As I wrote yesterday, the faithful Catholic is required to reject anything that conflicts, either explicitly or implicitly, with the doctrine of the Faith, no matter what the source may be. Furthermore, no one, not even a pope or a valid council of the Church, has the authority to bind anyone to any such conflicting propositions.
In this post, I will provide a specific example from the conciliar text that conflicts with the doctrine of the faith in such way as to lead directly to error, therefore requiring the responsible Catholic, not just to parse it and qualify it and wrench a faithful interpretation from it, but to reject it as a danger to the faithful.
Nostra Aetate 4: “Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles, making both one in Himself.”
The only way one can embrace this statement as an acceptable representation of the Catholic faith is to understand that it speaks exclusively of those Jews who have accepted Jesus Christ as the long-awaited messiah and have entered into the new and everlasting covenant by the waters of baptism. That’s it.
OK, those hell bent on hammering square pegs into round holes will say, you see that! It can be interpreted in continuity with tradition!
Not so fast.
Let’s take just a few steps back to remind ourselves of the purpose of every ecumenical council; namely, to teach the truths of the Catholic faith with precision and clarity. The councils of the Church are not symposia wherein bishops are charged with drafting doctrinal riddles so convoluted as to remain, even half a century later, unsolved by even the vast majority of the Church’s hierarchy.
In other words, that a faithful interpretation is narrowly possible for a given statement does not justify in any way “binding” the faithful to it.
So, back to our example: Has the deficiency of the text from Nostra Aetate 4 led directly to error?
You bet it has, and not just on the part of rank and file liberals, but as I will demonstrate momentarily, on the part of the sacred hierarchy leading all the way to the top,
First, it’s important to know that the text in question from NA 4 is footnoted to reference Ephesians 2, a passage in which St. Paul informs the gentile believers in Christ that the wall of separation that once existed between themselves and the people of the covenant, the Jews, prior to Christ, is now broken down. How? Through the Cross, as believing Jews, like St. Paul himself, are united with believing gentiles in the Blood of Jesus Christ, making both one in Himself.
What St. Paul is not suggesting in any way, shape or form is that those Jews who rejected Jesus Christ and who look upon His Cross as mere folly, either then or at any time thereafter, are somehow “one in Him.”
The very notion is laughable indeed, but it’s not very funny when one considers the degree to which the sacred hierarchy has embraced precisely this utterly untenable interpretation.
At a recent address delivered at Rome’s Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, Cardinal Koch, President of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with Jews, said that Nostra Aetate is “the ‘foundation document’ and the ‘Magna Carta’ of the dialogue of the Roman Catholic Church with Judaism.”
Reflecting further on the document, he said in reference to the statement in question from NA 4:
“The concept of two parallel paths of salvation would in the least call into question or even endanger the fundamental understanding of the Second Vatican Council that Jews and Christians do not belong to two different peoples of God, but that they form one people of God.”
Know this: Cardinal Koch’s misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine, which reflects a false interpretation of Ephesians 2, is the direct fruit of the deficient text in question from NA 4. More troubling still is that all indications seem to be that even the popes since Vatican II embrace this falsehood, as evidenced by their utter failure to even hint that the Jews stand in need of baptism in order to gain access to the community of salvation.
The slippery slope greased by NA 4 leads to straight to nothing less serious than heresy, which is defined in the Code of Canon Law as “the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith” (Canon 751).
Cardinal Koch demonstrated this very clearly as he continued:
“On the one hand, from the Christian confession there can be only one path to salvation. However, on the other hand, it does not necessarily follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God.”
Numb though you understandably may be after decades of being exposed to the diplomat-speak of the “new evangelists,” pinch yourself just hard enough to come to your Catholic senses and consider exactly what the cardinal is saying:
He is publicly proclaiming that even those who explicitly reject Jesus Christ, His Sonship and His Messiahship, are included in God’s salvation! In other words, he is saying that one can reject Christ and yet somehow still accept God.
