The Culpability of the Jews

[GregoryPope]

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.

You bring up some interesting points, but what exactly is the difference between condemning a group or condemning every individual in a group if people likewise suffer the same consequences?

 

[GregoryPope]

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?

I will create new threads for these issues. I have a handful, but each are entirely different topics in of themselves.

 

[GregoryPope]

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.

Culture and language are one thing, but Nostra Aetate expresses a completely different idea. Stating that the Jewish people possess no responsibility for the death of Jesus is completely contrary to what was taught by the early church fathers. Aelred mentioned collective guilt versus individual guilt, but I fail to notice a distinction. Each carries with it the same consequences.

The early church fathers may not have been infallible, but I have a hard time believing a universally accepted idea in the church would be wrong. Do you know of any fathers who espouse opposing view points? Would a universally accepted idea in the Church be considered dogmatic?

 

[Lady_Marchmain]

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.

You seem to be hinting 2 things at once, after just promising not to say anything. While quite heartening and interesting, these documents have nothing to do with the question at hand. Perhaps that’s not clear to you because of your admission of not being Catholic and therefore perhaps not knowing about distinctions of (1) opinions of teachers or Popes through the ages, (2) church teaching or doctrine, (3) Church dogma.

1. GregoryPope is concerned that the Catholic church “remain the same” as any Church should claiming to have divine access to truth.
2. By “remain the same” he is particularly concerned about one aspect of thought regarding the Jewish race. That has been explained to death, so I won’t go over it again.
3. GregoryPope need have no concern of any inconsistency because the Church viewpoint on the issue, that is the OFFICIAL DOCTRINE, (not what St. Augustine may have expressed as his opinion!), the Magisterium of the Church has never included the view in dispute.
4. ** That is to say: ***** It has NEVER been the official teaching of the Catholic Church that the Jewish people as a race are collectively culpable for the death of Christ.*******

There’s no point endlessly pulling conflicting source documents, since these documents are for the greater part NOT DOCTRINAL, and therefore irrelevant to OUR MAIN question, whether or not Church teaching changed. It did not. I verified this with a priest relative of mine at Gonzaga University with a PhD in Church History.

 

[Anna_Scott]

You seem to be hinting 2 things at once, after just promising not to say anything. While quite heartening and interesting, these documents have nothing to do with the question at hand. Perhaps that’s not clear to you because of your admission of not being Catholic and therefore perhaps not knowing about distinctions of (1) opinions of teachers or Popes through the ages, (2) church teaching or doctrine, (3) Church dogma.

1. GregoryPope is concerned that the Catholic church “remain the same” as any Church should claiming to have divine access to truth.
2. By “remain the same” he is particularly concerned about one aspect of thought regarding the Jewish race. That has been explained to death, so I won’t go over it again.
3. GregoryPope need have no concern of any inconsistency because the Church viewpoint on the issue, that is the OFFICIAL DOCTRINE, (not what St. Augustine may have expressed as his opinion!), the Magisterium of the Church has never included the view in dispute.
4. ** That is to say: ***** It has NEVER been the official teaching of the Catholic Church that the Jewish people as a race are collectively culpable for the death of Christ.*******

There’s no point endlessly pulling conflicting source documents, since these documents are for the greater part NOT DOCTRINAL, and therefore irrelevant to OUR MAIN question, whether or not Church teaching changed. It did not. I verified this with a priest relative of mine at Gonzaga University with a PhD in Church History.

Lady Marchmain,
I appreciate your clarification and correction.

Actually, I am very impressed with the documents. They mean something to me anyway; and I wish more non-Catholics would have followed their lead.

I have a great respect for Catholicism. So, if you find the documents from the Vatican website offense to the topic, you can ask the moderators to remove my post. Would you not agree that the documents speak for themselves?

Peace,
Anna

Edited to add P.S.
I just reported my own post #19 and asked the mods to remove it, if it is in any way inappropriate or offensive.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

You bring up some interesting points, but what exactly is the difference between condemning a group or condemning every individual in a group if people likewise suffer the same consequences?

