When devout Catholic young people start approaching you, troubled by the possibility that God has abandoned the Jews and that they somehow stand behind our social ills, it becomes clear that something has gone deeply awry in our transmission of the Faith.
With the promulgation of Vatican II’s Nostra aetate sixty years ago, the Catholic Church decisively repudiated hostility toward the Jews and affirmed the Lord’s abiding fidelity to the people of Israel. Yet, an increasing number of Catholics today—especially the young—remain ignorant of this fact, the tragic history that precipitated it, and the Church’s consistent reaffirmation of it in the years since.
That antisemitic ideas are gaining traction among Catholics is not only alarming from a moral point of view but also a stark indictment of ignorance concerning the foundations of our own tradition. This semester, as I have been teaching my annual course on the Church and World Religions to another wonderful cohort of committed youth, I admit that I have been taken aback at the need to field doubts concerning the vital bond, rooted in history and alive in the present, that we as Catholics share with the Jewish people.
I have taught this class to about a thousand students over more than fifteen years. But, while an educator must always adapt to new challenges even as we hand on the perennial truths of the Faith, this semester brought something genuinely new: firm teachings of the Church are now often seen as equally or less credible than the incendiary claims propagated by online figures like Nick Fuentes, who allege that God has cast off the Jews and that our societal disorders are somehow all their doing.
I do not intend to engage such personalities directly here, as others, including George Weigel and Marcus Peter, have already made the points I would wish to offer on the recent resurgence of narcissism-fueled outrage present in certain Catholic quarters. Yet, at this moment when radical fringes peddle seductive solutions to society’s troubles—promises that for whatever reason involve scapegoating the Jews—the Church’s clear teaching must be retrieved regarding the people who were first to hear the word of God.
Ratzinger at Vatican II: Forming the Church’s Renewed Vision of Israel
As many readers of Catholic World Report will recall, Pope Leo recently marked the sixtieth anniversary of Vatican II’s Nostra aetate with a significant Wednesday audience devoted to recalling the Church’s enduring and intimate bond with the Chosen People. It was encouraging that our Holy Father has taken up this subject. However, it is also critical that we as parents, clergy, and educators make it clear that this perspective is not the idiosyncratic view of an American pope but a straightforward reiteration of what Nostra aetate taught authoritatively sixty years ago and which has been consistently reasserted by every pope since.
Aside from an isolated papal audience, this naturally raises the question of where Catholics ought to turn for reliable clarity on this matter.
As I often tell people, the answers to these sorts of questions are usually not hard to find, for they are typically sitting in plain sight in the Catechism. Thanks be to God, this is the case for the present topic (see, for example, CCC §§121, 674, 839-40, 1096). But, as is so often the case, no contemporary voice offers more clarity on this subject than Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), the towering figure who oversaw the production of the Catechism.
To appreciate Ratzinger’s body of work on this subject, we should begin with the understanding that the question of the Church’s stance in relation to Israel was for him more than a matter of mere academic interest. Shaped as he was by the moral witness of his anti-Nazi father and the scarring memory of the Shoah, the gravity of Jewish–Christian relations was impressed upon the Bavarian youth at an early age. And, as a testament to how central this question remained for him throughout his life, the Church’s relationship with the Jewish people was one of the small handful of major theological concerns that held Benedict’s attention until his dying days.
Ratzinger’s interest in the people of the Jews was forged in the crucible of Vatican II, where, as a young priest, he helped shape the Council’s teaching on the Church’s relationship with other religions, Judaism in particular. Serving as a theological expert at the Council, Father Ratzinger played a pivotal role in shaping its events as he drafted key speeches for the influential Cardinal Josef Frings. These interventions helped secure Nostra aetate’s explicit rejection of Jewish collective guilt for the crucifixion of Christ and strengthened its condemnation of antisemitism.
In this accessible document, the Church teaches that “God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers” and speaks of Israel retaining “the first place” among those who have not yet embraced the Gospel. Highlighting the spiritual treasury common to Christians and Jews, the fathers of the Church’s most recent ecumenical council emphasized that Christianity draws from Judaism the entire Old Testament and, with it, the foundations of our faith. An especially important reminder amid denials of this foundational truth in our own time, this patrimony includes our very confession of the one, same, and true living God.
In Words and Deeds: Lived Solidarity with the Jewish People
Crucially, Benedict demonstrated his commitment to Israel not only through his words but through his actions. For instance, during a landmark visit to the Tempio Maggiore (Great Synagogue of Rome), the pontiff underscored “the solidarity which binds the Church to the Jewish people” and our “spiritual fraternity,” noting that “[m]any lessons may be learnt from our common heritage.” Furthermore, Benedict forcefully renewed the Church’s irrevocable commitment to reject “the scourge of anti-Semitism.”
Similarly, in his poignant address at the Reichstag in Berlin, the pontiff highlighted the Church’s “great closeness to the Jewish people” and the “special bond” we share with them as “beloved brothers.” In saying this, Benedict was merely reinforcing a longstanding commitment at the heart of modern papal teaching, which Pius XI had already insisted on with unmistakable firmness back in 1938 amid the rise of Nazism: “Anti-Semitism is unacceptable. Spiritually, we are all Semites.”
From the standpoint of the New Testament as understood by St. Paul and indeed by Jesus himself, Christianity is not a separate religion set over and against Judaism. It is New Covenant Judaism, the faith of the patriarchs and prophets brought to fulfillment in Christ.
What is more, during his papal tenure, Benedict prayed in a synagogue three times. During his 2005 visit to the historic Synagogue of Cologne, the pope reflected on the fortieth anniversary of Nostra aetate and the sixtieth anniversary of the end of Nazi tyranny, condemning anti-Semitism and reaffirming that “all men and women have the same dignity, whatever their nation, culture or religion.”
Beyond meeting and praying with Jewish brethren, Benedict also took practical steps to heal Jewish-Christian relations internally within the Church.
For instance, the pontiff took concrete steps to reform the ancient Good Friday prayer for the perfidis Judaeis (“treacherous Jews”). Although John XXIII had already removed the adjective ‘treacherous’ from this text in 1962, Benedict considered its harshness still unacceptable, for until 2008 the older form of the Roman rite continued to say that God’s mercy embraces “even Jews,” asking the Lord to heal “the blindness of that people” that they “may be delivered from their darkness.”
Having made the older liturgy more widely accessible with his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, Benedict exercised his prerogative as Supreme Pontiff and personally modified this prayer for the Jewish people so that it now beseeches God to “illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men…that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved.”
With this change, Benedict’s goal was “to create a form of prayer that suits the spiritual style of the old liturgy, but accords with our modern knowledge about Judaism and Christianity.” And yet, in a twist of irony (especially given the state of affairs today), Benedict’s undertaking was widely met with criticism and panned as anti-Semitic.
