Tuesday, February 17, 2004
If we can stop misquoting Vatican II please
"As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and 'serve him shoulder to shoulder' (Soph. 3:9).(12)
Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.
True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.
Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time "
There you have it. Vatican II dismisses the charge of deicide, that all Jews are responsible for the death of Christ. It does not dismiss that some Jews once were the immediate impetus for the death of Christ. Remember, read before you quote.
Mel Gibson is not his father. His father was a kook. He even seems to like Vatican II. He probalby isn't a sedevanantist. I haven't seen the movie but the friends say it's excellent. We'll see.
I also don't appreciate this:
"Take, f'rinstance, Rabbi Boteach, who informs us that Matthew's Passion account is a "fabrication used to justify Christian anti-Judaism, and a pathetic attempt on the part of the fledgling Christian community to suck up to the powerful Romans by portraying them as humane and innocent and the Jews as vengeful and vicious."
which is here (many thanks to Mark Shea for letting me steal his stuff).
But whatcha gonna do.
Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.
True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.
Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time "
There you have it. Vatican II dismisses the charge of deicide, that all Jews are responsible for the death of Christ. It does not dismiss that some Jews once were the immediate impetus for the death of Christ. Remember, read before you quote.
Mel Gibson is not his father. His father was a kook. He even seems to like Vatican II. He probalby isn't a sedevanantist. I haven't seen the movie but the friends say it's excellent. We'll see.
I also don't appreciate this:
"Take, f'rinstance, Rabbi Boteach, who informs us that Matthew's Passion account is a "fabrication used to justify Christian anti-Judaism, and a pathetic attempt on the part of the fledgling Christian community to suck up to the powerful Romans by portraying them as humane and innocent and the Jews as vengeful and vicious."
which is here (many thanks to Mark Shea for letting me steal his stuff).
But whatcha gonna do.