There is a huge difference- all the difference of whether an individual is guilty of something or not.

Maybe it would help to shift the discussion away from the Jews and consider another people. Let’s make it the American People and a single ugly event of our past- the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You could add other bombings of the era such as that of Dresden as well. These were essentially terrorist acts (unless you want to nitpick and deny that a State can ever commit a terrorist act just because it is a State), attacks on civilians to instill fear in a population and get them to do what we wanted (surrender). Never mind the validity of the aim of getting the Japanese (and Germans before them) to surrender, the means employed to achieve those ends were heinous.

Now, would the Japanese be justified in holding America responsible for the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? In a old-fashioned corporate sense, yes: it was the American government and military that built and dropped the bombs. And more American citizens supported it than a charitable Japanese person would like to imagine. However, it would be bigotry for a Japanese person to hold each and every American responsible as if they had any personal moral culpability in the matter. For most of us it happened before we were born, and of those who were born very few had any say in the matter. Also no doubt there were individuals even in the government and military, and certainly among the American people as a whole, who didn’t approve of the action, and even more would have disapproved if they had fully understood the human suffering caused by it. In the ancient world people would have expressed America’s culpability as a blood-guilt incurred by the American people. Today we would insist on a more nuanced and individual approach to assigning guilt and primarily try to identify the handful of officials personally responsible for the atrocity.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

You seem to be hinting 2 things at once, after just promising not to say anything. While quite heartening and interesting, these documents have nothing to do with the question at hand. Perhaps that’s not clear to you because of your admission of not being Catholic and therefore perhaps not knowing about distinctions of (1) opinions of teachers or Popes through the ages, (2) church teaching or doctrine, (3) Church dogma.

1. GregoryPope is concerned that the Catholic church “remain the same” as any Church should claiming to have divine access to truth.
2. By “remain the same” he is particularly concerned about one aspect of thought regarding the Jewish race. That has been explained to death, so I won’t go over it again.
3. GregoryPope need have no concern of any inconsistency because the Church viewpoint on the issue, that is the OFFICIAL DOCTRINE, (not what St. Augustine may have expressed as his opinion!), the Magisterium of the Church has never included the view in dispute.
4. ** That is to say: ***** It has NEVER been the official teaching of the Catholic Church that the Jewish people as a race are collectively culpable for the death of Christ.*******

There’s no point endlessly pulling conflicting source documents, since these documents are for the greater part NOT DOCTRINAL, and therefore irrelevant to OUR MAIN question, whether or not Church teaching changed. It did not. I verified this with a priest relative of mine at Gonzaga University with a PhD in Church History.

Let me for my part point out that I would not like my posts to be interpreted as asserting that the Magisterium ever taught collective Jewish culpability for the death of Christ. My concern is distinguishing between different ways individual Catholics have thought about this over the centuries.

 

[Jeffe]

There’s no point endlessly pulling conflicting source documents, since these documents are for the greater part NOT DOCTRINAL, and therefore irrelevant to OUR MAIN question, whether or not Church teaching changed. It did not. I verified this with a priest relative of mine at Gonzaga University with a PhD in Church History.

Agreed.

GregoryPope, I agree early church fathers have indeed written numerous documents against the Jewish faith as a whole, however, if your trying to tie this in with church Dogma you just can’t. Every denomination/faith/religion has their members whom feel compelled to express their PERSONAL distaste for certain events, but to say these personal opinions are the church’s stance is simply not true. I feel others on this thread have adequately answered what you’ve asked for, even if it’s not the answer you wanted to find.

And thank you for bringing up the Nostra Aetate, I’ve recently converted to Catholicism and haven’t heard of this document yet!

 

[valentino]

43]]]]]]]]8]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.