When we consider that the words of Our Blessed Lord necessarily form the content of that which must “be believed by divine and Catholic faith,” and that Jesus very clearly said, “He who rejects me rejects Him who sent me,” we can draw no other conclusion than to say that Cardinal Koch is guilty of professing a material heresy.
This, my friends, is a crystal clear example of just how dangerous certain of the texts of Vatican II are. They lead not just simple laymen to confusion and ultimately to heresy, but even the Princes of the Church!
This is why we must, as a matter of Christian duty to the Lord who is truth incarnate, allow no fear to prevent us from holding such misleading propositions up to the purifying light of sacred Tradition, exposing them for precisely what they are, and rejecting them out of hand.
It should also be clear, therefore, why not even an angel from heaven has the authority to bind us, on any level, to such poisonous prose.
I don’t understand why the Princes of the Church don’t understand this. I’m just a lowly pew-sitter and am trying to come up to speed on church teachings but you’re clearly explained this. If it’s clear to you (and now me), why isn’t it clear to them? That’s a rhetorical question…
The unsaid assumptions behind this post are:
1) The Jews crucified Jesus (in reality it was the Romans)
2) The Jews don’t consider Jesus jewish
the illogical conclusions to those assumptions are:
1) Gentiles were not ‘grafted’ on to the people of God but vice versa (Rom 11)
2) Jesus was not the “king of the jews”, and his baptism is not a fulfillment of the covenant of circumcision
The true interpretation of St. Paul (in line with Nostra Aetate)
1) “a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in” (Rom 11:25)–Israel’s disbelief does not condemn them eternally, rather they will believe at the end of all things
2) Baptism is a fulfillment of the covenant of circumcision, and although it is not necessary to be circumcised to be saved–nevertheless the old covenant precedes the new and Jesus himself said to the woman at the well “salvation is from the Jews” (Jn 4:22)
2)
Yes, Lynne, it is clear. Why others cannot see it is a great mystery to me.
The only answer that comes to mind is “diabolical disorientation.” If nothing else, Samwise (whose commentary is always appreciated) has given us a great example of how mightily the defenders of the indefensible will contort themselves in order to avoid the obvious.
Remember, Jesus did not “abolish” the law and prophets but fulfilled them:
1) He was born of a Jewish virgin
2) He was circumcized
3) He learned the law and taught it
4) He was baptized by his cousin John
5) He was a well-known rabbi of 12 disciples
6) He preached the Resurrection from the dead and foretold his own fulfillment of this long-held jewish hope (see Josephus)
7) He celebrated the passover and instituted the Eucharist as fulfillment of it
8) He was handed over by the Sanhedrin, crucified by the Romans, and after three days rose from the dead
* I live in a jewish neighborhood, and have learned much from them–I do not hesitate to evangelize them about the true Messiah
Please see Taylor Marshal’s “Crucified Rabbi” (which has imprimatur) as excellent background for the old covenant in light of the new
See also, for a pre-vatican II reference, Pius XII’s Mystici Corpus Christi:
paragraph 110:
Within her virginal womb Christ our Lord already bore the exalted title of Head of the Church; in a marvelous birth she brought Him forth as the source of all supernatural life, and presented Him newly born, as Prophet, King and Priest to those who, from among JEWS and Gentiles, were the first to come to adore Him. Furthermore, her only Son, condescending to His mother’s prayer in “Cana of Galilee,” performed the miracle by which “his disciples believed in Him.”[217] It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for ALL the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall, and her mother’s rights and her mother’s love were included in the holocaust.
Lastly, I want to reference Cardinal Avery Dulles of happy memory. He has published much on the subject of Nostra Aetate–and I have hardly done him justice.
To Mr Verricchio’s credit, the Old Covenant is insufficient for salvation apart from Christ. But, Cardinal Dulles proposes both the necessity to evangelize in the name of Christ the King and to have a supersessionist understanding of the fulfillment of the old covenant by the new:
“Some Catholics, in their eagerness to reject a crude supersessionism, give independent validity to the Old Covenant. They depict the Old and New Covenants as two ‘separate but equal’ parallel paths to salvation, the one intended for Jews, the other for gentiles” (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-covenant-with-israel—42)
and again,
Moreover Cardinal Avery Dulles, who criticized the aforementioned USCCB Reflections on Covenant and Mission, stated at the Nostra Aetate 40th anniversary conference in Washington last March that it is “an open question whether the Old Covenant remains in force today” and has opined that it is still a Catholic duty to invite Jews to receive the Christian faith (his text has recently been printed in the publication “First Things”)
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20051027_rabbi-rosen_en.html
God raised this Jesus; of this we are all witnesses.
