truth has come by Jesus Christ. Jeremiah also prophesied thus in God’s name: ‘Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah...’ Observe what the prophet says, not to Gentiles, who had not been partakers in any former covenant, but to the Jewish nation. He who has given them the law by Moses, promises in place of it the New Covenant of the gospel, that they might no longer live in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit” (Letters, 74, 4);
•
Justin Martyr: Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law – namely, Christ – has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy...Have you not read...by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: ‘Behold, the days come,’ says the Lord, ‘that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah...’” (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch 11). 37
37 The Fathers are in absolute consensus that the Old Covenant had been revoked and replaced by the New Covenant. The above is just a small sampling of their agreement.
This was copied and pasted from this excellent survey of the question...
" St. John Chrysostom: “Yet
" St. John Chrysostom: “Yet surely Paul’s object everywhere is to annul this Law....And with much reason; for it was through a fear and a horror of this that the Jews obstinately opposed grace” (Homily on Romans, 6:12); “And so while no one annuls a man’s covenant, the covenant of God after four hundred and thirty years is annulled; for if not that covenant but another instead of it bestows what is promised, then is it set aside, which is most unreasonable” (Homily on Galatians, Ch 3);"
The above quote is plain STUPIDITY!!
I was just this morning reading an article from the Chicago Studies (Summer 2011) issue: "The Renewal of Minds:Romans 9-11 and the Inculturation of Jews and Gentiles" by John G. Lodge, SSL, STD and the final few sentences are: "The Jews, however, have a special status beyond mere outsiders. We are related to them differently from our relationship to others who have not accepted the gospel. This is because, as John Paul II summed up Rom. 11:28-29: "...the Jews are beloved of God, who has called them with an irrevocable calling."
Cheers,
That is simply not true. The
That is simply not true. The Old Covenant, The Mosaic Covenant, has been superseded; it has been replaced by the New Covenant.
The Mosaic covenant may have been superceded for Christians, but not for Jews.
That's kind of the difference beteen Jews and Christians, isn't it, and we ought to respect that difference? Didn't His Holiness himself say that recently?
The Fathers did not live in
The Fathers did not live in today's world where we have EXCELLENT examples of what their writings and attitudes wrought. I often wonder what they would have said if they realized that what they wrote would justify and deepen anti-semitism, and lead ultimately to the Holocaust. Would they modify their writings? Would they scold those who misunderstood? Or would they accept and bless what came after?
Perhaps some of them would be absolutely OK with the horrors that followed in the centuries after their writings. In their world, wiping out your "enemies" (i.e. ethnic cleansing) was normal. Torture was normal. Later came the Inquisition which actually intended to kill and did kill those of other faiths (Jews, Protestants), or those who it believed were heretics or somehow a threat (insert any heresy, or women accused of witchcraft). It was what one did in that world.
For some of the Fathers, evangelization (of the non-violent kind)would likely be their response. Who COULD refuse the message? Well some could, would, and did. No reason why everyone needs to convert to Christianity (or Islam, or Hare Krishna or anything else for that matter). Really. It is OK if people choose to keep the religion they were born into or none at all. The belief that everyone should convert underlies the awfulness that came later - violent evangelization of peoples.
There is an argument that can be made that evangelization IN GENERAL is cultural genocide. I am not willing to go that far. I maintain that evangelization AS IT WAS PRACTICED particularly during the times of the expansion of European colonies was nothing more than cultural genocide and enslavement of peoples of the colonized lands - conversion was a side issue and a justification for the horrors that were visited upon the native peoples of (for example) the Americas. I absolutely believe there is a RIGHT way to evangelize and a wrong way. Back then... That was the wrong way. Not sure we have the right way figured out, but I am confident that those who evangelize work to respect the cultural integrity of their targets.
Still and all, here we are. In our time (for some in their own lifetimes) millions of people were wiped off the face of the earth simply because of who they were (Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals) and/or what they were (Communists, Socialists, Intellectuals, Priests, Enemies of the Party)... The long list of victims goes on, but no people suffered quite like the Jews. We have to face that fact. We DO know what happens when we elevate ourselves above others and believe that we are exclusive and "special".
Christians (in general) may not like it, but we need to check our own assumptions, beliefs, and language for factors that lead to anti-semitism. We criticize others for being anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-Anglican and so on but we are singularly unable to see clearly the beam in our own eye: Christians felt the need over a millennium and a half ago to be more "special", more "chosen". We became privileged and justified that privilege with language and writings that said that the special relationship that God had with the Jews was no longer valid. That cancer of our own creation culminated in the Holocaust eventually, because the religious beliefs got bound up with cultural and ethnic enmities and created persecution of Jews in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, the Pogroms, the forced conversions... We Christians today did not cause this, but we need to study how it happened so we do not repeat it.
