The Culpability of the Jews

[GregoryPope]

Hello, I am new to the forums and I come bearing many questions. I have spent most of my life non-religious, but over the past few years discovered a love for Christian patristics. I can now say that I truly want to be a Christian. One question remains - what is authentic Christian belief? A cursory reading of the church fathers will tell you that Protestantism is right out. The authentic Church must be unchanging. Catholicism has a continuity to it that really catches my attention. I cannot, however, be Catholic because I feel it has departed from patristic teaching.on several issues. I could be wrong though. I am no expert on the fathers, so I would appreciate anyone willing to take to time to discuss Catholic teaching in light of patristics. Thank you in advance for your time.

My first question deals with the culpability of the Jews regarding death of Christ. This topic has generated a good deal of attention in light of Pope Benedict’s newest book. To what extent can Jews be blamed for the death of Christ?

CCC 597 states :

"The historical complexity of Jesus’ trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles’ calls to conversion after Pentecost. Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders. Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd’s cry: “His blood be on us and on our children!”, a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence. As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council:

. . . [N]either all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . [T]he Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture."

It sounds very politically correct, but is it what Christians have always believed? The church fathers I have read seem very set on a specifically Jewish culpability for the death of Jesus. Basil writes :

"And such are the prayers of the Jews, for when they stretch forth their hands in prayer, they only remind God-the-Father of their sin against His Son. And at every stretching-forth of their hands, they only make it obvious that they are stained with the blood of Christ. For they who persevere in their blindness inherit the blood-guilt of their fathers; for they cried out: “His blood be on us and on our children”

Augustine writes :

“…they [the Jews] bear the guilt for the death of the Savior, for through their fathers they have killed Christ. The Jews held Him; the Jews insulted Him; the Jews bound Him; they crowned Him with thorns; they scourged Him; they hanged Him upon a tree.”

Gregory of Nyssa writes :

“Jews are slayers of the Lord…”

Even Eusebius in his* Church History* seems to share such sentiments concerning the Jews, their culpability, and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem as divine retribution.

This seems to be the consensus of the early church - the current Catholic view appearing to be a caving into political correctness. I would appreciate any commentary on the matter. I am not trying to be confrontational or argumentative, so please don’t interpret it as such. I simply have a lot of questions . Once again, thank you in advance for your time.

 

[Nicea325]

I cannot, however, be Catholic because I feel it has departed from patristic teaching.on several issues.

What patristic teachings has it departed from? May you please provide more information to support your position?

 

[Inishfree]

I can only tell you what a Catholic priest told me in a bible study class.

The death and resurection of Jesus was all part of God’d plan. Salvation for us. If there had been no resurection. We would still be Jewish.

The Jewish people are not to held in any way accountable for this. The Roman government happily complied, fearing a revolt. There where many political factors in play.

I’m not sure what patristic teachings you speak of. Several Traditional Protestant denominations believe in the Holy Catholic (universal) and Apostotic churcn. Handed down by the Apostles.

 

[puzzleannie]

whether each and every Jew present in Jerusalem on Good Friday actively conspired in the crucifixion, or whether certain members of the leadership made a good faith decision for the benefit of the wider community, the fact remains Jesus forgave them on the cross, all of “them”, whoever “them” is and it is blasphemy for any human to harbor unforgiveness and blame against those whom God has forgiven.

 

[GregoryPope]

What patristic teachings has it departed from? May you please provide more information to support your position?

The belief that the Jewish people are collectively responsible for the death of Christ. The early church fathers I listed all specifically place blame on the Jews, yet the Catechism teaches (as does Nostra Aetate) that the Jews cannot be blamed for Jesus’ crucifixion. This confuses me because I see the Catholic Church as being completely patristic in most regards, yet separate in others.

I will address the other teachings in subsequent threads, but for now, I wanted to settle this issue.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Savior and Redeemer of the world was Jewish. The beginning Church and its founders were Jewish. The model for governing the church through a bishop is Jewish.

There were many Jewish followers of Jesus, and it is noted in the Gospel that He preached and moved thousands of Jewish people.

Our psalms we pray at Mass our Jewish, as are our Gospel, Acts, Letters, and Revelation.