Getting back to the question.Again these early church fathers weren’t the Pope and there was never a dogma of the Church that stated the Jews were responsible for Christ’s death.Yes many scholars of Catholism said that the Jews were responsible(of course they never said “alll the Jews”)and they had a right to their opinions just like we have a right to our opinion today whether it be true or false.Much of the persecutions carried out by christians down through the centuries was a result of this teaching.Finally popes started to take a stand and state their opinions.Again the Pope from the beginning never said they were wrong or they were right.There was no official stance.Pope Paul 2 finally made it perfectly clear what the Church’s stance is in regards to the Jews.We hope this finally puts an end to all this persecution of the Jews.

 

[Lady_Marchmain]

The early church fathers may not have been infallible, but I have a hard time believing a universally accepted idea in the church would be wrong. Do you know of any fathers who espouse opposing view points? Would a universally accepted idea in the Church be considered dogmatic?

First, we have not established (in this thread, nor from any source) that the “collective guilt of the Jews” was a (as you call it) “universally accepted idea.” You certainly seem to like the idea yourself, but as for the early Church, widely accepted is not the same as universally accepted. And no, “universal acceptance” does not automatically “transform” as it were to dogma. There is a “Hierarchy of Truths.”

But you strike a good point in that similar circumstances have arisen in the past that show how, in the retrospect of history, it’s clear there was almost a total acceptance of a wrong or even evil idea.

Both the Pelagian and Albigensian heresies were disastrous periods for the Church. In both cases, adherence to the false doctrine was so common, from the loftiest Cardinal to the simplest serf, that the truth was virtually not believed anymore. Albigensianism attained the level of almost “universal” belief throughout the Church that is a similar phenomenon to your example of the Jews. Everyone just believed it.

That included bishops, priests, those in the curia, etc. Sort of like Liberation Theology, but that is much more regional.

The Dominican Order was founded, by Papal Mandate, for the purpose of combating Albigensianism and teaching (“order of preachers”) the truth to the people.

As we see in both cases of false teaching, Albigensianism and Jewish culpability, erroneous ideas that seemed almost entrenched as dogma were eventually gone with the wind due to the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church.

 

[Lady_Marchmain]

Lady Marchmain,
I appreciate your clarification… Actually, I am very impressed with the documents. They mean something to me anyway; and I wish more non-Catholics would have followed their lead.
Peace,
Anna

Anna! I do believe your document references are excellent and should be left in this thread! I found nothing problematic about those excellent sources, I was just pointing out that they did not answer the OP question. But now this thread has expanded beyond the original question of “has Church doctrine changed?” (answer: no), to the broader issue of clarifying the “collective guilt of the Jews” false idea. Apparently, astonishingly, some people would like to adhere to this outdated notion. Pope John Paul made historic and dramatic progress in this area, which has been continued by the current Holy Father. Therefore, having those references handy in the thread, especially for future readers, could be quite beneficial!

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna! I do believe your document references are excellent and should be left in this thread! I found nothing problematic about those excellent sources, I was just pointing out that they did not answer the OP question. But now this thread has expanded beyond the original question of “has Church doctrine changed?” (answer: no), to the broader issue of clarifying the “collective guilt of the Jews” false idea. Apparently, astonishingly, some people would like to adhere to this outdated notion. Pope John Paul made historic and dramatic progress in this area, which has been continued by the current Holy Father. Therefore, having those references handy in the thread, especially for future readers, could be quite beneficial!

Lady Marchmain,
I am glad to hear you say this. Of course, I think Pope John Paul II is one of the greatest people in Christian history.

Peace,
Anna

 

[meltzerboy]

Anna! I do believe your document references are excellent and should be left in this thread! I found nothing problematic about those excellent sources, I was just pointing out that they did not answer the OP question. But now this thread has expanded beyond the original question of “has Church doctrine changed?” (answer: no), to the broader issue of clarifying the “collective guilt of the Jews” false idea. Apparently, astonishingly, some people would like to adhere to this outdated notion. Pope John Paul made historic and dramatic progress in this area, which has been continued by the current Holy Father. Therefore, having those references handy in the thread, especially for future readers, could be quite beneficial!