On the Indispensability of Rediscovering Christianity’s Jewish Roots
These lived gestures point to a deeper theological conviction that animated Benedict’s thought from the beginning: that Christianity cannot understand itself apart from its Jewish roots.
Over the course of his decades-long ministry, Benedict emphasized time and again that Christianity’s very spiritual patrimony arises in large part from our shared faith with the Jewish people and from the divine truths first given in the law, prophets, and wisdom of Israel. In this connection, Benedict frequently referenced the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s major study The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, a work issued during his tenure as head of the PBC and introduced by a preface authored by none other than Cardinal Ratzinger himself.
An especially important section of this preface addresses the 1920 thesis of the liberal theologian Adolf Harnack, who attempted to resurrect the heretic Marcion’s early second-century project of discarding the Old Testament and its allegedly separate and inferior deity. In response to this, Ratzinger stressed the indispensability of the Old Testament for Christians, affirming that Christians and Jews worship the same God and that “[w]ithout the Old Testament, the New Testament would be an unintelligible book, a plant deprived of its roots and destined to dry up and wither.”
Apropos of this, longtime papal biographer and interview partner Peter Seewald has emphasized that Benedict sought to showcase Judaism as “the noble olive tree onto which the Gentiles were grafted to become Christians.” In making this point, Benedict was indebted to St. Paul’s depiction of the Church of the Gentiles as a wild olive shoot grafted onto the ancestral olive tree that is the people of the Covenant (Rom 11:17-24).
Elaborating on this, he remarked that Jews and Christians alike “draw our nourishment from the same spiritual roots” and, though our relationship has at times been marked by tension, we “encounter one another as brothers and sisters…now firmly committed to building bridges of lasting friendship,” able together to “do much for peace, justice and for a more fraternal and more humane world.”
The Distinct Character of the Church’s Witness to Israel
Underscoring the Jewish roots of Christianity raises the question of what the Church’s gospel witness ought to look like with respect to the people of Israel. As Benedict teaches, it is a sui generis posture that is neither reducible to traditional mission nor to a bland religious tolerance.
To understand this approach, it is necessary to see its covenantal foundations. Taking his cue from St. Paul’s declaration that “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:28-29), Benedict affirmed with his saintly predecessor that God’s covenant with Israel was “never revoked by God,” which is to say that it is “indestructible,” “universal,” and “unconditional.” Particularly relevant at this historical moment, Benedict emphatically taught that supersessionism—the “theory of substitution” according to which Christians are supposed to have replaced the Jews as the Chosen People—“should be rejected.” In truth, he argues, Christianity’s fresh reading of the Old Testament involves neither simple continuity nor rupture—“neither a repeal nor a substitution, but a deepening in unaltered validity.”
Precisely because the covenantal bond between God and Israel remains alive in an irrevocable way, Benedict held that the Church’s stance toward the Jewish people cannot simply mirror her mission to the nations. In his 2018 essay “Not Mission but Dialogue,” the emeritus pontiff (now speaking not in a magisterial capacity but as an academic) reiterated a principle articulated by the Roman curia’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews: namely, that within the Church there is “a principled rejection of an institutional Jewish mission” in the sense in which she maintains such a mission toward the Gentile nations.
As Benedict explains, the reason that the Church’s position concerning Israel differs categorically from her mission ad gentes is not that Jews have no need of Christ, nor because evangelization to the Jews is forbidden tout court. On this very point, when asked whether it means that missionary activity should therefore cease, Ratzinger replied:
My answer is No. For this would be nothing other than total lack of conviction…Rather, the answer must be that mission and dialogue should no longer be opposites but should mutually interpenetrate. Dialogue is not aimless conversation: it aims at conviction, at finding the truth; otherwise, it is worthless.
The inner logic of Benedict’s teaching is that, unlike Paul’s proclamation of the Gospel to those who worshiped the “unknown God” (Acts 17), the Jewish people already know and worship the one true Lord and are not merely one pagan nation among others. His key emphasis is that Israel should not be approached as a pagan people to be converted, but as the elder brother who remains in a covenantal relationship with the one true God. As Benedict sees it, the Church’s task in relation to the people of Israel is to engage in an intentional and frank conversation about the crucial question of Jesus Christ’s identity as Messiah and Son of God.
It is not hard to see why this message has not been received well by everybody. To be sure, it is not among the most lucid statements ever to emerge from Rome, and the distinction being made here is so technical as to obscure its rationale for many. And yet, the Church’s intent has never been to discourage sharing the Gospel with our Jewish brethren or to prevent us from inviting them to follow Christ.
The Common Mission of Jews and Christians
Taken together, the above considerations reveal a twofold conviction in Joseph Ratzinger’s thought regarding Israel and the fulfillment of God’s covenantal fidelity in Christ.
On the one hand, he insists that, because God is faithful, the people of Israel “are not simply done with and left out of God’s plans; rather, they still stand within the faithful covenant of God.” On the other hand, he acknowledges with characteristic candor that “Israel still has some way to go.” This perspective stresses that the New Testament is not merely an optional addendum to the Old. “It is rather,” explains Ratzinger, “a matter of there being a real progression, and the Old Testament remains an unfinished fragment if you stop before you start the New. That is our fundamental belief as Christians.” Thus, when he was asked whether “Jews will have to recognize the Messiah,” Benedict responded that, while the how and when of this recognition rest ultimately with God, the answer to this is affirmative: “That is what we believe.”
In light of all the above, Benedict retained a clear-eyed realism in acknowledging that “the messianic promise will always be controversial.” We are not going to fully convince every Jewish person to follow Jesus any more than we are every Gentile. “In the meantime,” the emeritus pontiff wrote, “the two sides have the task of confronting one another in order to understand properly, each side considering respectfully the views of the other.”
As we conclude, the current cultural climate makes it timely to remember Benedict’s words about the “common mission” of Jews and Christians to defend human dignity and promote the common good in a world that is so often inimical to both. Even as Christians look for the day when all Israel will recognize Christ, Benedict deemed it the “basic task” of Jews and Christians to “delve more deeply into the truth” and “accept each other in profound inner reconciliation, neither in disregard of their faith nor in denying it, but out of the depth of faith itself.”
This posture of genuine humility is worth underscoring. For even as the Church never ceases to proclaim that she has been entrusted with the fullness of grace and truth, our popes also understood that we Catholics cannot bring about the lasting renewal of society on our own. To achieve this in a culture increasingly fractured by ideological extremism, Benedict insisted that we must return to our beginnings: to rediscover the roots of our faith in the religion of Israel, walking in real solidarity with the people who were first to hear the word of God.
