Did the early Catholic Church officially teach anti-semitism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TommyT1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
exnihilo said:
The absence of evidence isn’t typically evidence. The question ought to be what evidence is there that the early Church was anti-Semitic. The answer is none.
Click to expand...
I think there are certainly things that can be taken this way.

Jesus certainly set the stage by his vigorous criticism of the “Jews” in leadership. Peter, in his first sermon on Pentecost lumps all those in hearing with “wicked men”:

"This man (Jesus) was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. " Acts 2: 23

He goes on to say "36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

This blame toward the Jews who were responsible the crucifixion is the foundation of all Christian anti-semitism that followed, finding it’s apex in the holocaust.

As Peter and John continue to scrape against the temple rulers/Sanhedrin, they were ordered not to speak about Jesus " 19 But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges!" Acts. 4:19

This set them diametrically opposed to the Sanhedrin, who were “against God”.

The scathing accusation of Stephen echoes the same sentiment:

51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52 Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53 you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.” Acts 8

Now granted, the NT also testifies to the many Jews that became believers, including some of the priests, but for some reason Christianity has focused more on reasons to be hostile toward Judiasm that to reverence the Jews as those from whence salvation has come into the world. Our modern Catechism teaches that Judaism is our elder brother, and affirms that God has a covenant relationship with the Jews, but I think there is much more hostility in Christendom than there has been respect and embrace.
 
I’m not quite sure I get what you are saying. You aren’t saying the roots of anti-semitism are the New Testament? I don’t consider rebuking anti-semitic. St. Stephen was of course himself executed for being a Christian by the Jews. St. Paul was himself a persecutor of Christians. If we go back to the birth of Christianity the persecution was of Christians by the Jews and not the other way around.
guanophore said:
This blame toward the Jews who were responsible the crucifixion is the foundation of all Christian anti-semitism that followed, finding it’s apex in the holocaust.
Click to expand...
The holocaust wasn’t rooted in religious motivation. That may have played a role for some but it wasn’t as if the Nazi leaders were devout Christians. They were far from that.
 
Depends what you mean by “anti-Semitic”.
If you want to call it “anti-Mosaic practices” or “anti Old Covenant”.
In practice it amounts to the same thing.

Whether or not its expressing Divine Revelation isn’t really helpful when both sides claim they are doing just that. How would one know who is correct - or whether both have deviated. The EOrthodox think we are the un-orthodox afterall.
 
I think we both know what anti-Semitic means.

One may not know what is correct. One must choose which “truths” to believe. Believing truths not accepted by Judaism does not make one anti-Semitic.

No doubt, you hold beliefs and values not held by members of your family. Does that make you anti-family?
 
TheOldColonel said:
One may not know what is correct. One must choose which “truths” to believe. Believing truths not accepted by Judaism does not make one anti-Semitic.
Click to expand...
Well I think it would if you were a member of the Jewish community and still wanted to worship in their Synagogues regardless of their rules and authority structures. Call that anti-Judaism then…though we all know that Judaic religion and Semitic ethnicity are so closely interwoven that love of one is pretty much love of the other in those times.

Have you seen Hacksaw Ridge? The army gets a bit particular about these sorts of obedience issues by its own members also.
No doubt, you hold beliefs and values not held by members of your family. Does that make you anti-family?
Click to expand...
But I don’t hold novel beliefs that attack the core values of membership in my family…like denial of circumcision…or celebrating my main religious community liturgy on a Sunday…or ignoring ancient purity laws.
 
Last edited:
exnihilo said:
I’m not quite sure I get what you are saying. You aren’t saying the roots of anti-semitism are the New Testament? I don’t consider rebuking anti-semitic.
Click to expand...
I don’t consider rebuking “anti” either. Jesus wanted them to repent and believe, and was calling them to do so. The Apostles did the same. What I am saying is that, from the early days, Christians USED these sentiments to support anti-semitism.
exnihilo said:
If we go back to the birth of Christianity the persecution was of Christians by the Jews and not the other way around.
Click to expand...
And a good reason that animosity was fueled. The persecution continued until the Christians were kicked out of the synagogues. The Jews did not want to be affiliated with them, as they started as a “Jewish sect” and they were contaminating Judiasm with what the Jewish leaders believed was heresy. However, when Christianity gained power economically, politically, geographically, etc, the situation quickly reversed.
exnihilo said:
The holocaust wasn’t rooted in religious motivation. That may have played a role for some but it wasn’t as if the Nazi leaders were devout Christians.
Click to expand...
No, and I don’t mean to claim that it was, but the fierce anti-semitism in the writings of Luther was not an uncommon attitude in Catholic Europe. The Nazis just capitalized on it to move forward the agenda.
 
You certainly have your own perspective of the issue. I haven’t seen the movie you mention. But what else can you expect from an Army man? Hoorah!
 
guanophore said:
I don’t consider rebuking “anti” either. Jesus wanted them to repent and believe, and was calling them to do so. The Apostles did the same. What I am saying is that, from the early days, Christians USED these sentiments to support anti-semitism.
Click to expand...
What is your evidence that from the early days they used this to support anti-semitism?
guanophore said:
No, and I don’t mean to claim that it was, but the fierce anti-semitism in the writings of Luther was not an uncommon attitude in Catholic Europe. The Nazis just capitalized on it to move forward the agenda.
Click to expand...
Religion gets mixed up in the issues but religion was and is part of culture. There was plenty of cultural animosity on both sides throughout the Christian Era.
 
exnihilo said:
What is your evidence that from the early days they used this to support anti-semitism?
Click to expand...
I posted some links up the thread. I suppose it depends upon what you mean by “early days”. Do you not think the work of Chrysostom was based on earlier writings and sentiment?