From my perspective, the collective guilt of the Jews is just as false an idea as the collective guilt of the Germans for the Holocaust, or the collective guilt of Caucasian Americans for the persecution of African Americans and Native Americans, or, as pointed out, the collective guilt of Americans for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And yet there are still those who cling to this idea.

 

[KathleenGee]

Agree with Meltzer…there really is no such thing as collective guilt…this was inferred in the false liberation theology of the '60’s up to the '80’s…class struggle within Christianity…

Christ’s love is far greater than class…different than political…because He focuses on the lost sheep, the individual, those who suffer, who are poor.

Oppression has many forms and it transcends race, culture, class; it rather expresses itself in selfish narcissism and greed for power.

Every Jew today has the opportunity to experience Christ. The Lord hardened the hearts of the Jews because His Church was set up to be universal. I know both Orthodox, reformed, humanist Jews…and see them all outstanding people of faith…or as human beings…who believe in mankind…(Afterall, the greatest of the Lord’s creation is man…)…if the Jews converted to Christ in His time, we would have a Hebrew church.

But how a Jew accepts Christ…that person is acknowledging atleast he fruits of Jesus Christ…Many devout Jews consider Christ if anything, to be a great philosopher…what the Church is acknowledging is those, be they anyone…persecute and invalidate the vision and reality of Christ: He came to save us from the power of sin, and not only restore us to the Father, but restore us to each other. The time for the Jews’ conversion in mass comes towards the end of this world—as we know it. So when it comes to a Jewish person and their relationship to Christ…I cannot judge. But I also acknowledge that party that defames and curses Christ. Either way, defamation and cursing reflect back on the person doing it…same for Christians who curse Jews and other people.

 

[chosen_people]

The Roman Pagans who became the Roman Catholics found themselves in the unenviable position of having previously murdered their god as an anti-Roman zealot. Their solution was to place the blame for their actions on a collective entity called “The Jews”.

The Roman prefect Pilate is depicted in the Christian scriptures as arguing against a frenzied crowd of Jews to not execute Jesus, finally “washing his hands” of the matter. However, we know that Pilate was removed from office in 36 c.e. (some sources early 37 c.e) because of extreme and excessive cruelty to the local Jewish population. This extreme and excessive cruelty included his penchant for the summary execution without trial of thousands of Jews deemed to be anti-Roman zealots.

Jewish involvement according to the Christian scriptures is also found in a trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin. According to the Christian scriptures ,the Sanhedrin convicts Jesus of blasphemy and sentences him to death. However, they are forced to hand him over for execution as they do not have the power to execute people. There are however a “few” problems with this story of the trial. To begin with, while the Jewish trial of Jesus appears in Mark and Matthew, according to John 18:13-14, there is no trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, only a hearing before the High Priest. The Gospel story of the trial is also interesting because of the absolute lack of knowledge by the writers of Jewish law. Every single procedural rule is wrong. Even more incredible, the Gospel authors have Jesus being convicted of the wrong crime, that of blasphemy. Finally, the claim that the Sanhedrin could not execute criminals is contradicted by the Christian scriptures themselves as well as Josephus.

The betrayal of a demigod was a common theme in the mystery-cult religions at the time of Jesus. However, though the Gospels can’t agree on the names of the disciples, the name of the “betrayer” is significant. Judas from Judea from Jew. “Judas the betrayer” (mentioned over 30 times in the Christian scriptures) to “Jews” the “god killers”. The newly discovered Gospel of Judas paints Judas as acting according to Jesus’ plan and as trusted and devoted ally of Jesus in direct contradiction of the canonized Gospels. The story of Judas in the Christian scriptures is rife with contradictions. These include whether there was the involvement of the Devil, the source suggesting the bribe, the naming of Judas as the betrayer at the last supper, the way Judas died, whether Judas was repentant for betraying Jesus, the place where Judas died, who bought “Blood Acre”, and the meaning of the name (not to mention the confusion in Matthew 27:7-10 in citing Jeremiah 32:6-9).