This does not collapse the real distinctions between our traditions, but our popes are absolutely right that the stakes of getting this right are real. Indeed, it is indispensable in our present hour, as antisemitism resurfaces in new guises and a generation forms its convictions in online echo chambers. Yet, united by our shared history, we as Jews and Christians have been entrusted with the truth revealed by God and the common mission to proclaim it to a world desperately in need of the Lord’s mercy.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Summary: The Old Testament prefigured the New, and the New TestamentFulfills the Old.
A “real projection” and not reducible to one (Judeo-Christian) “tradition” among all of the other religious traditions of the world. Benedict also remarked, somewhere, that “faith” is in the person of Jesus Christ; other religious “beliefs”are not quite the same.The difference between the one trajectory in universal human history versus less grounded narratives of all stripes.
The common element is the original, universal, and baked in Natural Law, however much misunderstood, or even mutated as under the self-contradictory Qur’an and Sharia Law which conjoined interior struggle (early jihad) with external conquest, fatwas, and abduction, etc. (also “jihad”).
The irreducible difference between gifted and theological faith and other religious beliefs is a distinction too often lost in interreligious dialogue—as too-briefly framed by Nostra Aetate regarding “traditions” other than the Judeo-Christian. .
If only the author addressed the question if the Israeli state is a secular or Jewish state?
To ask that would reveal too much.
Israel is both a secular state and the Jewish homeland given to them by God.
Increasingly, your ipse dixit commentary reminds us of the wisdom of
1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34
Post a more objective and less emotional response and you will post an argumentum ad hominem rejection. Take issue with Pius X.
On 25 January 1904, Theodore Herzl met in a private audience with Pius
X. This founder of modern political Zionism asked the pope for his support,
or at least a benevolent nihil obstat, for the project of a Jewish state in
Palestine. The pontiff answered negatively in no uncertain terms and added:
“The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the
Jewish people.”
He apparently didn’t think a de novo Westphalian Israeli state was the inheritor of any supposed divine promise.
Pius X and the Jews: A Reappraisal
Andrew M. Canepa
Church History, Vol. 61, No. 3 (Sep., 1992), pp. 362-372 (11 pages)
De novo Westphalian?
De Novo:
adjective
Anew, afresh, from the beginning; without consideration of previous instances, proceedings or determinations
Westphalian:
Westphalian refers to the concept of Westphalian sovereignty, which is the principle in international law that each state has exclusive sovereignty over its territory, developed after the Peace of Westphalia treaties in 1648. This principle emphasizes non-interference in the domestic affairs of states and is foundational to the modern international system of sovereign states.
I agree that Pope Benedict XVI’s understanding about how Christianity relates to the Judaic faith and the Jewish people is the most wholesome and faithful, in comparison to the other propositions that ostracize the Judaic faith and Jewish people.
I believe this distillation comes from Benedict also, but whoever it’s from, it rings true: “The drama of Jesus is that he divided the House of Israel.” This harkens back to Simeon’s prophecy: “Behold, this child is set for the fall a d rising of many in Israel…that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.”
Let us never forget that our hearing of the Gospel of The Word Made Flesh is made possible by the faithful Jewish people of 2000 years ago in Israel, who when told of the Incarnation, they said “Yes,” beginning with Mary and Joseph, and culminating in the beginning of The Church, in the Upper Room, on the Jewish feast day of Pentecost, where Mary and the Apostles were “baptized with the Fire if The Holy Spirit.”
What this article leaves out, does not even mention or attempt to address, is that much, not all but much, of the uncertainty among the young these days on this subject, is because of the modern nation of “Israel”.
If what was being done to the young people of Gaza, limbs being blown off, eyesight being destroyed, by Israeli bombs meant for the relatively few members of Hamas hiding underground – I saw a lovely young lady of Gaza interviewed this past week who has been horribly burnt and disfigured by such indiscriminate actions – was being done by any nation other than Israel it would be uniformly denounced and condemned and the USA would not be funding it. But because it is Israel the normal outrage gets deflected, even though the numbers killed and maimed now far, far outnumber those killed and maimed on October 7, and therefore far exceed what is allowable under Just War thinking, everything the modern nation of Israel does gets defended or excused. So the young, who do not have the memory of the Shoah imbedded in them, ask why is mainstream American thought so tilted towards the Israelis? It is a question which deserves a detailed, elaborate answer, not simply the condemnation of generic anti-semetism, or even of Fuentes, and some self-reflection on the part of traditional conservatives, because right now it is a battle they are losing.
The conversation that is needed cannot even begin unless these concerns among the young on both the right and the left are admitted as being legitimate. But the typical response is either to ignore the connection as this article studiously avoids it, or, as the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem found out when he criticized the killing of two Christian women outside a church in Gaza by Israeli snipers, be accused by the modern nation of Israel of “blood libel”.
The two matters of how we view modern Jews as a religion, and how we view the modern nation of Israel, are intertwined in ways that Dr. Ramage, whom I greatly respect, does not even begin to address. But until that elephant in the room is acknowledged, discussed at length and openly, the fuel for the fire Nick Fuentes and others are setting will continue to gush and affect those who look at the poor young woman so horribly burnt, and ask why the USA supports this indiscriminate, disproportionate response by the nation of Israel. It is a question that deserves an answer, and not just a deflection to a generic discussion of anti-semitism, even in theological terms.
An emotional argument is not a valid argument. Supporting and excusing Palestinian atrocities is inexcusable.
A purely emotional argument is invalid. However, when emotion is steered by right reason, emotion is legitimate. As it is in the case of the righteous indignation directed against the Israeli state.
There is no “right reason” involved when defending Palestinian atrocities. Doing so is actually evil.
I do not defend any atrocities–whether committed by an Israeli or a Palestinian.
Isreal has not committed any atrocities, so your point is moot. Antisemitic, most certainly, but moot nonetheless.
This is exactly to the point. My initial reaction to the article was that it is a joke, frankly! There should be no platform given to intentionally confusing antisemitism with anti-Zionism (which all Christians should oppose, given the horrific atrocities committed in Palestine by the mostly non-Semitic Israeli forces).
Except that antizionism is actually antisemitism.
And where, pray tell, has the Church said that?
Father Hannity and Brother Levin.
We should be directing that outrage against Hamas and Iran’s other mercenaries. Not Israel. Every dead and maimed Arab Christian or Muslim creates perfect propaganda for Hamas and it’s funders. That’s an added benefit of using human shields.
Bla bla bla.
I hesitated to touch this subject, a history that dates to Abram and Sarah, although one can say beyond to the creation of Man, the Fall, and the Redemption. Cosmic as well as world history.