What is most important to Hebrew (Jewish Catholics) is that the need us to know our Jewish roots, how much a devout Jew prayed every day, such profound reverence for the name of G-d, as well as the high ethical moral standards given us, the 10 commandments.

If anything, according to John Paul II, Catholics are fulfilled Jews.

Check out www.salvationisfromthejews.com and www.Hebrewcatholic.org.

 

[Inishfree]

The Savior and Redeemer of the world was Jewish. The beginning Church and its founders were Jewish. The model for governing the church through a bishop is Jewish.

There were many Jewish followers of Jesus, and it is noted in the Gospel that He preached and moved thousands of Jewish people.

Our psalms we pray at Mass our Jewish, as are our Gospel, Acts, Letters, and Revelation.

What is most important to Hebrew (Jewish Catholics) is that the need us to know our Jewish roots, how much a devout Jew prayed every day, such profound reverence for the name of G-d, as well as the high ethical moral standards given us, the 10 commandments.

If anything, according to John Paul II, Catholics are fulfilled Jews.

Check out www.salvationisfromthejews.com and www.Hebrewcatholic.org.

Thanks Kathleen, I learned this too. If the Jewish people hadn’t been chosen by and follow God’s word. There would be no Christians. We have a lot to thank them for.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Augustine writes :

“…they [the Jews] bear the guilt for the death of the Savior, for through their fathers they have killed Christ. The Jews held Him; the Jews insulted Him; the Jews bound Him; they crowned Him with thorns; they scourged Him; they hanged Him upon a tree.”

Gregory of Nyssa writes :

“Jews are slayers of the Lord…”

The last time I checked the facts, the Romans did the some of the insulting, some of the binding, all of the crowning, all of the scourging, and the crucifying.

 

[Jeffe]

The belief that the Jewish people are collectively responsible for the death of Christ. The early church fathers I listed all specifically place blame on the Jews, yet the Catechism teaches (as does Nostra Aetate) that the Jews cannot be blamed for Jesus’ crucifixion. This confuses me because I see the Catholic Church as being completely patristic in most regards, yet separate in others.

I will address the other teachings in subsequent threads, but for now, I wanted to settle this issue.

Catholic doctrine and opinionated writings of the early church fathers are two separate entities. Catholic doctrine or dogma are the church’s final stance on a specific subject, however, representatives (i.e. church fathers, clergy, parishioners) have been known to give their personal opinions to certain subject matter as well. So what you’re asking may be two totally different things, unless I am misunderstanding you? In which case…my bad

-Jeffe

 

[GregoryPope]

I can only tell you what a Catholic priest told me in a bible study class.

The death and resurection of Jesus was all part of God’d plan. Salvation for us. If there had been no resurection. We would still be Jewish.

The Jewish people are not to held in any way accountable for this. The Roman government happily complied, fearing a revolt. There where many political factors in play.

I’m not sure what patristic teachings you speak of. Several Traditional Protestant denominations believe in the Holy Catholic (universal) and Apostotic churcn. Handed down by the Apostles.

I understand the Catholic view, but I cannot understand how it is patristic. Every church father I have ever read seems to believe that the Jews are specifically responsible for the death of Christ. Augustine, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, Eusebius, etc. My question remains : has the Catholic Church altered her teachings.

 

[GregoryPope]

Catholic doctrine and opinionated writings of the early church fathers are two separate entities. Catholic doctrine or dogma are the church’s final stance on a specific subject, however, representatives (i.e. church fathers, clergy, parishioners) have been known to give their personal opinions to certain subject matter as well. So what you’re asking may be two totally different things, unless I am misunderstanding you? In which case…my bad

-Jeffe

I understand that individual writings and dogma are separate things, but this belief regarding the Jews was overwhelmingly taught in the early church. Was the church as a whole wrong in this regard?

 

[valentino]

I don’t believe the Jews can be held accountable.it was a very small no.who played a part in Jesus’ death and fjor all we know they may have repented in having had him crucified.i don’t think any Jews today (of course they’re may be a few)would advocate killing Jesus.Any way we all are responsible for Christ’s death.its terrible that the Jews have suffered so much persecution because of that action.On top of all that the people except for a very few knew nothing of Jesus.They were just doing what they were told.Many lies were spread among the Jews who said “crucify Him”.they were lied to about Jesus.