We need to remember these "Fathers" were products of their time, with the attitudes and beliefs of their time, and these beliefs colored what they wrote. We now know what can happen. We need to apply that knowledge to avoid it. Yet, I do not see in this comment posting anything like the self-examination required to prevent that. Back then, the Fathers had written "conversations" the one disputing the other, and thus they tried to reach Truth (which is asymptotic -- no one human can reach it). Today, we have a system that dumps on whoever happens to be out of favor. There isn't EVEN a conversation.
We criticize Muslims and Islam for some practices that are clearly cultural, and which have followed the same trajectory as our own religion and culture. Muslims constantly try to explain the difference, but this all falls on deaf ears because Muslims and Jews are the "other". Not "special". Not "like us". Not "saved".
I will not criticize other religions for doing exactly the same thing, because I am not an adherent of those others. Please do not bother pointing out that faith fill-in-the-blank is way worse than Christianity. That is not helpful. We can only fix what is within our own sphere, and the behavior of other Faiths is not within our control. Their bad behavior does not obviate our own responsibility to look at what our own beliefs and attitudes can affect in this world.
Thus, I believe it is wrong to call on the Fathers to justify Christian "specialness" and to justify the belief that the covenant between God and the Jewish people has been superseded. You cannot ask that Jews operate as if that tenet were true, or accept it. That belief must be set aside if there is ever to be meaningful dialogue.
--Andy Jo--
All the quotes seem correct,
All the quotes seem correct, but I notice that there are no catechal or Church teachings that postdate WW2 - except one statement of Ratzinger. The one quote by Ratzinger itself is balanced by many Church teachings that contradict it on its face. The list is highly selective. One could quote scripture from the Hebrew Bible that contradict these quotes if we want to be selective with great accuracy.
The Church has stated the "irrevocability of Israel's election and covenant", "the mystery of why Israel survives and flourishes without Jesus", etc.. But the Church does not define what Israel's covenant is, it merely postulates, for Catholics, the idea of udnerstanding truth as a single covenantal theory of religion. Yet, it is Israel and Israel alone, in faith to their G-d, that defines its own set of covenants with the G-d of Israel based on a national revelation that is called "eternal" in the Torah (what Christians call the "Old Testament"). That revelation includes a dual covenantal theory - one for Jews, one for Gentiles with no one restricted from salvation. That national revelation has never been repeated with any changes to the Jewish people as a whole - which is to be expected at a minimum if changes were true. The individual revelation of Jesus or his immediate small band of followers hardly were able to proclaim any new truths with any known authority of any new revelation to the Jewish people. The Church then spent the better part of 2,000 years calling into question the efficacy and loving nature of that new revelation - showing in history no proof of its ability to work for the Jewish people's salvation. Truth, any truth, has to be based on performance and historical truth. If there was a loving, new convenant that superseded the Hebrew Sinai covenant and saved the Jews, how come it has not been practiced in the main, worked for the Jewish people, was announced by G-d in a way comparable to the Sinai covenant - nor practiced by the very Church proclaiming it? Faith and truth need to be reconciled before one can answer these weighty questions.
This is just popish rubbish.
This is just popish rubbish. The law of Moses is not and never will be abrogated. This the very anti-Semitism which Jews have come to expect from Benedict and his Society of Saint Pius 10th admirers.
What doesn't make sense is
What doesn't make sense is Pope Benedict forever mollifying the ardently anti-Semetic SSPX and other right-wing groups in Europe while reaching out to Jews who are most offended by this behavior. It has to be a constant irritant to the Jewish community in Rome and elsewhere.
Jews must keep asking themselves how sincere are all these Vatican overtures which often come off as clumsily performed public relations stunts resembling more of a comedy of errors.
Sorry, my anonymous friend,
Sorry, my anonymous friend, but I do not see the Pope constantly mollifying the Lefebvrists. What he has done is lift their excommunication, not reinstate them. He is waiting for them to accept the authority of the Second Vatican Council, but they are not budging. So no mollification.
He has also allowed a slightly more widespread use of the pre-Vatican II mass, stating that what had been the norm for hundreds of years could not suddenly be considered invalid. This is certainly true, but he refers to the old form of the mass as the "extraordinary form" and the post-Vatican II mass as the "ordinary form". All his public masses are celebrated in the Ordinary Form. So no mollification of the extremists here either.