It was from one select people, the Chosen, through which God cultivated a people prepared to meet the Messiah, true God, true Man. Benedict XVI did well to remove the pall of suspicion and hatred for the Jew. Jews. World wanderers to territories and nations after the Roman destruction of Temple and national boundaries. Apart by language, religion, distinctive in a certain intellectual eminence. Living with but never fully integrated or accepted, seeking means for survival in deftness.
Paul, the greatest some say The Apostle, a Jew of Jews speaks to the race from which he was born, those who refused Jesus as Messiah. “For you, brothers and sisters, suffered the same things from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved” (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16).
How are we to understand this? Certainly not as an eternal condemnation. Certainly in context of those Jews who were hostile to Christians – at that given time in history. Was this typical of all Jews? Scholars would rationally interpret it as limited to those Jews Paul encountered at that time. We must consider too that Paul converted many Jews. That indicates a sectarian hostility among the many.
As a Catholic priest I’ve never met hostility from a Jew for being a Catholic priest. Rather some of the more affable persons I’ve known among medical and nursing staff were Jews. Some who had startling insight into the spiritual nature of healing, who commended me and priests they’ve known for our convictions of good and evil. The Holocaust was the result of daemonic hatred by Nazis and their collaborators alike. Paul promises that Jews will return to true worship at end times.
As anyone who’s followed these events knows, the IDF was forced to conduct urban warfare in Gaza and did so with remarkably low levels of civilian casualties, certainly by historical standards. Unfortunately, too many Catholics camouflage their antipathy toward Jews under criticism of Israel.
Amen, Mr.Rich.
“As a Catholic priest I’ve never met hostility from a Jew for being a Catholic priest.”
Anecdotal. As a pewsitter, I’ve encountered Jewish hostility to Christianity ( a deranged rant concealed as a deep and abiding concern for separation of the “ideal” of separation of church and state, reimagining freedom of religion as freedom from religion), then again, I don’t wear a collar that might give one pause to indulge.
So, welcome to Pennsylvania, where Governor Josh Shapiro, associate of deviant sociopath Alex Soros misused the grand jury process as Attorney General for detraction. Why waste your antipathy on one, when you can attack the entire class?
Now, for anybody who might have needed to be on the short bus as a child, I am not defending the abusers or the Bishops who engaged in “musical parishes” or those that thought psychological “treatment” would eradicate a disordered concupiscence.
However, the purpose of a grand jury inquest is to determine whether or not there is a probability of a crime. If for example, the late Bishop Timlin of Scranton had an sexually incontinent priest who impregnated a female counselee (if I recall she was not underage) and then sought to conceal the product of that illicit and immoral union by procuring an abortion-and Timlin appealed to Rome to have the automatic excommunication of that priest lifted, the whole sordid affair is immoral and an a scandal of the first order. However, abortion is legal and unless the girl was underage, there is no possibility of a crime. In addition, disclosure of allegations against the dead does not serve the purpose of a grand jury since the dead cannot defend themselves or be prosecuted. Keep in mind The grand jury has been described as a “shield and sword” that has both an offensive purpose and defensive purpose.
In our contemporary political discourse (shouting match) the charge of “anti-Semitism” (those who use the term mean anti-Jewish as there are non-Jewish Semites) is levied for any an all indignities perceived by the chattering class and used for depersonalization.
Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, travelled to Israel to sign legislation that arguably is a violation of the First Amendment. He didn’t travel to Rome to address anti-Catholicism or what I term Christophobia. Likwise Rep. Randy Fine doesn’t give a rat’s posterior about any speech directed against Christianity, instead he seeks to criminalize criticism of the secular state of Israel.
Meanwhile, people should read “American Churches Increasingly Attacked” July 3, 2025. |
Actually Pitchfork Rebel on further reflection I did experience a prejudicial Rabbi when with the Department of Veterans Affairs. He was a member of central management who sided with my Methodist Chief of Chaplains Staff who wanted to issue me a reprimand for using altar wine rather than grape juice [the Catholic chaplains on this Chief Chaplains staff had previously agreed to use grape juice to avoid veterans from breaking in and stealing the wine, which had occurred].
I objected, contacted the Military Archdiocese who corrected the problem. They also issued an edict for all VA and prison chaplains to use altar wine rather than any substitute.
As a side note the Methodist Church denied this Chief of Chaplains further membership. The good that came out of this was that an unrecognized abuse imposed on Catholic Chaplains in the VA and Federal prison system was addressed and corrected.
Thank you for sharing that, Father Peter.
I think “demonic” is key. My daughter and I were just talking about that yesterday. Whenever you see Christian division and previously decent people veering off into extremism and anti Semitism you are seeing an influence of the diabolical.
And an increase in anti Semitism is the canary in the coal mine for a society in trouble. It doesn’t bode good things for anyone’s future.
My daughter and I were just talking about that yesterday.
Nice echo chamber.
Thank you Mr Pitchfork. It was a nice blessing indeed to share a meal and conversation with my daughter this weekend.
I’m sure it was, nothing like mutual affirmation.
Crucially, Benedict demonstrated his commitment to Israel not only through his words but through his actions. For instance, during a landmark visit to the Tempio Maggiore (Great Synagogue of Rome), the pontiff underscored “the solidarity which binds the Church to the Jewish people” and our “spiritual fraternity,” noting that “[m]any lessons may be learnt from our common heritage.” Furthermore, Benedict forcefully renewed the Church’s irrevocable commitment to reject “the scourge of anti-Semitism.”
During one of my trips to Rome I wanted to visit the Great Synagogue but the hours it was open for visitors were very limited. When I asked why, I was told it was because of constant attempts at desecration by Moslems. We allow them into our society and civilization at our peril.
Perhaps they can relate their experiences to Leo XIV, who is telling us we can be friends and should let them pour across our borders. Another Pope from South America romanticizing Mohammedism.
He should have an audience with Chaldean Abp Amel Nona. He experienced that friendship up close and personal in Mosul.
When did Pope Leo XIV say “let them pour across our boarders” ?I think he was very strong in saying we have a right to secure our boarders.
Exactly, James. As one of the writers for Rorate wrote, he conveyed one of the most “right wing” positions on immigration of any pontiff of the modern area.
You really need to do your own homework for a change.
“I know that in Europe, there are many times fears that are present, but often times generated by people who are against immigration and trying to keep out people who may be from another country, another religion, another race,” And in that sense, I would say that we all need to work together. One of the values of this trip is precisely to raise the world’s attention to the possibility that dialogue and friendship between Muslims and Christians is possible.”
And in reverse, the huge historical synagogue in Budapest attracts many tourists and remains open to visitors.
“For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” Romans, 11.29.
RATZINGER affirmed that this applied to the first covenant.*
*Communio,2018. “L’alliance Irrévocable”. Parole et Silence
I suspect some overstatement occurs here. The grafting St. Paul speaks about is a new tree not Judaism, where he also warns Gentiles not to get hacked off like “the natural branches” got it.