That being said, I do not think his personal opinions ever represented “official Catholic teaching of anti-semitism”.
 
Last edited:
St. John Chrysostom is just one man. The quote supplied hardly seems anti-Semitic and in it he even acknowledges that many love the Jews.
 
exnihilo said:
St. John Chrysostom is just one man. The quote supplied hardly seems anti-Semitic and in it he even acknowledges that many love the Jews.
Click to expand...
He is a doctor of the Church. Before being given that title, ALL his works were examined. It does not mean they all reflect the official teaching of the Church, but would his writings be tolerated if they were not considered valid?

I agree, it is just one man. I don’t see how you can read this and not think it is anti-semetic but I guess that will have to be your discernment on the matter.

http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resour...he-history-of-the-relationship/247-chrysostom
 
This looks useful. I haven’t had time to read every word yet – just skimmed it.

www.holocaustremembrance.com

What is antisemitism?

With the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, the IHRA built international consensus around an answer to the question, what does antisemitism mean?
www.holocaustremembrance.com www.holocaustremembrance.com
 
Last edited:
Those quotes indicate the Church did not encourage anti-semitism but it was enough of a problem among the laity to warrant the statement.
 
The OP asked for the official church stance, which I provided.

Hostility towards Jews, leading most grievously in some cases to pogroms and massacres, was certainly a serious issue among the laity but not in general the hierarchy itself, which often tried to halt it.

Consider that the call for the First Crusade by Pope Urban touched off the Rhineland massacres of Jews, also known as the German Crusade of 1096, whereby prominent crusaders such as Peter the Hermit and especially Count Emicho encouraged peasants to slaughter and forcibly convert Jewish communities.

These murderous pogroms were explicitly condemned by the hierarchy of the Church of the time:
The Catholic Bishop Cosmas attempted to prevent forced conversions, and the entire Catholic hierarchy in Bohemia preached against such acts.[10] Duke Břetislav II was out of the country and the Catholic Church’s officials’ protests were unable to stop the mob of crusaders.[10]

The hierarchy of the Catholic Church as a whole condemned the persecution of the Jews in the regions affected (though their protests had little effect). Especially vocal were the parish priests (only one monk, named Gottschalk, is recorded as joining and encouraging the mob).[10] Chronicler Hugo of Flavigny recorded how these religious appeals were ignored, writing:

“It certainly seems amazing that on a single day in many different places, moved in unison by a violent inspiration, such massacres should have taken place, despite their widespread disapproval and their condemnation as contrary to religion. But we know that they could not have been avoided since they occurred in the face of excommunication imposed by numerous clergymen, and of the threat of punishment on the part of many princes.”[10]

In general the crusader mobs did not fear any retribution as the local courts did not have the jurisdiction to pursue them past their locality nor the ability to identify and prosecute individuals out of the mob.[10] The pleas of the clergy were ignored on similar grounds
Click to expand...
(Continued…)
 
Last edited:
The opposition of the clergy to these populist, anti-semitic crimes was in accordance with long-standing papal, doctrinal policy which forbade forced baptism and afforded certain protections to Jews.

The papacy was constantly having to defend Jews against the blood libel, as in Pope Gregory X’s decree against this myth in the 13th century:

http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resour...-the-history-of-the-relationship/974-gregoryx
POPE GREGORY X, “Letter Against the Blood Libel” (Oct 7, 1272)
_ _
_ Written by Pope Gregory X_
[from Fordham’s Internet History Sourcebook]

Inasmuch as the Jews are not able to bear witness against the Christians, we decree furthermore that the testimony of Christians against Jews shall not be valid unless there is among these Christians some Jew who is there for the purpose of offering testimony.

Since it happens occasionally that some Christians lose their Christian children, the Jews are accused by their enemies of secretly carrying off and killing these same Christian children and of making sacrifices of the heart and blood of these very children. It happens, too, that the parents of these children or some other Christian enemies of these Jews, secretly hide these very children in order that they may be able to injure these Jews, and in order that they may be able to extort from them a certain amount of money by redeeming them from their straits.

And most falsely do these Christians claim that the Jews have secretly and furtively carried away these children and killed them, and that the Jews offer sacrifice from the heart and blood of these children, since their law in this matter precisely and expressly forbids Jews to sacrifice, eat, or drink the blood, or to eat the flesh of animals having claws. This has been demonstrated many times at our court by Jews converted to the Christian faith: nevertheless very many Jews are often seized and detained unjustly because of this.

We decree, therefore, that Christians need not be obeyed against Jews in a case or situation of this type, and we order that Jews seized under such a silly pretext be freed from imprisonment, and that they shall not be arrested henceforth on such a miserable pretext, unless—which we do not believe—they be caught in the commission of the crime.

We decree that no Christian shall stir up anything new against them, but that they should be maintained in that status and position in which they were in the time of our predecessors, from antiquity till now.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately it seems to be part of wounded human nature to look for scapegoats for society’s ills and as the only minority in most parts of medieval Europe, Jews were sadly the targets of this ire whenever it erupted.
 
Last edited:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

This isn’t a definition. The only definition which can be inferred is “hatred towards Jews”. But most of their examples don’t fit that definition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top