And as far as Anti-Semitism is concerned, you can judge Benedict by his actions, repeatedly visiting synagogues (three and counting ...), visiting Yad Yashem and praying at the eternal flame, praying at the Wailing Wall. Listen to the first words the Pope spoke in Britain in 2010: "Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews ..." and to the following words spoken a few days later in Birmingham: "For me, as one who lived and suffered through the dark days of the Nazi regime in Germany, it is deeply moving to be here with you on this occasion, and to recall how many of your fellow citizens sacrificed their lives, courageously resisting the forces of that evil ideology". For him to speak so personally about the "evil ideology", "Nazi tyranny" and the "dark days of the Nazi regime" and in this context to mention the Jews "especially" should really serve to dispel any myths of Anti-Semitism in connection with Pope Benedict XVI.
The "public relations" efforts (sorry, I can't accept the word "stunt") are not clumsy. Various actions and a few words by the Pope and others have, however, in fact been considered "clumsy" and probably have been so, although some have been truly misinterpreted, but they have been profoundly apologised for. I have cringed on a couple of occasions myself, but can assure you that these were genuine "hamfistedness" and nothing more sinister. I, like many others, am praying for an end to this clumsiness, you can believe me.
Benedict is responding to
Benedict is responding to world-wide criticism of the SSPX and his repeated attempts to reconcile them to the Church. These efforts have been an abject failure. See http://www.romancatholicism.org/sspx-jews.htm(especially the end of the article).
The SSPX are dangerous neo-fascist heretics who should be expunged from the Church.
Benedict is responding to
Benedict is responding to world-wide criticism of the SSPX and his repeated attempts to reconcile them to the Church. These efforts have been an abject failure. See http://www.romancatholicism.org/sspx-jews.htm(especially the end of the article).
The SSPX are dangerous neo-fascist heretics who should be expunged from the Church.
THe SSPX is not anti semetic.
THe SSPX is not anti semetic. I suppose it is too much to ask that those who slander others provide some proof to back up their accusations, but I will ask it anyways.
Proof. Please.
For the past one-half century, the Catholic Church has gone to great lengths to clear away the debris existing in the path of an authentic peaceful secular reconciliation between Catholicism and Judaism but it ill serves all involved, especially we Catholics, for there to be a demand on the part of Jews that the unbridgeable chasm between Catholicism and Judaism be over-come by we Catholics erecting a bridge that papers-over He who separates us; and that if we do not do that then we are somehow deficient.
The SSPX holds no Theological Teachings any different than what has been held by The Catholic Church since the Original Deposit of Faith and its celebrations of the Immemorial Mass and Traditional Sacraments can not be said to be , in any way, unorthodox because that Mass and those Sacraments had/have been celebrated that way for a millenia; and more.
And who are The Jews to make demands upon the Catholic Church in matters such as who is or isn't a member of The Church; or, for that matter, who is or isn't raised to the Altars?
A little humility can go a long way.
Vermont Crank, A little
Vermont Crank, A little humility will indeed go a long way, but the truth--something which appears to evade you entirely--will take you even further. I suggest you revise your absurd comments.
See http://www.romancatholicism.org/sspx-jews.htm
Berlin, Germany, Jul 13, 2011
Berlin, Germany, Jul 13, 2011 / 05:54 pm (CNA).- A German appeals court has levied a fine of nearly $9,000 against Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of St. Pius X for public statements denying the gravity of the Holocaust. During an interview in 2008, Williamson said, “Historical evidence massively contradicts the theory that 6 million Jews died” in the Nazi concentration camps. He was subsequently fined $14,000 by a German court, but the July 11 order reduced it to just over $9,000. The interview was re-broadcast in January of 2009, just as Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication against four Lefebvrist bishops, including Williamson.
__________________________________________________________________________
Denying the gravity of the Holocaust is not anti-semitism? Fortunately, Germany has laws against these kind of denials, because they went throug a critical revision of his history and of his people's guilt. With one excepction: the former East-Germany, where by the way neo-nazism is flourishing. The same happened in other countries that refused to face their past crimes. In Russia, for instance, neo-nazism is also on the rise. The rule can apply to others once under the control of Soviet Union. That explains a lot about the mindset of BXVI and JPII: they never had to go through a phase of atonement. That's why both of them were able to glorify the past, and be more sympatethic towards Lefebvrists than to Liberation Theology, for instance.
It makes sense to me only
It makes sense to me only because I think Benedict has compartmentalized the SSPX question as a solely internal matter having nothing to do with Ecumenism. Compartmentalization seems to be a very necessary intellectual skill to survive and thrive in the Catholic scheme of things.