Now the Sadducees are the group of Jews who hold the High Priesthood at the time of Jesus and are the ones who are in tight with the Romans and are the ones who are sticklers to the text without deviation. So why do the Christian scriptures seemingly mix up Pharisees with Sadducees, placing the emphasis and the blame on the Pharisees? The problem was that by the time the Gospels were being written, the Sadducees were gone. To blame the Jews you had to blame the Pharisees.

In condemning “the Jews” for the death of Jesus, the Gospels create the concept of “the Jews” as a unified negative force. On the one hand, it is Jesus’ popularity among the Jews that leads to his death. On the other hand it is “the Jews” as an entity who supposedly seek and are responsible for his death.

The calumnies against the Jews in the Gospels include their declaring to have the blood of Jesus on their heads, they are referred to as snakes, as liars, as the spawn of the Devil.

The Jew is painted as the enemy of God, a person who has rejected God. The Christian scriptures teach “Take my enemies, who would not have me rule over them, bring them here, and kill them before me” (Luke 19:27). Some 1,250 years after God revealed Himself at Sinai before the entire Jewish nation and made an eternal covenant between God and the Jews, a group of Roman Pagans declared themselves the “new Jews” with a “new covenant” and declared that the Jews are a malignant and immoral force.

It is this accusation that the Jews are “Christ killers” that will lead a Catholic Saint to write some 1500 years before Mein Kampf that the Jews are sub human fit only for slaughter. It is this accusation that leads to the Catholic Church blood purity laws in post Inquisition Spain and in the Jesuit order. It is this accusation which will lead the Catholic Church to place the Jews in ghettos, to make them wear clothing marking them as Jews, to prevent them from having basic civil and legal rights. It is this accusation that will culminate in 2000 years of Christian anti-Semitism in the Shoah and the murder of one in every three Jews in the world.

Since the Shoah, especially since Vatican II, the Church has taken real steps to correct attitudes toward the Jewish people. Perhaps a time will come when the Gospels will be edited free of anti-Semitism, when Jews will no longer have to bear either the false accusations or the sins of others.

---

 

[KathleenGee]

The curse on the Jews was put on those present at the trial that condemned Jesus.

Only good can come from suffering. I agree with my Hebrew Catholic associates that some day the Jews will be of great help to Christianity. It is in God’s time. I believe that in many ways, the Jews already are drawing on the blessings and goodness of Christ.

It is not until all the Gentiles are called, that grace opens by God…not by the Jews themselves…to come. The Jews were never lost. Only those people who reject the teachings of Christ…consider them…from what my Jewish friends tell me the issue they have is understanding the Trinity. I went to a synagogue for Bat Mitzvah…I experienced the same God as I do at Mass…but in the Synagogue, His presence is very ancient, mysterious, all powerful…and remaining with His Jewish people.

Hebrew Catholic Jews really need us to restore our Jewish roots…and I think they would be so happy if we could pick up some practices…I think having a Shabbat vigil for those who can make the time would be good…or using a blessed shawl for prayer in the home…this brother on TV asked that we consider the devout Jew who begins his day with 2 hours of prayer…Awesome!

I experience the authority of God in my church. I experience an authority about God and His reality …made known to the Jewish people.

Who was the Catholic saint who said it was OK to slaughter the Jews? Remember, our faith is from gathering…no one stands alone…this saint was standing alone and not in the spirit of the Church…there is no sanctioned teaching in our church to commit such a sin.

 

[meltzerboy]

The curse on the Jews was put on those present at the trial that condemned Jesus.

Only good can come from suffering. I agree with my Hebrew Catholic associates that some day the Jews will be of great help to Christianity. It is in God’s time. I believe that in many ways, the Jews already are drawing on the blessings and goodness of Christ.

It is not until all the Gentiles are called, that grace opens by God…not by the Jews themselves…to come. The Jews were never lost. Only those people who reject the teachings of Christ…consider them…from what my Jewish friends tell me the issue they have is understanding the Trinity. I went to a synagogue for Bat Mitzvah…I experienced the same God as I do at Mass…but in the Synagogue, His presence is very ancient, mysterious, all powerful…and remaining with His Jewish people.