The New Covenant is not “New Covenant Judaism”, something wrong with that: a) the allusion to Elijah at the beginning of Romans 11 was/is to stress the new work of grace from on high not to enshrine the works of old; but also, b) Christ came to give the new wine in new wineskins not take away sins to make everyone like Jews of old.
I could go on about it and end up appearing to smear a good sense of charity offered by Benedict -albeit maybe his is a mite over-intellectualized. As where St. Paul continues to warn of the problem of hardening in Romans 11:25-29. Humility in every virtue.
Why say not to “evangelize” the Jews? Perhaps by “not evangelizing” Jews Benedict is saying either Christ will be received by them or be rejected, “for so it is with them”? So that when it comes to the Jews, it is merely needed to announce Who Jesus is all over again. Yes, the Lord did say “Go first to the House of Israel” or “lost tribes”. For that however, once the call is answered, the Jew now must grow in Christ.
Again, Jews “know God whom they worship” so if you wish to have it that Christ’s actions among them is not “evangelism” but “fraternity”, they still have a change to make.
Myself, I draw an easier understanding from VATICAN II, as a beginning, in reading the first sentence in LG 16 with Ad Gentes 6 last paragraph and 7 first two paragraphs. ALL are called to faith as per Romans 9:32. Kindness with all fits with the Works of Mercy. I might wish to have a special feeling for Israel like to “elder brother” but it is meant for Christ.
VATICAN II, a Council in prudence and pastoral practice.
What is called the Old contains the New and the Old is explained in the so called New. It is both that forms God’s plan, plan A.
There is a big difference between Israel and the Jewish people. Not all people in Israel are Jews, and not all people in Israel approve of their governments policies and actions; and many of these people are ethnic Jews. To further complicate matters, Jewishness can be both ethnic and/ or religious. There are many Jews who are Atheists. There are also converts to the various Jewish religions practices who are considered to be Jews. Being antisemitic usually refers to being prejudiced against all ethnic Jews which generally extends beyond the citizens of the State of Israel. Much in this article deals with Pope St. Benedict’s views on the Jews, but Pope John Paul II also had a lifelong association with them. He had a lifelong friendship with a Jewish girl who was a childhood neighbor and later a fellow actor in a theater company that they were in. They carried on a life long correspondence, and when he was Pope he invited
her to personal audiences on several occasions. During the Nazi occupation he did much to aide the Jews.
There is also an Association of Hebrew Catholics it is an organization of Jews who converted to Catholicism who wish to keep their Hebrew identity and some of their traditions. They also work within the Church to foster better understanding of all things Jewish. There is also the Vicarate of St. James in Israel which is home to Catholic Jews living in Israel. I believe they also have a liturgy in Hebrew and they fellowship with Palestinian Catholics.
There are many who believe that before the end times, there will be a time when a large number of Jews will become Catholics and once again play a major role in the Church. St. Paul talks about that when he refers to the return “after the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled “.
Both the Books of Hebrews and Romans deal with the “Jewish” problem in the Churc- the relationship of the Jews(God’s chosen people) and the Gentile (those grafted in to the original root stock) ! In short, there is no room for antisemitism in the church.we owe our very salvation to them . As scripture says- “salvation comes from the Jews”.
Well. I may as well. That is, Since we’re talking about Jews, there’s a connection with my father Camillo, a Sicilian Catholic born in Leocata Sicily who came to the US 1914 [Italy at the time was still allied with Germany and Austria] following his service in Italy’s 1912 Libyan war with Turkey. Dad had no education but had a knack for languages. He was also an entrepreneur. He had worked on the railroad laying track then had the idea of haberdashery hiring a group of women in Brooklyn to make hats. The Garment Industry in NY was ‘owned’ by the Jewish community in Lower Manhattan.
My father quickly learned Yiddish and could speak it fluently. He made many friends in the largely Jewish Delancey Street area and acquired a favored status enhancing his business. 1929 brought all that to an end and he turned to work as a longshoreman. He did well there too, finding passengers for waiting family due to his language skills. Perhaps it’s why I’ve gotten along with Jews, including Rabbis who were members of my staff when a chaplain.
You can be anti Israel without being an anti-Semite.
Not true. To hate Isreal is to hate the Jews. Antizionism is antisemitism.
Yes, thank you Athanasius. ” Anti Zionism ” is just the latest reincarnation of Anti Semitism.
I’d sincerely like to understand the Catholic basis for this statement. Leaving the current circumstances aside for a moment, let’s say the state of Israel does something that is blatantly wrong in the future, does it mean that condemning that action of the State of Israel would amount to antisemitism?
No, and you know that’s not the case. Criticism is not antisemitic, but excusing and defending Palestinians most certainly is.
Absolutely correct. People conflate being anti-Israel in its current manifestation with the hatred of Jews, which is absurd.
Pope St. Pius X in response to Theodore Herzl and the Zionist Quest:
“We cannot give approval to this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The soil of Jerusalem, if it was not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot tell you anything different. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.
There are two possibilities. Either the Jews will cling to their faith and continue to await the Messiah who, for us, has already appeared. In that case they will be denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot help them. Or else they will go there without any religion, and then we can be even less favorable to them.
The Jewish religion was the foundation of our own; but it was superseded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot concede it any further validity. The Jews, who ought to have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ, have not done so to this day.
Our Lord came without power. He was poor. He came in peace. He persecuted no one. He was persecuted.
He was forsaken even by his apostles. Only later did he grow in stature. It took three centuries for the Church to evolve. The Jews therefore had time to acknowledge his divinity without any pressure. But they haven’t done so to this day.”
As a layman I have encountered moments of prejudicial behavior, abusive responses. Although, as a seminarian and priest, the settings were also different, which likely made a difference.
You may then be correct about the collar, although some responses were exceptional – for example when an elderly hospitalized Sephardic Rabbi who had undergone a life changing surgical procedure asked me to pray for him, and assented to my offer of anointing for the sick, which I conferred conditionally.
The bishop priest abortion excommunication matter certainly is among many wounds the Church suffers.
You seem to refer to the Catholic [and Protestant] Zionist political cadre in your final paragraph. It’s a political posture that borders on heresy, as if the Jews are still the recipients of the promises made to the chosen people, which they have actually forfeited. Although Jews do have a right to live. We recall when Nazi Germany tried to initiate an emigration policy sending Jews on the liner St Louis to several countries including the US but no nation would accept them. The Germans finally responded with the Final Solution.
“You seem to refer to the Catholic [and Protestant] Zionist political cadre in your final paragraph”
You are correct, and I agree with your assessment.