I have to agree with your
I have to agree with your observation. But there are several layers of issues here. First, it is not clear to the Jewish world who is authoritive spokesperson for religious doctrine as they are not taught much about how Catholicism works in the operative sense. Its too easy to assume others think the Pope is, since cardinals, nuncios, priests and theologians all weigh in with the differing nuanced ideas - all of whom presumably know their religion. Second, few outside the Church understand how and if change is even allowed. Third, change occurs so slowly in the Church that generations of other people grow up only hearing the now discredited or outmoded old Church teachings creating a tremendous informationall lag in the general public. Forth, the announcements of theological relations with other religions is often so couched in densely written "Vaticanese", few outside of the Curia can understand what is really being said. Fifth and final, given the history of poor Jewish-Catholic relations, it should be a prioirty to be clear, unambiguous in the broadest possible way when communicating. Interfaith dialog or even simple cooperation is hampered if communication cannot be properly and efficiently handled. So far, the Church gets a "C-" for accomplishment and a "B+" for effort.
Both of these stories just
Both of these stories just reinforces the reality that any relationship the Vatican enters into is usually one in which the Vatican has its boot on the neck of it's "partner in dialogue," usually surrounded with nice-sounding words that reveal the true nature when read closely. The Vatican and the Church can never accept any truly equal "partner." It continues to be patronizing to Jews and blatantly insulting to the Anglican communion. Fine. The trickle of Anglicans into the Catholic Church doesn't match the steady march of people out of Roman Catholicism especially in Europe.
"The Church of England entire
"The Church of England entire and the Catholic church entire have at some point to be in complete union."
I suppose that will happen someday. The Second Coming, perhaps.
Because if somehow, the Roman Church and Anglicans found themselves in dialogue about "complete union," the Romans will have to cave on at least six main issues before negotiations could even begin to get serious.
First, Rome will have to renounce the doctrine of infallibility and acknowledge it as a flawed theology. There is no way Anglicans could swallow that dogma and look themselves in the mirror the next day.
Second, Rome will have to reorganize the hierarchy and democratize it. It cannot exist as an absolute dictatorship and work for Anglicans. That dog won't hunt.
Third, Rome will have to give the laity power to effect change, and thus a true voice in the church. That ends the age-old tension of the hierarchy trumping the laity, that has stifled so much good in the Roman Church. Shared power. Shared voice.
Fourth, the role of women in the Roman Church will have to change. Women priests. Women bishops. Women archbishops. Women cardinals. A female pope. That means the end of male domination and a fatal blow to institutional misogyny.
Fifth, Rome will have to renounce its requirement for celibate clergy in the Western Church. No half-measures. All people in holy orders must have the option to marry, should they choose.
Finally, Rome has to come to terms with the fact that gay clergy exists, it always has, and it will always. It's time for all of those men in their ecclesiastical finery to come out of the closet.
Any bets when this will happen?
Maybe when hell freezes over.
Besides, a Catholic Church exists today that fits this mold entirely.
It's called The Episcopal Church, and countless disenfranchised Roman Catholics call it home, today.
Like the signs say, "THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH WELCOMES YOU."
The fact is the Roman Church
The fact is the Roman Church has already shown most Anglicans the gate. This is Benedict XVI's policy from here on in.
Rome has bigger fish to fry with Anglo Catholics and the Orthodox. Both of whom will never accept Anglican heretics and women clergy under the terms you state.
“Naturally,” he wrote, Assisi
“Naturally,” he wrote, Assisi “should not be misunderstood as a syncretistic act.”
The hope of the world lies in syncretic acts. One day we will see that that is the path of holiness.
Good article, John Allen,
Good article, John Allen, especially on Jewish-Catholic "exchanges" in Rome that enable us to catch the possibilities for progress that are within the reach of both tradition.
In regard to the Ordinariate, one wishes Fr. Woodruff also alluded to the good things happening in Anglican Use parishes in the US. They recently held a Convention in Texas. Possibly in the future something can be written on the difference (or similarities) between the two (i.e., the current Anglican Use parishes in the States vs future Ordinariate parishes everywhere else). I'm sure some graduate student is already doing research on this; but spiritual/liturgical movements deepen, broaden through constant interrelation and cross-fertilization.
I have served on ecumenical
I have served on ecumenical dialogues in the US and in Latin America, and I would offer two significant impediments. There remains the outright repudiation by the western church of covenant of God with God's chosen people, the Jews, and blaming them for the Cross. This remains today in the translations of our Scriptures and in our Holy Week rites. What is called for is our reinterpretation of the events of the Incarnation and Easter.
