Nostra Aetate: worthwhile or damaging?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CarloMagnus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CarloMagnus

Guest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostra_aetate

There is one article from Vatican II that could be in conflict with Catholic tradition. It is the belief that Jews are not to be held responsible for the death of Christ.

The idea that they are to blame comes from these verses:

Matthew 27:11-26

Mark 15:1-15

Luke 23:13-25

John 18 and 19:1-16

Unfortunately, to level the playing field, I can’t find anything regarding verses or any piece of information regarding Jews being innocent of the affair. So, if I can’t find anything of it, then where does it come from?

Some people state that they rely solely on the historical basis, but that would then mean that they’re picking which verses to follow and which shouldn’t be. —(for example: see more information on the relationship between homosexuality and Christianity).

What do other Councils of the Catholic Church state regarding Jews?

-Karl
 
CarloMagnus said:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostra_aetate

There is one article from Vatican II that could be in conflict with Catholic tradition. It is the belief that Jews are not to be held responsible for the death of Christ.

The idea that they are to blame comes from these verses:

Matthew 27:11-26

Mark 15:1-15

Luke 23:13-25

John 18 and 19:1-16

Unfortunately, to level the playing field, I can’t find anything regarding verses or any piece of information regarding Jews being innocent of the affair. So, if I can’t find anything of it, then where does it come from?

Some people state that they rely solely on the historical basis, but that would then mean that they’re picking which verses to follow and which shouldn’t be. —(for example: see more information on the relationship between homosexuality and Christianity).

What do other Councils of the Catholic Church state regarding Jews?

-Karl
Click to expand...
Well, you might be right. There is a lot in the traditions of the Church which holds Jews to be responsible. I remember praying for the 'perfidious Jews" at Good friday observances. However - if tradition did say that Jews in some sort of collective or multi-generational sense were responsible for anything at all, let alone this crime, tradition was wrong. and can I point out to you as (I assume) a traditionalist: if you are saying that ‘the Jews’ are in some way responsible as a collective, you are saying that Jesus himself, and his mother and father, and the apostles were responsible.
 
Maybe I am naive, but did not Jesus say “forgive them Father, for they know not what they do”?
Praying for their salvation is different than “blaming” one is it not?
 
Here’s a question to ponder. If God had chosen any other people for His mission, would Jesus still have ended up crucified?

All of humanity killed Jesus. We continue this work of evil to this very day, in our very own countries.
 
In the end, Pilate said yes. His soldiers carried out their actions.

Gentiles played as much of a role in things as anyone else.
 
CarloMagnus said:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostra_aetate

There is one article from Vatican II that could be in conflict with Catholic tradition. It is the belief that Jews are not to be held responsible for the death of Christ.

The idea that they are to blame comes from these verses:

Matthew 27:11-26

Mark 15:1-15

Luke 23:13-25

John 18 and 19:1-16

Unfortunately, to level the playing field, I can’t find anything regarding verses or any piece of information regarding Jews being innocent of the affair. So, if I can’t find anything of it, then where does it come from?

Some people state that they rely solely on the historical basis, but that would then mean that they’re picking which verses to follow and which shouldn’t be. —(for example: see more information on the relationship between homosexuality and Christianity).

What do other Councils of the Catholic Church state regarding Jews?

-Karl
Click to expand...
Some Jews were responsible, not all. Some Romans were responsible too. Jesus was a Jew. We can go on blaming whole races today for what some of those races did in the past or we can go on and love the way Christ taught.
 
Melchior said:
In the end, Pilate said yes. His soldiers carried out their actions.

Gentiles played as much of a role in things as anyone else.
Click to expand...
Yes. Christ died because He had to redeem sinners, Jew or Gentile. I sin, thus I crucified Christ.

“For our sake He made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” 2 Corinthians 5:21
 
The people who were in power at that time, those who had the control-they were the ones that wanted Jesus dead because He was a threat to that power. The fact that they were Jewish really doesn’t enter into it because it wasn’t their faith that made them kill him-it was their greed and lust for power.
 