Exalted at the right hand of God, he received the promise of the holy Spirit from the Father and poured it forth, as you (both) see and hear. For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”‘
Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.”
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?”
Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.
For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”
He testified with many other arguments, and was exhorting them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.”
From Vatican Council
The undersigned Fathers of the Council humbly yet urgently beseechingly pray that the Holy Ecumenical Council of the Vatican deign to come to the aid of the unfortunate nation of Israel with an entirely paternal invitation; that is, that it express the wish that, finally exhausted by a wait no less futile than long, the Israelites hasten to recognize the Messiah, our Savior Jesus Christ, truly promised to Abraham and announced by Moses; thus completing and crowning, not changing, the Mosaic religion.
On one hand, the undersigned Fathers have the very firm confidence that the holy Council will have compassion on the Israelites, because they are always very dear to God on account of their fathers, and because it is from them that the Christ was born according to the flesh.
On the other hand, the same Fathers share the sweet and intimate hope that this ardent desire of tenderness and honor will be, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, well received by many of the sons of Abraham, because the obstacles which have held them back until now appear to be disappearing more and more, the ancient wall of separation now having fallen.
Would that they then speedily acclaim the Christ, saying “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed be He who comes in the name of the Lord!”
Would that they hurl themselves into the arms of the Immaculate Virgin Mary, even now their sister according to the flesh, who wishes likewise to be their mother according to grace as she is ours!
Thank you, Ziemek. For those unaware, the text above was a “postulatum” well on its way to becoming part of the text of the First Vatican Council, but the outbreak of war interrupted the council and it was not reconvened. It’s a great example of how bishops, and councils, should speak in all charity to the Jewish people.
CCC#1096 Jewish liturgy and Christian liturgy. A better knowledge of the Jewish people’s faith and religious life as professed and lived even now can help our better understanding of certain aspects of Christian liturgy. For both Jews and Christians Sacred Scripture is an essential part of their respective liturgies: in the proclamation of the Word of God, the response to this word, prayer of praise and intercession for the living and the dead, invocation of God’s mercy. In its characteristic structure the Liturgy of the Word originates in Jewish prayer. The Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical texts and formularies, as well as those of our most venerable prayers, including the Lord’s Prayer, have parallels in Jewish prayer. The Eucharistic Prayers also draw their inspiration from the Jewish tradition. The relationship between Jewish liturgy and Christian liturgy, but also their differences in content, are particularly evident in the great feasts of the liturgical year, such as Passover. Christians and Jews both celebrate the Passover. For Jews, it is the Passover of history, tending toward the future; for Christians, it is the Passover fulfilled in the death and Resurrection of Christ, though always in expectation of its definitive consummation.
“In the Christian sphere, coming to terms with the Shoah is certainly one of the major motivations leading to the drafting of “Nostra aetate”.”
and
“Among Christians too there were both perpetrators and victims; but the broad masses surely consisted of passive spectators who kept their eyes closed in the face of this brutal reality. The Shoah therefore became a question and an accusation against Christianity: Why did Christian resistance against the boundless brutality of the Nazi crimes not demonstrate that measure and that clarity which one should rightfully have expected? ”
These are other quotes from Kardinal Koch´s speech you mentioned in your article, Louie.
These quotes are in my opinion good examples how the architects of Vat II misused the shoah in order to alter the gospel. This is too obvious for everyone who has eyes to see.
By the way, that the shoah has happened was not the fault of the Catholics who were themselves left defenseless under Hitler´s tyranny. Hitler was admittedly baptized catholic but was an apostate since his youth and therefore hated especially the catholic church and persecuted it seriously from 1933 onwards*.