Rather Fr. Morello it is the anti-Zionist fundamentalists who boarder on heresy with their support for an implicit pro-Islamic confessional state (since that is the form a Palestinian State will take. It will not be a Secular Democracy so the two state solution is a bit daft). The Jews already have a right to the Levant under natural law alone. Any “biblical” speculations put forth by Catholic Zionists would be modest, limited, conditional and not go beyond what is allowed in natural law for non-Christian Jews. Unlike the Protestant dispensationalist version.
Given the OT itself is in harmony and support natural law any Biblical argument would be modest indeed. It would also not negate the rights of Palestinians living in the Levant either.
Being pro-Israel or against a Two State Solution is merely a political judgement based on prudence. It is the anti-Israel fundamentalists who wish to make their viewpoint doctrine when in fact it has never been. Even when St Pius X refused to support a Jewish State.
I agree with several commenters who point out that Dr. Ramage’s essay, whether intentionally or not, can be read as a conflation of “God’s salvation via the Jews” and an uncritical relationship with the contemporary state of Israel.
The title given to the essay certainly seems designed to convey that message.
The Biblical “nation of Israel” and the people descended from it are different entities and should be treated differently when discussing geo-politics and anti-semitism.
As to the geo-political question, while I do not believe the contemporary state Israel should be considered as a “holy nation doing God’s will,” I do believe that the only viable solution now, after the October 7th atrocity, is a one state solution, with the complete annexation of Gaza, and possibly the same in the West Bank.
I agree, Mr.Chris. Israel reclaiming Judea and Samaria is the only solution to bring about lasting peace and to better the conditions of those living currently in those regions.
Arabs, Druze, and others already make up more than 20% of Israel’s population and they enjoy equal rights and can choose to serve in the IDF or in the government.
I would laugh if the appropriate reaction wasn’t more lachrymose when I hear the world “solution” applied as if there is some political action that will result in some permanent, optimal state. The Middle East is a cauldron of violence, and despite all of the accords, agreements and treaties. (one only need remember the triumphant smiles of Begin, Carter and Sadat and others, and of course for his efforts-Sadat was assassinated).
“Solution” is the end result of a process to a mathematical issue-not something attainable in this sinful world. Those that believe in political “solutions” need a reality check.
It’s more about God’s promises than politics. It’s called the Promised Land for a reason.
Jerusalem Post
DECEMBER 9, 2025
‘Druze, Arab enlistment shows minorities choosing Israel, rejecting apartheid narrative – editorial
In a region where minorities are often persecuted, expelled, or massacred, the fact that so many members of minority communities are choosing Israel and not its enemies is remarkable.This is not just a Druze story. Ibrahim notes that Druze conscription has climbed to around 85% since October 7, with Bedouin service remaining high and Arab Christian enlistment tripling in the past year
A small but growing number of Muslim Arabs from cities such as Nazareth, Ramla, and Sakhnin are also joining the IDF voluntarily. The numbers are still modest, but the direction is clear.
…This contrast exposes a deeper truth that Israel’s harshest critics prefer to ignore. For years, international forums have branded Israel an apartheid state in which Arabs were barred from full participation. The lived reality, especially since October 7, is more complicated. Coexistence here is not perfect, but it undeniably exists.
You see it clearly in hospitals and campuses. Arab citizens, roughly 21% of the population, now make up about a quarter of doctors and nurses and close to half of pharmacists. Tens of thousands of Arab students study in Israeli institutions, close to their share of the population. This is not the profile of a system trying to push a fifth of its citizens out of public life.
Political representation also reflects this complexity. The current Knesset includes Arab MKs from Arab parties and Arab and Druze lawmakers on Jewish-led lists.
None of this erases the real problems. Arab towns still suffer from underinvestment, high crime, and infrastructure gaps. Arab schools lag behind, and civil society organizations rightly warn about discrimination and missed opportunities, from planning policy to public-sector hiring. The political climate has grown harsher since October 7, and trust between communities has been tested.
Yet it is precisely in wartime that the persistence of coexistence matters most. On October 7, the Hamas terrorists who butchered and kidnapped Israelis did not ask whether their victims were Jews, Bedouin, Christians, or foreign workers. They murder a Bedouin woman in a headscarf just as readily as a kibbutznik in a T-shirt. That cruelty is seen by Arab citizens, too, and it has pushed many to reaffirm where their home is and who they want to live alongside…”
The article doesn’t reveal much. It wallows in carefully couched and soft pedaled verbiage that runs more from the Truth than embraces it. The author got about as close to the truth as he dares toward the end of the article. Nostra Aetate at least references Catholics as the “new people of God”. The traditional title was the “New Israel” was apparently a bridge too far.
Nostrae Aetate also contradicts scripture and its condemnations. “Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.” Are we supposed to reject Scripture? Did the Holy Spirit NOT descend on Peter in Acts 2 when he addressed the “men of Israel” and calling to mind their murder of ALL the prophets? Or when he said: “Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”?
Perfidious Jews is appropriate.
Had Peter not condemned them they would not have been “cut to the heart” and converted right there…3,000 Jews. I’m sure most did not have a hand in Jesus’ crucifixion.
Heresy! Are you Catholic Mr. Brady?
Because you sound like Protestant. Protestants who would cite “Call no man Father”-Matthew 23:9 to own the Church over the titles granted to Priests but ignore or downplay St Paul calling himself a Father over his charges 1 Corinthians 4:15.
Nostre Aetate is not contradicting Acts 2 rather it is upholding Romans 11:28 “As concerning the gospel, indeed, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers .For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance.”
Act 2 has Peter addressing many Jews who had participated in the Mob that called for Our Lord’s blood before Pilate this logically does not apply to all Jews. The sins of humanity Jewish or Gentile called for Christ’s death but not all Jews then living immediately called for his blood.
Do you reject Acts 3 “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders.”? Well? It seems here is another place where Nostre Aetate upholds God’s Word. What is your excuse for contradicting it?
The Roman Catechism cites 1 Corinthians 2:8 “None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” The Jews who called for his Blood and the Romans who nailed him up acted in ignorance but the Roman Catechism goes on to say we Christians who know Him and yet sin Crucify Christ anew and as such our sins are worse then they who called for His blood.
“Perfidious Jews is appropriate”? It is not! The term devolved from the mere meaning “Unbelieving” to “treacherous” and “deceitful” which goes beyond the ancient meaning.
Also, that term would only apply to Jews or Gentles who disbelief was Culpable vs inculpable.
We are to read the Scripture with the Mind of the Church as God’s Word say the Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth 1 Tim 3:15. We are not to lean on our own understanding.
Get on board with leading the Jews to Christian rather than trying to self righteously own them in argument.