Hebrew Catholic Jews really need us to restore our Jewish roots…and I think they would be so happy if we could pick up some practices…I think having a Shabbat vigil for those who can make the time would be good…or using a blessed shawl for prayer in the home…this brother on TV asked that we consider the devout Jew who begins his day with 2 hours of prayer…Awesome!

I experience the authority of God in my church. I experience an authority about God and His reality …made known to the Jewish people.

Who was the Catholic saint who said it was OK to slaughter the Jews? Remember, our faith is from gathering…no one stands alone…this saint was standing alone and not in the spirit of the Church…there is no sanctioned teaching in our church to commit such a sin.

There are certain Catholics and Jews who would no doubt disagree (some vehemently) with your noble sentiments, Kathleen. Some Catholics would say you are being too ecumenical; what is the term: judaizing? On the other hand, some Torah Jews, who might take offense at the donning of the prayer shawl (tallit) by non-Jewish men, would say that only Jews can do so by Law. I respectfully disagree with both parties. The sharing of some of our rituals (I realize non-Catholics cannot participate in the Eucharist) is no sin or crime in my view; the promotion of a spirit of unity between us does nothing to destroy our individual religious beliefs and practices, but instead strengthens them. For me, the coming together of our faiths in these ways is the Will of G-d.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The Roman Pagans who became the Roman Catholics found themselves in the unenviable position of having previously murdered their god…

Let’s recall that Peter and Paul, who established the Church in Rome, were both Jews. Yes, the Church in Rome had both jewish and gentile converts to christianity, but there is no real evidence supporting your claim they doctored up some sort of anti-Semitic doctrine. To do so would have alienated a large part of the congregation in Rome.
chosen people:

The Roman prefect Pilate is depicted in the Christian scriptures as arguing against a frenzied crowd of Jews…

Actually, we know very little about Pilate for certain. Most of what we know (other than from the Gospels) is based on speculation and second-hand accounts. Nevertheless, in the Scriptures he is seen as being confronted with a crowd that is whipped into a frenzy by the Sanhedrin. Just days earlier, Jesus was welcomed into the city, like a king, by the Jewish people.
chosen people:

Jewish involvement according to the Christian scriptures is also found in a trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin.

I think the most important concession you make is that it is *not *the jewish people as a whole who conspire for Jesus’s death, but the Sanhedrin - personally threatened by Jesus’ potential claim for political and religious authority - who ultimately act against him, then manipulate the crowds before Pilate.
chosen people:

There are however a “few” problems with this story of the trial.

An interesting accusation, but one bearing little relevance to the present thread.
chosen people:

Finally, the claim that the Sanhedrin could not execute criminals is contradicted by the Christian scriptures…

The Sanhedrin wanted Jesus killed by the Romans because they feared Jesus (or his followers on his behalf) would claim political power. The Sanhedrin had no authority to kill the alleged King of Judea. Authority to act on such matters rested with Caesar’s representative.
chosen people:

…though the Gospels can’t agree on the names of the disciples, the name of the “betrayer” is significant.

The gospels are in agreement on the names of the 12 Jewish Apostles, including Judas. All 12 of the Apostles were Jews, as was Judas’ replacement Matthias, and as was the Apostle Paul.
chosen people:

In condemning “the Jews” for the death of Jesus, the Gospels create the concept of “the Jews” as a unified negative force.

Despite individuals’ attempts to twist Scripture to support what they already believe, the Gospels establish no such concept. Although there certainly is evidence of tension among the Jews who accept Jesus as Messiah and those who reject him, and even among converted Jews who believe the Mosaic laws should continue to be kept, there is no universal condemnation of the Jewish people supported by Scripture, contrary to your unsupported conclusion.
chosen people:

The calumnies against the Jews in the Gospels include their declaring to have the blood of Jesus on their heads,…

The statement you reference was understood by the writer’s audience as merely the ratification of Pilate’s verdict. It is not evidence of a “blood debt” any more than the “Pledge of Allegiance” evidences an act of idolatry. Admittedly, there are those who have tried to bootstrap the term into support for a “blood debt.” But the Church has never taught this as doctrine.