 

[GregoryPope]

I don’t believe the Jews can be held accountable.it was a very small no.who played a part in Jesus’ death and fjor all we know they may have repented in having had him crucified.i don’t think any Jews today (of course they’re may be a few)would advocate killing Jesus.Any way we all are responsible for Christ’s death.its terrible that the Jews have suffered so much persecution because of that action.On top of all that the people except for a very few knew nothing of Jesus.They were just doing what they were told.Many lies were spread among the Jews who said “crucify Him”.they were lied to about Jesus.

I understand this line of reasoning. My question, though, is why was the opposite taught in the early church? Has the Catholic Church changed in this regard? How can the Catholic Church claim to be the fullness of truth if she has changed what she believed? For me, this is a big stumbling block.

 

[Lady_Marchmain]

No the Church has not changed her teaching. I can see by that use of the present tense (“Jews ARE responsible”) you have been reading something weird among the plenty of things have been penned over the centuries to excuse hatred or prejudice against Jews.

“THE JEWS” that demanded the death of our Lord refers to the Jews described in Scripture, in that place, at that time, a discrete group of people. Individuals, not a race! Not all Jews forever!

Holy cow…you think Albert Einstein is responsible for the death of Christ? (Moreso than non-Jewish humanity that is.) That way of thinking, YES, has been popular at times in history, sadly we admit, and among Christians, but NO, it has not been doctrine.

Christ himself is a Jew in his human nature, the Blessed Mother is a Jew, St. Joseph is a Jew. Are they “responsible” for Christ’s death?

This collective guilt idea toward the Jews is terribly passe. Most people find it offensive, narrow-minded and just so wrong. Why are you obsessed with it among all the REAL issues concerning seeking the True Faith?

If anyone looks toward Catholicism, past or present, for a justification for disparaging the Jewish race, they aren’t going to find it, because that would be evil. After all, the Jews are also called the Chosen People.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I think part of the tension here is between an ancient/tribal idea of corporate guilt and a modern/individualist idea of personal guilt.

If, in ancient Palestine or Medieval Italy or even some of the most savage areas of the world today (like our city ghettos), a person from one family or tribe or even nation committed, say, a murder against another group, their entire group could be relied upon to defend him, while the injured group would consider it justice to kill a member of the rival clan. Whether the individual killed had any knowledge much less approval of the original crime was inconsequential; he was a part of the offending clan. It was a mentality based on the very strong local and family group cohesion of the time plus the great difficulty of meting out individual justice in a tribal context.

This is very different from the way things are done today, but perhaps not necessarily entirely wrong. The Bible certainly seems to take such an ethic for granted, though this does not prove it is right any more than the early parts of the Bible, which take polygamy for granted, prove that polygamy is right. God may just have been biding his time before guiding people to a better morality.

Still, God Himself certainly seems to work in a similar way at times. Not every Israelite was guilty of idolatry and oppression of the poor, yet for these crimes first the Northern and then the Southern Kingdoms were destroyed by the Mesopotamians. Many innocent people no doubt suffered and died for the sins of other members of the nation. This may be a part of the original sense of the Suffering Servant passages of Isaiah, passages that in a more profound sense connect to the suffering of Christ.

I dare say it is a similar situation with the Jews of the First Century and the destruction of Jerusalem. Their abandonment of God, beginning perhaps with the corruption and adoption of the title “king” by the Hasmonean High Priests, then the overwhelming rush to Rome to solve their problems, then finally the rejection and condemnation of Jesus by much of the Jewish leadership and a crowd incited to madness, finally calling out “we have no king but Caesar!” and “crucify him!”, followed by the persecution of the Church, sometimes in collusion with Rome- all these things culminated, on a grand scale, in the unsuccessful Jewish revolt, the destruction of Jerusalem and the expulsion of many Jews from the Holy Land. Non-Christian Judaism may validly be said to in some ways perpetuate the rebellion and spiritual blindness of these First Century non-Christian Jews, and so some connection could be made between the guilt of the two.