As the Bavarian Bishop Johann Neuhäusler pointed out in his book “Kreuz und Hakenkreuz”, Hitler hated the Jews because of their historical connection with the new convenant and his aim was to annihilate Judaism AND the Catholic Church. He also pointed out that even the german Bishops who had experienced very ugly things during the long lasting “Kirchenkampf” were shocked when they learned AFTER the end of the World war of the dimension of the mass murder of the Jews. If even the bishops didn´t know every crime the National Socialists commited how should the others Catholics have known who themselves suffered severely under Hitler´s regime and are now unjustedly accused by Cardinal Koch?
The german Kardinal Koch really should learn these historical facts before accusing his fellow germans who suffered severely under a tyranny which started in 1933.
*See Bishop Neuhäusler´s book ” The Persecution of the Catholic Church in the Third Reich”
Reprint available here: http://www.amazon.com/Persecution-Catholic-Church-Third-Reich/dp/1589801377/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377778476&sr=8-1-
Take Edith Stein, St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, as an example of sainthood as developed in the old covenant and fulfilled in the new:
1) she studied under phenomenologist Edmund Husserl as a jew
2) Converted to Catholicism after reading St. Teresa of Avila
3) joined a carmelite monastery in Germany
4) because of her JEWISH ethnicity, was imprisoned by the Nazis and executed.
* The Church treats her as a martyr and saint. Her sister, also a converted carmelite, died under the Nazis
Correction: I just learned that Kurt Koch isa swiss Cardinal but he should know about the German “Kirchenkampf”.
I want to reference Cardinal Avery Dulles of happy memory. He has published much on the subject of Nostra Aetate–and I have hardly done him justice.
To Mr Verricchio’s credit, the Old Covenant is insufficient for salvation apart from Christ. But, Cardinal Dulles proposes both the necessity to evangelize in the name of Christ the King and to have a supersessionist understanding of the fulfillment of the old covenant by the new:
“Some Catholics, in their eagerness to reject a crude supersessionism, give independent validity to the Old Covenant. They depict the Old and New Covenants as two ‘separate but equal’ parallel paths to salvation, the one intended for Jews, the other for gentiles” (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-covenant-with-israel—42)
First. I apologized for not carefuly enough stated, what is a realation of text posted by me to First Vatican Counlcil (only I feel something, writing not ,,Second”, by ,,First”). Thank you Mr. Verricchio for clarification, I must be more carefull in the future.
Second. Note only from the post here, I have a impresion that not beliving in ,,peaceful” coegistence of Judaism and Church is a sign of anti-jews attitude.
For these I can only quote Roy Schoeman: ,,Not preaching the Jesus to Jews is the biggest anti-semitism”.
O God of our fathers,
When will you bring an end to the disbelief of the jewish people by bringing about your Son’s return in glory? Crown him King of kings and put all the nations under his feet. By right, he deserves homage, dominion, and the witness of people from every tribe and tongue declaring his sovereignty. Wipe away the scales from their eyes, as you did to your servant Paul, and open their mouths to speak of you as the only true Messiah.
Through the intercession of St. Stephen the martyr,
Amen
Feast of Pope St Gregory the Great: (An example of Gregory’s tolerance of Judaism) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.pdf
Epistle X.
To Bacauda and Agnellus, Bishops.
Gregory to Bacauda, &c.
The Hebrews dwelling in Terracina have petitioned us for licence to hold, under our authority, the site of their synagogue which they have held hitherto. Therefore let your Fraternity, with our above-named brother and fellowbishop, diligently inspect this place, and if you find that there has been any annoyance to the church, provide another place within the fortress, where the aforesaid Hebrews may assemble, so that they may be able to celebrate their ceremonies without impediment1313. But let your Fraternity provide such a place, in case of their being deprived of this one, that there be no cause of complaint in future. But we forbid the aforesaid Hebrews to be oppressed or vexed unreasonably; but, as they are permitted, in accordance with justice, to live under
the protection of the Roman laws, let them keep their observances as they have learnt them,
no one hindering them: yet let it not be allowed them to have Christian slaves.