Secondly, I think it is an illusion to think that the Rome is capable of embracing and integrating Anglicans into herself as long as the symbolic condemnation by Pius IX remains uncorrected. The truth is revealed in how Rome has treated its theologians in the past 50 years who have called for change.
As a Bible believing
As a Bible believing Christian I do not want to be under the yoke of the Vatican. There are many of us who think this way. There is one mediator between God and man and it is the Lord Jesus Christos (Greek for Messiah/anointed one). We believed in the authority of Scripture and salvation by faith alone and not by works or in the so-called sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. We believe in the priesthood of all believers as stated by Peter in one of his epistles. I don't know what the Vatican thinks it will do with us since we do not wish to be a part of the ecumenism and recognizing the pope as standing in the place of our Savior and Lord Jesus Christos. Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish people. Scripture states that we Christians have no continuing city on earth---no Eternal City called Rome. Jesus told Pilate that His kingdom was not of this world.
Respectfully submitted.
Allen's article exudes two
Allen's article exudes two divergent qualities: (1) it is a stimulating breath of fresh air in the light of the journal's past, and (2) it is a highly sophisticated re-packaging of the pre-Vatican II past under the guise of "tolarant care and concern".
For Church-Synagogue relations, if I may use Vermont's post as a point of departure, we have two opposing ecclesiologies in play: (a) the trend towards inclusiveness started by Nostra Aetate, and (b) the timelessness of the centralities of the Pauline New Covenant of Bible times.
The first was triggered by the Shoah in recognition of the unsatisfactory role of the Church and its involvement with Nazism commencing with the Papal Legate Franz von Papen, and climaxing with Cardinal Hlond's acquiescence in accepting Poland as the site for almost all the Nazi Todlagers. The Ante Pavelich / Aloyis Stepinac sideshow with the Ustasha merely adds fuel to this fire.
Most of the second cannot be surrendered without major apostasy from the Faith. If any of the second are surrendered, B16's attempts at reconciliation with Orthodoxy will be scuttled more efficiently than female / homosexual ordination has done to ARCIC.
Can I suggest a third way through that does not involve surrender for the Jews, or surrender of the centralities of the Church's Faith is that of the larger circle. A Church "circle" sufficiently capacious to incorporate within it, but without surrender, all of the Jewish Covenant sensitivities: with a "both/and" paradigm operating, rather than having two separate and non-overlapping circles with an either/or paradigm.
In this context, Denis Gallen's post on the Uniat phenomenon is part and parcel of this same phemomenon of absorbption/ replacement. At the moment, with the Ordinariate it is a "both/and" situation, but given the history of the Slavic Unia and the Arabic Melkite / Maronite problem vis a vis Orthodoxy, it will eventually descend into an "either/or" choice.
Just as the Unia liturgies and ambience are already more distinctly Roman than Orthodox; so, too in time, will the Ordinariate's liturgies become more Roman than Anglican. This is the unstated "elephant in the room".
In this context, I am reminded of Fr Gregory Wingenbach's transition from Rome to Orthodoxy via the Eastern (Byzantine Rite) Unia, and the pressure in his day placed by the Jesuits on the Uniats and the Melkite Rite to become even more "Roman" in text and ambience, and abandon even the last vestiges of Orthodoxy.
With the Ordinariate up and running, there is likely to be traffic-flow both ways - with non-Ordinariate Catholics transitioning to Anglicanism via the Ordinariate.
The moment the Curia cracks down on this exit-traffic (as it is already doing in Ukraine etc with the Uniats as they return to Orthodoxy) will be the moment the Ordinariate looses its innocence, and will find it confronted with the same choice as the Uniats etc: move deeper into Rome's bosom, and progressively phase out any distinctive "Anglican" flavour, or exit Rome altogether and put the Ordinariate phase down to misplaced innocence and pious wishful thinking.
+++
The challenge for L'Osservatore Romano is to acknowledge this "elephant in the room" with respect to both Church-Synagogue relations, and the future of the Anglican Ordinariate in the light of the Uniats.
What we need is a firm statement in this august journal, "set in stone" (ex cathedra???) and incapable of being either rescinded of "reinterpreted" by either B16, or any of his succesors that clearly states one way or the other where the Curia and hence the Holy Father (and hence all his successors) stands on these two matters. Until this is done, wary caution remains the only safe order of the day with respect to Allen's otherwise excellent article.
Post new comment