CarloMagnus said:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostra_aetate

There is one article from Vatican II that could be in conflict with Catholic tradition. It is the belief that Jews are not to be held responsible for the death of Christ.

The idea that they are to blame comes from these verses:

Matthew 27:11-26

Mark 15:1-15

Luke 23:13-25

John 18 and 19:1-16

Unfortunately, to level the playing field, I can’t find anything regarding verses or any piece of information regarding Jews being innocent of the affair. So, if I can’t find anything of it, then where does it come from?

Some people state that they rely solely on the historical basis, but that would then mean that they’re picking which verses to follow and which shouldn’t be. —(for example: see more information on the relationship between homosexuality and Christianity).

What do other Councils of the Catholic Church state regarding Jews?

-Karl
Click to expand...
It is clear that the Jews did not accept Jesus as they should, as the chosen people of God.
But Jesus died for all of us. So I was the cause of His death, too.
 
Hokomai said:
…There is a lot in the traditions of the Church which holds Jews to be responsible. I remember praying for the 'perfidious Jews" at Good friday observances…
Click to expand...
I think that people are quite confused and assume that “Perfidious Jews” are just the Jews responsible for the killing of Jesus. The prayer is really not addressing that point. If we look at the etymology of the Latin “perfidus” we can see that it is a combination of “per” that indicates to move on or transgression and “fides” that indicates faith (see “perfidy”). The perfidious Jews are the ones that lacked the faith in the new covenant. The word today has a strong derogatory term that was not as bad when it was initially used. Later the same etymology in other languages turned into words meaning obstinate too.
 
CarloMagnus said:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostra_aetate

There is one article from Vatican II that could be in conflict with Catholic tradition. It is the belief that Jews are not to be held responsible for the death of Christ.
Click to expand...
Oh, brother. :rolleyes:
CarloMagnus said:
The idea that they are to blame comes from these verses:

Matthew 27:11-26

Mark 15:1-15

Luke 23:13-25

John 18 and 19:1-16
Click to expand...
How do those verses imply that “the Jews” are to be considered Christ-killers?

In case you haven’t noticed, every person is distinct. We’re not pantheists here… so how is a random 21st century Jew guilty of the actions of those in that first-century crowd?
CarloMagnus said:
Unfortunately, to level the playing field, I can’t find anything regarding verses or any piece of information regarding Jews being innocent of the affair. So, if I can’t find anything of it, then where does it come from?
Click to expand...
Logic, that’s where. If I go outside my apartment right now and meet a Jewish person, he is guilty for the death of Christ only in exactly the same way I am: by his sins.

Please explain to me why he is to be considered guilty in any other sense.
Hokomai said:
Well, you might be right. There is a lot in the traditions of the Church which holds Jews to be responsible. I remember praying for the 'perfidious Jews" at Good friday observances.
Click to expand...
A better translation is “faithless Jews.” I don’t believe this was ever meant to pass moral judgment on Jews as individuals - that would self-evidently violate “Do not judge, lest ye be judged” - but rather to simply indicate the obvious: by and large, the Jews do not share our faith in Jesus as Christ and Son of God. The old Good Friday service included the intention to pray for them because they don’t have this saving faith.

That is all that was meant by the Latin phrase “perfidis Judaeis”.
Hokomai said:
However - if tradition did say that Jews in some sort of collective or multi-generational sense were responsible for anything at all, let alone this crime, tradition was wrong. and can I point out to you as (I assume) a traditionalist: if you are saying that ‘the Jews’ are in some way responsible as a collective, you are saying that Jesus himself, and his mother and father, and the apostles were responsible.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And if one responds to this by saying that the Theotokos and the Apostles were not guilty, since they themselves didn’t clamor for his death as other Jews did, then that person has also just unavoidably exonerated every Jew who didn’t cry “Crucify him!” as a member of that first-century crowd present at our Lord’s trial before Pilate.
 
How about this old, classic** traditional **prayer that the Church has prayed for ages:

“Pardon and mercy, O Eternal God,* for it was my sins* that nailed You to Your cross.”

I have never seen a proclamation that only Jews are meant to pray this prayer.
 