In Acts. 2, as I said, St. Peter (filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost) was talking to the ‘men of Israel’. He wasn’t distinguishing one from another. He did offer an excuse for their ignorance before. But this was Pentecost and God was speaking through him. They were ‘cut to the heart’ when he gave them an exact history of the murder of all the prophets, including Christ. His admonition to ‘save themselves from this perverse generation’ was a call to conversion, to repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus and RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 3000 were converted. Obviously others did not.
When you read 1 Thessalonians 2 St. Paul mentions their interference and what happens to them.
“ 13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. 14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men 16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God’s wrath has come upon them at last! [b] (the footnote qualifies v16 “b. 1 Thessalonians 2:16 Or completely, or for ever.”
In Matthew 27:25, at the praetorium the Jews said en masse “Let His blood be upon us and our children”, calling down as a curse on themselves and their descendants, the Most Precious Blood of Jesus Christ into perpetuity. You can’t get anymore depraved than to do that. Yet there is more promise offered to the Jews is exactly what St.Peter told them, simple as that. There is no dual covenant. There is only one Covenant of His Blood that saves. ‘No one comes to the Father except through me’.
Yet there is more and the Catholic Church has maintained throughout Her history that the Jews must convert up until the end. It was the’pastoral’ decision in Nostra Aetate to no longer do so but instead engage in fruitless dialogue.
Our hope is in their conversion. Otherwise they will continue to wreak havoc with the Catholic Church, the New Israel.
The Jews are God’s Chosen People & at the end of the day their conversion, as in everyone else’s conversion, will be a work of the Holy Ghost. And referring to anyone as “perfidious” doesn’t do much to enable conversion.
The only folks wreaking havoc in the Church today are those who divide the Body of Christ. And that can come from every direction & every extreme.
Well then, I guess we should all convert like Ivanka.
How entertaining! I read these texts presupposing defined Catholic Dogma and teaching both pre(I cited the Roman Catechism of Trent) and post (Nostre Aetate) Vatican II.
You like a Baptist read the text by itself and read your own views into the Word of God sans the Mind of the Church and the Teachings of the Church. You ignore teachings (which are pre-Vatican II BTW) like invincible ignorance or that the sins of all humanity condemned Jesus and the Teaching Christian sin is worse than that of Ignorant Jews in the mob who called for His blood.
1 Thessalonians 2:14; One notes the term Jew Ioudaios can mean the Israelite under the covenant or the dwellers in the country of Judah or the Judean religious establishment. Making a distinction between Israelites and Jews is absurd since Paul calls himself a “Jew” even thought he is from the Tribe of Benjamin.
Neither Nostra Aetate 4 or Vatican II in general ever teaches we must not convert the Jews. But we must get rid of the Theology of Contempt you hold fast too.
UR like a mad Thomist who insists Thomas Aquinas was right about the Immaculate Conception post Pius IX.
Think with the Mind of the Church.
Do not put yourself above Her your Mother.
Nowhere does dialog negate evangelization. Via dialog we learn about the people we intent to convert.
Try it sometime.
The post Vatican II Church turned into the pre-Pentecost Church in Jn 7:13; 9:22; 19:38; 20:19 ‘for fear of the Jews’.
Whatever happened to the Fear of the Lord?
Rather you are channeling the corrupt doctrines of the Arch heretic Marcion. Repent! Turn to the Catholic Church for Salvation! Renounce Sede heresy and or anti-Vatican II nonsense.
EENS! Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Can you plead invincible Ignorance? Better to warn you that you can’t and be wrong then not to warn you and be wrong.
Near as I can tell calling for the Jews to convert has nothing to do with Marcion. Scripture and Tradition (until 1965) were consistent about the Mosaic Covenant being fulfilled in the New Covenant of Jesus’ Blood. The Covenant of Abraham is forever and for all people, which is not the subject of your false accusations. THe Church cannot change scripture. The Church cannot change any divinely revealed Truth which ended with the death of the last Apostle. Taking a ‘pastoral’ position one way or another is not on that level and good men can disagree without sinning. Vatican II self-admittedly was a pastoral council. Using the Church’s standard for determining the veracity of the council, you judge it by its fruit. We’ve had 60 years of bad fruit as proof it has failed.
Marcionite fits well with you sir. Marcionites downplay the Jewish component of the Faith.
Vatican II has two DOGMATIC CONSTITUTIONS and both Vatican I and II teach if the Church puts forth a proposition on Faith and morals even if it is not infallible it requires assent and Nostre Aetate qualifies.
I want to convert the Jews. Your failed way of the “Theology of Contempt” has produced no fruit with the Jews it only serves to harden them. Indeed it is as successful at leading Jews to Christ as the Transvestite Dylan Mulveney is at persuading masculine straight men to buy beer.
Nostre Aetate will lead the Jews home.
Cherry picking you references doesn’t make your case.
So what is the fruit of 60 years of NA? Where is this great conversion borne of ‘dialogue’? How about other religions? Oh wait…WE’RE supposed to convert over to their side. How much of our Traditions have we surrendered, by force, to reach unity? The real measure of this ‘success’ hasn’t been their conversion, but rather the exodus of Catholics. For every 1 conversion to the Catholic Church, 8 leave. https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/catholics-are-rapidly-losing-ground.
So how’s that “Nostra Aetate will lead the Jews home” working out for you?
Surely we need to be realistic, Jews themselves attack their own; they conspire hatred among themselves and it is not always plain to see. One such event was the Massacre of the Innocents by Herod the Great. “A cry is heard in Ramah ….. “, it seems to relate that he somehow managed to kill children from near and far “surrounding all of Jerusalem” as it were, not only to do with Bethlehem.
Ramah incidentally is the home of Samuel’s parents who would go to Shiloh to pray. There was no “sacrificing at the Temple” in Jerusalem in those days. There in Shiloh Eli’s sons proved to be adept at running things for themselves, as we can in see 1 Sam. 2:16-17.
The same Herod the Great stealthily outdid the Hasmoneans, his own lineage, betraying Antigonus to Roman execution; and banished his first wife with his first child so as to appease Rome and the concerned Jews by marrying Antigonus’ granddaughter, to set the crown offered him. Then proceeded to impose his vision on the Jewish religion.
It is thought that the Massacre of the Infants was done surreptitiously not as portrayed in the movies. In which case it would have been hard to prove it. The financing of the German Rearmament Third Reich, in the 20th Century, whose money went into this -all of them; and the decade-long upkeep of inflationary and other German “domestic policies”. Surely a detailed account is long overdue.
@James,
Where are the fruits of evangelizing Jews over the last several hundred years? Inquisitions, expulsions and the Theology of Contempt. No fruits, just Jewish people who identify Christians (not unjustly) as oppressors and persecutors. Culminating in the Holocaust.
It is demonic and sick really.