[The Jews]
are referred to as snakes, as liars, as the spawn of the Devil.

Individual persons perhaps. Not the whole collective group. Recall that Jesus’ was a Jewish man, and his audience was made up primarily of Jews. The fact that he attacked the Pharisees and others does not amount to the condemnation of an entire group of people. Such an argument is simply absurd.
chosen:

The Jew is painted as the enemy of God, a person who has rejected God. The Christian scriptures teach “Take my enemies, who would not have me rule over them, bring them here, and kill them before me” (Luke 19:27).

This passage has nothing to do with proclaiming the Jews as enemies of God. It is a quote by a character in a parable being told by Jesus to a crowd of Jews?! Nowhere does Jesus Christ (or later His Church) stand up and teach as doctrine that Jews are the enemies of God, fit to be killed. To the contrary… Christ and the Church calls all men (Jews and Gentiles alike) to repent and believe the Good News.
chosen:

Since the Shoah, especially since Vatican II, the Church has taken real steps to correct attitudes toward the Jewish people. Perhaps a time will come when the Gospels will be edited free of anti-Semitism, when Jews will no longer have to bear either the false accusations or the sins of others.

Bigotry and hatred run deep in both directions. People are sinful and prideful and commit unspeakable acts which they attempt to justify by claiming a divine mandate. Paul’s testimony confirms the Jews did this when they persecuted the early Church in Jerusalem. Christians returned the favor when they crawled out from under the heel of Pagan Rome. There is nothing new under the sun here.

The Scriptures (Old and New Testaments) can be misinterpreted and twisted to support all kinds of horrible things like anti-Semitism and racism and slavery. They need not be “edited.” They are true. But left to our own, we will read them in a way that supports what we want to believe in our own depraved hearts. You miss the point. The Church has never compelled her people to believe that Jews are the enemies of God. Sadly, however, people cannot be stopped from thinking what they want to think.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Inishfree]

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.

Well said Lady Marchmain!

And if even a few Jewish leaders, over two thousand years ago were in some way involved with Jesus’ death. It was still part of God’s plan.

To hold millions of people responsible is absurd to me.

I wasn’t there. I don’t know exactly who said what. None of us do.

 

[GregoryPope]

First, we have not established (in this thread, nor from any source) that the “collective guilt of the Jews” was a (as you call it) “universally accepted idea.” You certainly seem to like the idea yourself, but as for the early Church, widely accepted is not the same as universally accepted. And no, “universal acceptance” does not automatically “transform” as it were to dogma. There is a “Hierarchy of Truths.”

But you strike a good point in that similar circumstances have arisen in the past that show how, in the retrospect of history, it’s clear there was almost a total acceptance of a wrong or even evil idea.

Both the Pelagian and Albigensian heresies were disastrous periods for the Church. In both cases, adherence to the false doctrine was so common, from the loftiest Cardinal to the simplest serf, that the truth was virtually not believed anymore. Albigensianism attained the level of almost “universal” belief throughout the Church that is a similar phenomenon to your example of the Jews. Everyone just believed it.

That included bishops, priests, those in the curia, etc. Sort of like Liberation Theology, but that is much more regional.

The Dominican Order was founded, by Papal Mandate, for the purpose of combating Albigensianism and teaching (“order of preachers”) the truth to the people.

As we see in both cases of false teaching, Albigensianism and Jewish culpability, erroneous ideas that seemed almost entrenched as dogma were eventually gone with the wind due to the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church.

How was it not a universal teaching? Is there evidence of the opposing view even existing? There are literally dozens upon dozens of writings that suggest Jewish culpability. If we are willing to believe things that are not rooted in the fathers of the Church (i.e. things taught from the beginning), are we any different from Protestantism?