Catholics can help guard against anti-Judaism during Holy Week, say experts

Status
Not open for further replies.

gpmj12

Active member
Catholics need to help guard against anti-Jewish interpretations of Christ’s passion, particularly during Holy Week and the Paschal Triduum, said experts on Jewish-Catholic relations.

“There is a temptation during Holy Week to start using language like ‘the Pharisees’ and ‘people of Israel’ and others to refer to our Jewish brothers and sisters,” said John Cappucci, principal and vice chancellor of Assumption University in Windsor, Ontario, where he holds the Stephen A. Jarislowsky Chair in Religion and Conflict. “The Church has distanced itself from collectively blaming the Jewish people and holding Jews today responsible for the Crucifixion.”

In 1965 – 20 years after some 6 million European Jews were slaughtered during the Shoah (the preferred Hebrew term for the Holocaust) – St. Paul VI promulgated the Second Vatican Council’s teaching “Nostra Aetate” (“In Our “Time”). With it, the Catholic Church formally denounced “hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone,” while affirming the “spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews.”

“Nostra Aetate” explicitly declared that “what happened in (the) Passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. … The Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God.”

That language marked a seismic shift from centuries of what French historian Jules Isaac had called a “teaching of contempt” toward the Jewish community by numerous Catholic and Christian theologians, who over the centuries denounced Jews as accursed for having rejected and killed Christ.

Yet some six decades after the Second Vatican Council, antisemitism in the U.S. rose in 2022 to what the Anti-Defamation League called “historic levels” – up 36 percent from the year prior, the highest level since the group began tracking incidents in 1979. Similar spikes have been noted globally.

American Catholics largely have favorable or at least neutral opinions of Jews, but 11 percent believe Jews are responsible for Jesus’s crucifixion and 13.3 percent that Jews were “cursed by God” or no longer the Chosen People, according to survey results released March 22 at the Institute for Jewish-Catholic Relations of St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia.

“This notion of ‘blaming the Jews’ for Jesus’s crucifixion is highly offensive and runs against Christian teachings,” said Cappucci, noting that St. John XXIII struck the phrase “perfidious Jews” from the universal prayer of Good Friday.

“We as Christians must remember that Jesus’s death and resurrection were divinely ordained,” Cappucci said. “I remind people that Jesus did not die and stay dead. He was gloriously resurrected triumphing over death – arguably the most important act in Christianity.”

The traditional Good Friday reading of the Passion narrative from John’s Gospel highlights the need to fully educate both clergy and faithful regarding the risks of anti-Jewish interpretation, said Amy-Jill Levine, professor of New Testament and Jewish studies at Hartford International University and co-editor of The Jewish Annotated New Testament, a copy of which she presented to Pope Francis in 2019.

John’s use of the term “the Jews” – in Greek, “Ioudaioi” – occurs 70 times in his Gospel to “generally represent the opponents of Jesus and so of God,” Levine said in a March 31 interview with Christian Century.

Several common homiletic and exegetical approaches to the issue all prove inadequate, said Levine. Simply omitting the difficult verses creates “a choppy reading that lacks continuity,” while “confusing congregants who are following the reading in their Bibles.” It avoids having to wrestle with the texts, said Levine.

Substituting terms such as “Judeans,” “Jewish leaders” or “religious leaders” does not accurately translate the text, and ultimately works to erase Jews from the text while stripping Jesus of his Jewish identity, she said.

“Once the words are in the text, they must be addressed,” she said.

Adam Gregerman, co-director of the Institute for Jewish-Catholic Relations, said references to the Jews in John’s Gospel must be contextualized, as “they reflect tensions between John’s community and other Jews in the late first century, when claims about Jesus’s status sounded to most Jews as if a second God was being announced.”

Levine suggested “placing commentary in the bulletin, adding notes to pew Bibles, and encouraging Bible study” as other means of countering anti-Jewish interpretations of Scripture, while ensuring that “attention to the cross, not the anti-Jewish fallout, (is) at the heart of Good Friday.”

Levine also has proposed changing the lectionary so that Good Friday services “draw from all four canonical Gospels,” or instead use Luke’s Passion narrative, which highlights the “daughters of Jerusalem” (Luke 23:27-31) and forgiveness.