In Israel today there are 1000 Hebrew Speaking Catholics in 5 congregations.
There are 30,000 Protestant Messianic Jews in Israel as well and growing. If you share the love of Jesus with them, they will come.
Pope Leo and Cardinal Pizzabalia have endorsed a Hebrew Catholic Center in Israel for Jewish converts.
Nostre Aetate is at the foundation of Hebrew Catholic movement.
What do you do? Tell people Jews Killed Jesus in a manner contrary to the Nostre Aetate and the ROMAN CATECHISM. Lobby to put back an offensive word in the old Liturgy?
Spread conspiracy theories about “Jewish Power”?
Go out of your way to offend them? Shut the Kingdom of God in their faces while not going in yourself?
Yeh good luck with that pal.
I stick to Nostre Aetate.
St Edith Stein Pray for us!
St Peter Apostle to the Jews pray for us.
Amen.
In the Name of Yeshua and Miriam.
I don’t see where NA absolves those guilty in the past and prevents a fitting discussion of it with, where necessary, due investigation.
I said some things leading up to WWII have to be uncovered and you Jim Scot reply with “the Holocaust”, which doesn’t uncover those things.
You also seem to indicate obliquely that because some things are going well other things are forbidden from study -not addressing what I put.
I think that NA like most of the Declarations -it is not a Decree,- gives a lead and how it’s composed; it is not intended to truncate.
@Elias Galy
Conspiracy theories are tedious and diluted. I won’t dignify them with any serious response as they are beneath serious consideration.
Nobody claims NA absolves the guilt of the Jews in the Mob who called for Our Lord’s blood. Rather it correctly teaches not all Jews then living nor any Jews today are guilty of the crimes of those specific Jews. Among them in the mob the Apostles said they sinned in ignorance and would not have called for His Blood if they knew who He really was but them in the mob who later converted at the behest of the Apostles are obsolved. Them who resisted belief out of Malice are condemned.
Thus specific collective guilt is condemned sans the collective guilt of all humanity, Jews and Gentiles whose sins crucified Our Lord.
Nostre Aetate has been upheld by four Popes and Pope Francis says the teaching is irreformable. Which it is as it conforms to Natural Law and Gospel principles.
Submit to the Catholic Faith for salvation.
Thank you Jim the Scott, I wouldn’t contest anything there except the conspiracy theories assertion. In these days whenever something is classed a conspiracy theory it is very likely a deflecting from truth that has to be under scrutiny as well. Third Reich financing has to face full disclosure public audit. NA was never meant to help cover up Third Reich financing and who was involved.
There ain’t no greater sin than antisemitism, it seems. If you can’t say anything nice about the Jews, don’t say anything at all.
I think that’s wise advice in general, Agnieszka. If we can’t say anything nice about someone perhaps we should say nothing at all. That used to be a part of good manners.
Referring to MrsCracker’s comments in toto as an old Quaker – that Friend speaks my mind !
Thank you so much Miss Mary. I believe I have some Quakers in my family tree.
About Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate (mentioned above) and evangelization—whether or not?—Pope Paul VI added clarity in his later “Evangelii Nuntiandi” (Evangelization in the Modern World, 8 Dec. 1975).
Two points, together:
FIRST, “[….] It would certainly be an error to impose something on the consciences of our brethren. But to propose to their consciences the truth of the Gospel and salvation in Jesus Christ, with complete clarity and with total respect for the free options which it presents—‘without coercion, or dishonorable or unworthy pressure’ [Dignitatis Humanae, 4]—far from being an attack on religious liberty is fully to respect that liberty, which is offered the choice of a way that even non-believers consider noble and uplifiting [….]
And,
SECOND, “It would be useful if every Christian and every evangelizer were to pray about the following thought: men can gain salvation also in other ways, by God’s mercy, even though we do not preach the Gospel to them; but as for us, can we gain salvation if through negligence or fear or shame—what St. Paul called ‘blushing for the Gospel’ [cf. Rom 1:16]—or as a result of false ideas we fail to preach it? For that would be to betray the call of God, who wishes the seed to bear fruit through the voice of the ministers of the Gospel; and it will depend on us whether this grows into trees and produces its full fruit. Let us therefore preserve our fervor of spirit [….]” (n. 80).
Matthew Ramage: Furthermore, “Judeo-Christian values” is a political invention, not a faith. Coined in the 19th century, popularized in 1930s–40s America to rally Jews and Protestants against fascism and communism, it became a Washington catchphrase by the 1950s: the “godly West” versus the “godless East.” Politicians loved it, it sanctified capitalism, foreign policy, and wars in one tidy package. After 9/11, it returned to justify a new crusade. After October 7, 2023, it now demands obedience to Israeli policy under the guise of religion.
Christians and Muslims are closer in belief than Christians and Jews. Jesus condemned corruption in Judaism, preached radical love, and denounced temple authorities. The Talmud declares Jesus boiling in excrement in hell. Muslims, by contrast, honor him as a key prophet, mentioned over twenty times in the Quran, while Muhammad appears only five. Tribal loyalty masquerading as theology is false religion.
The Church predates modern Zionism, Washington, and any political alliance. Christ founded a universal kingdom, not a nation-state. St. Paul declared, “In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek.” “Judeo-Christian values” is regression disguised as reverence. Judaism becomes a prop; Christianity is weaponized to sanctify war. Tanks are blessed, sermons become marketing campaigns, Christ is replaced by a political agenda.
Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and Evangelicals are being trained to cheer policies that violate the Gospel. Love of neighbor cannot coexist with celebrating civilian deaths. Holiness cannot be outsourced to political strategy. The first Christians followed a crucified Messiah who told Peter to put away his sword.
Wake up: there are no “Judeo-Christian values,” only the Gospel. Flags, politics, and propaganda are distractions. Faith is not a lobbyist. Truth is not a political alliance. Christ marches under no banner but his own. Stand firm. Pray. Follow him, not propaganda.
Matthew Ramage: Lastly, anti-Zionism is NOT antisemitism. Judaism is a FAITH; Zionism, a state IDEOLOGY. CRITIQUE of Eastern European Ashkenazi Zionist genocidal and racist settler-colonial land theft of Palestine is NOT HATE, it’s a call to justice.
It’s NOT COMPLICATED. Native Palestinians are the HOME OWNERS, while European Ashkenazi Zionists are the HOME INVADERS—ejecting the owners and (mis)using the Bible as a title deed, claiming their ancestors lived there 3,000 years ago.
This is not a CONFLICT; it’s SETTLER-COLONIALISM. Eastern European Zionists stole Palestinian land and (ab)used the Bible as title deed. Palestinian resistance must therefore be understood as an ANTI-COLONIAL STRUGGLE to reclaim stolen land, not TERRORISM.