Today, we rarely think along these lines. We assume that moral condemnation of a group implies moral condemnation of each person in that group individually. Corporate condemnation of that sort would very rarely be justified, and certainly would not be justified towards the Jews of today, or even the Jews in Jerusalem on Good Friday. Such corporate condemnation, reinterpreted in an individualistic way, is rightly rejected by the Church as prejudice and even bigotry. I doubt many Church Fathers would have held the assumption that if the Jews as a whole are guilty of the blood of Christ then any given individual Jew, first century or later, is personally guilty. Today an assertion of corporate guilt would carry exactly that implication, and so in a modern context such an assertion must be rejected.

It’s not the Church’s beliefs that have changed, it is the world around Her, and a change of language and emphasis is therefore needed.

 

[RyanBlack]

whether each and every Jew present in Jerusalem on Good Friday actively conspired in the crucifixion, or whether certain members of the leadership made a good faith decision for the benefit of the wider community, the fact remains Jesus forgave them on the cross, all of “them”, whoever “them” is and it is blasphemy for any human to harbor unforgiveness and blame against those whom God has forgiven.

This is about the best answer I’ve ever heard to this particular question.

 

[meltzerboy]

Hello, I am new to the forums and I come bearing many questions. I have spent most of my life non-religious, but over the past few years discovered a love for Christian patristics. I can now say that I truly want to be a Christian. One question remains - what is authentic Christian belief? A cursory reading of the church fathers will tell you that Protestantism is right out. The authentic Church must be unchanging. Catholicism has a continuity to it that really catches my attention. I cannot, however, be Catholic because I feel it has departed from patristic teaching.on several issues. I could be wrong though. I am no expert on the fathers, so I would appreciate anyone willing to take to time to discuss Catholic teaching in light of patristics. Thank you in advance for your time.

My first question deals with the culpability of the Jews regarding death of Christ. This topic has generated a good deal of attention in light of Pope Benedict’s newest book. To what extent can Jews be blamed for the death of Christ?

CCC 597 states :

"The historical complexity of Jesus’ trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles’ calls to conversion after Pentecost. Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders. Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd’s cry: “His blood be on us and on our children!”, a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence. As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council:

. . . [N]either all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . [T]he Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture."

It sounds very politically correct, but is it what Christians have always believed? The church fathers I have read seem very set on a specifically Jewish culpability for the death of Jesus. Basil writes :

"And such are the prayers of the Jews, for when they stretch forth their hands in prayer, they only remind God-the-Father of their sin against His Son. And at every stretching-forth of their hands, they only make it obvious that they are stained with the blood of Christ. For they who persevere in their blindness inherit the blood-guilt of their fathers; for they cried out: “His blood be on us and on our children”

Augustine writes :

“…they [the Jews] bear the guilt for the death of the Savior, for through their fathers they have killed Christ. The Jews held Him; the Jews insulted Him; the Jews bound Him; they crowned Him with thorns; they scourged Him; they hanged Him upon a tree.”

Gregory of Nyssa writes :

“Jews are slayers of the Lord…”

Even Eusebius in his* Church History* seems to share such sentiments concerning the Jews, their culpability, and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem as divine retribution.

This seems to be the consensus of the early church - the current Catholic view appearing to be a caving into political correctness. I would appreciate any commentary on the matter. I am not trying to be confrontational or argumentative, so please don’t interpret it as such. I simply have a lot of questions . Once again, thank you in advance for your time.

You state that the Church has departed from patristic teaching on several issues. In addition to what you believe is the Church’s departure regarding the culpability of the Jews in the death of Jesus, could you mention one other issue in which the Church has changed its views from those of the Church Fathers?

 

[Lady_Marchmain]

GregoryPope, keep in mind all these quotes you have from “Church fathers” are NOT dogma.

You are right the Church must be unchanging. But that does not mean uniformity of opinion on everything by everyone. Even today for every book published by a respected Catholic theologian you’ll find another book by another respected Catholic theologian stating opposite ideas or conclusions.

And this is not even at the level of doctrine, MERELY their teachings. Doctrine can change, Dogma cannot.

As AELRED beautifully and brilliantly explains in his short historical essay, certain inevitable views at different periods were shaped by cultural factors and part of the zeitgeist. Regretably, the attitude you see toward the Jews was one such natural viewpoint.