Is the entirety of Judaism to be blamed for the crucifixion?

The term “Jews” can mean a couple, a few, several or all Jewish people.

Yes, Christ Himself begged their forgiveness on the cross, but who needed forgiveness, all Jews, or those directly responsible for His condemnation?

And was this not the fulfillment of the plan of salvation? Is it not fitting that Christ Himself considered this act among those atoned by the very punishment to which it led?
 
Timothysis said:
How about this old, classic** traditional **prayer that the Church has prayed for ages:

“Pardon and mercy, O Eternal God,* for it was my sins* that nailed You to Your cross.”

I have never seen a proclamation that only Jews are meant to pray this prayer.
Click to expand...
Indeed - how easily we forget that this fate was necessitated by our own sinfulness. We have no one else to blame.
 
CarloMagnus said:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostra_aetate

There is one article from Vatican II that could be in conflict with Catholic tradition. It is the belief that Jews are not to be held responsible for the death of Christ.
Click to expand...
Pope Benedict goes on at length about this so-called “contradiction” in Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week (pp. 184-188).

Coles Notes version: When “the Jews” are referred to (especially in John), it’s talking about a very specific subset: the temple authorities (the chief priests and scribes, by and large of the Sadducees party) and the Sanhedrin (the body that ultimately sentences Jesus and got Pilate to do the execution).

There was also the mob (ochlos) at the Passover amnesty, likely made up almost exclusively of supporters of Jesus Barrabas, who certain parties (ie. the Zealots) thought represented the true type of messianic figure (one who would free them from Roman oppression through arms and conflict).
 
Catholic tradition states that my personal sins and your personal sins are the reason why Jesus was crucified.

So let’s blame the Jews…:confused:

I guess that’s why the Pope said they aren’t to blame.👍
 
Everyone here quotes modernist garbage. I guess garbage must rely on garbage.

-Karl
 
CarloMagnus said:
Everyone here quotes modernist garbage. I guess garbage must rely on garbage.
Click to expand...
Rely? for what purpose? Do you harbor a contempt that runs counter to the Church’s teachings on this subject, or feel that these teachings are wrong, or perhaps both?
 
Fone_Bone_2001 said:
A better translation is “faithless Jews.” I don’t believe this was ever meant to pass moral judgment on Jews as individuals - that would self-evidently violate “Do not judge, lest ye be judged” - but rather to simply indicate the obvious: by and large, the Jews do not share our faith in Jesus as Christ and Son of God. The old Good Friday service included the intention to pray for them because they don’t have this saving faith.

That is all that was meant by the Latin phrase “perfidis Judaeis”.
Click to expand...
That’s, unfortunately, not correct. To quote myself:
What you quoted in your OP is the 2008 revision. You can recap the entire history of this issue here, although Wikipedia is not correct that the term perfidis “did not mean perfidious but rather ‘unfaithful, non-believer.’” The definition given in the Oxford Latin Dictionary of adjective perfidus, runs, in its entirety:
That deliberately breaks faith, treacherous, false, deceitful. b (transf., of material things). c (of actions, words, etc.) marked by treachery or deceit.
And similarly Lewis & Short has:
I.* that breaks his promise, faithless, false, dishonest, treacherous, perfidious*.
I. Lit. (class.; “syn. infidus): vanum et perfidiosum esse,” Cic. Quint. 6, 26: “omnes, aliud agentes, aliud simulantes, perfidi, improbi, malitiosi sunt,” id. Off. 3, 14, 60.—
(b). With gen. (poet.): “gens perfida pacti,” faithless, Sil. 1, 5.—
b. Of inanim. and abstr. things (poet.): “bella,” Sil. 15, 819: “nex,” effected by treachery, Sen. Agam. 887: “arma,” Ov. F. 4, 380: “verba,” id. R. Am. 722.—
c. Adverb.: perfidum ridens Venus (= maligne ac dolose), Hor. C. 3, 27, 67.—As subst.: perfĭdus , i, m., a scoundrel, Juv. 13, 245; 9, 82.—
II. Transf., treacherous, unsafe, dangerous (poet. and in post-class. prose):​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top