But also, as AELRED implied, language can be modified as we learn a more truthful way of seeing the situation. This was the reason for extreme care over the rewriting of the Good Friday prayer for the Jews. Even the previous one didn’t seem so bad to me, especially when you compare it with the other prayers, for example the Pagans.

Many doctrines and concepts have been modified over the centuries. You have to look, not at piecemeal quotations, but at the true teachings, the Dogma and Tradition, which have consistently upheld the Church.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .My first question deals with the culpability of the Jews regarding death of Christ. This topic has generated a good deal of attention in light of Pope Benedict’s newest book. To what extent can Jews be blamed for the death of Christ?

GregoryPope,

Since you are asking about the position of the Catholic Church, I will tell you that
from the Catholic Church, there was a call to repentance for guilt on the part of Christians regarding the Jewish people.

These are links and titles to documents found at the Vatican website:

---

See Link: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en.html
COMMISSION FOR RELIGIOUS RELATIONS WITH THE JEWS
WE REMEMBER:
A REFLECTION ON THE SHOAH
Presentation by Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy
&
LETTER OF POPE JOHN PAUL II
To my Venerable Brother
CARDINAL EDWARD IDRIS CASSIDY
&
COMMISSION FOR RELIGIOUS RELATIONS WITH THE JEWS
WE REMEMBER: A REFLECTION ON THE SHOAH
“We wish to turn awareness of past sins into a firm resolve to build a new future in which there will be no more anti-Judaism among Christians or anti-Christian sentiment among Jews, but rather a shared mutual respect, as befits those who adore the one Creator and Lord and have a common father in faith, Abraham.”
&
LETTER OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE LATIN-RITE DIOCESE OF JERUSALEM
&
General Audience
January 14, 1998
&
Pastoral visit to Cuba
January 21-26, 1998
Address OF JOHN PAUL II
to the Jewish Community
January 25, 1998

---

See link: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
NOSTRA AETATE
PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON OCTOBER 28, 1965
“Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church’s preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God’s all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.”

---

Link: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19741201_nostra-aetate_en.html
COMMISSION FOR RELIGIOUS RELATIONS WITH THE JEWS
GUIDELINES AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CONCILIAR
DECLARATION “NOSTRA AETATE” (n. 4)

---

I will defer to Catholics to answer whether or not the Catholic Church has changed its teachings regarding the Jewish people.

However, the Vatican documents do seem to answer that question rather clearly.

Peace,
Anna

 

[GregoryPope]

No the Church has not changed her teaching. I can see by that use of the present tense (“Jews ARE responsible”) you have been reading something weird among the plenty of things have been penned over the centuries to excuse hatred or prejudice against Jews.

“THE JEWS” that demanded the death of our Lord refers to the Jews described in Scripture, in that place, at that time, a discrete group of people. Individuals, not a race! Not all Jews forever!

Holy cow…you think Albert Einstein is responsible for the death of Christ? (Moreso than non-Jewish humanity that is.) That way of thinking, YES, has been popular at times in history, sadly we admit, and among Christians, but NO, it has not been doctrine.

Christ himself is a Jew in his human nature, the Blessed Mother is a Jew, St. Joseph is a Jew. Are they “responsible” for Christ’s death?

This collective guilt idea toward the Jews is terribly passe. Most people find it offensive, narrow-minded and just so wrong. Why are you obsessed with it among all the REAL issues concerning seeking the True Faith?

If anyone looks toward Catholicism, past or present, for a justification for disparaging the Jewish race, they aren’t going to find it, because that would be evil. After all, the Jews are also called the Chosen People.

These are the words of saints - holy men of God whose teaching authority is recognized by the Catholic Church. Numerous councils and saints have spoken of guilt of the Jewish people and their descendants. It had nothing to do with hatred, because all can freely repent. The same blood that covers a Jew unto his shame can also be unto his salvation.

As far as offensiveness, is that not the nature of truth? Certainly lies can be offensive as well, but passing off the teachings of early church fathers because they are offensive makes no sense to me. Wasn’t Christ crucified because his words were found to be offensive?

I find this to be a very important issue. Truth never changes, so the most effective way of determining said truth is through consulting with the past. That which has been taught throughout the ages will no doubtably be true (innovation is in fact the nature of heresy).