The duty to guard against anti-Judaism in Catholic interpretation of Scripture is “not only for Holy Week or Good Friday, but really throughout the year,” said Philip Cunningham, also co-director of the Institute for Jewish-Catholic Relations. “The consistent positive affirmation of Jesus’s Jewish identity would do much to defang the unfortunate potential of reading or hearing the passion narratives without proper guidance.”


 
That article is rather broad and it generalizes Catholic theology and Catholics as having a tendency to be anti-Jewish.

One can argue that anti-Jewish interpretations of Scripture have existed, but unfortunately their efforts to combat this have resulted in inaccurate and quite frankly, poor interpretations about Jesus’s death and how it relates to the Old covenant and the New Covenant.
 
Can you give an example of an inaccurate/poor interpretation? If you are speaking of the teaching that we aren’t to convert the Jews, I personally see that as a right and proper antidote to prejudice that rose from both simplistic and also malevolent interpretations of Scripture through history.
 
Can you give an example of an inaccurate/poor interpretation? If you are speaking of the teaching that we aren’t to convert the Jews, I personally see that as a right and proper antidote to prejudice that rose from both simplistic and also malevolent interpretations of Scripture through history.
Sorry for the delayed response, I don’t frequent the forums very often.

Well, in your response you acknowledged that the teaching that states we are not to convert Jewish faithful stems from a response to the antisemitism that has existed throughout the centuries. I don’t believe this view adequately addresses the issues at hand. It is an overcorrection meant to foster good relations with the Jewish faithful, but, what does that actually affirm? Those who believe in Jesus Christ and hold this view can’t outright deny that a faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation, so instead they find a workaround.

They take the teaching that Jews don’t need conversion and read that back into Scripture. So, what we get is the misunderstanding that God never revoked His covenant with the Jews, therefore we now have a two-covenant system; one for the Jews and Gentiles who wish to follow Jesus and one for the Jews who don’t. This is scripturally inaccurate.

When read in context, we find that in Jesus’ time, the Jewish hierarchy had gone astray. Caiaphas wasn’t even Jewish himself, he certainly wasn’t from the tribe of Levi, and yet because of their pact with Rome, he was appointed as High Priest by Caesar himself. Up to this point, Israel, not necessarily every individual Jew, was facing judgement because of their idolatry and disobedience with regards to upholding the covenant. Jesus was coming to save them, all of them, despite their actions. That was the main message of the gospel. God could’ve condemned them, but instead He sends His Son to save them from their sins, something the law couldn’t do.

However, they crucify Jesus, which seals their fate, and the entire old covenant system is wiped out, including the Jewish hierarchy. So, yes, God didn’t revoke His promise to the Jewish faithful, He gave them a New Covenant, by which they, along with the Gentiles, could be saved from their sins and receive the gift of salvation. Telling Jews today that they don’t need to believe in Jesus is the same thing that the Jewish hierarchy was telling the Jewish faithful of their day, right before they killed their Messiah and then faced judgment in AD 70 when Rome destroyed Jerusalem.

Why would we want to send that same message?
 
Last edited:
Here is an excellent article from Jeffrey Mirus of Catholic Culture, whom I know personally, though it’s been years since I last saw Dr Mirus. The covenant is fulfilled in Christ, and the Jews need to accept Him as Savior and Messiah. Simple as that. No contradiction.

 
Well, in your response you acknowledged that the teaching that states we are not to convert Jewish faithful stems from a response to the antisemitism that has existed throughout the centuries. I don’t believe this view adequately addresses the issues at hand. It is an overcorrection meant to foster good relations with the Jewish faithful, but, what does that actually affirm? Those who believe in Jesus Christ and hold this view can’t outright deny that a faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation, so instead they find a workaround.
Benedict XVI prefaces his treatise here…

“We realize today with horror how many misunderstandings with grave consequences have weighed down our history,” … “the beginnings of a correct understanding have always been there, waiting to be rediscovered, however deep the shadows.” (Jesus of Nazareth - Holy Week. 2011)
They take the teaching that Jews don’t need conversion and read that back into Scripture. So, what we get is the misunderstanding that God never revoked His covenant with the Jews, therefore we now have a two-covenant system; one for the Jews and Gentiles who wish to follow Jesus and one for the Jews who don’t. This is scripturally inaccurate.
We are talking about Paul to Romans 11 here. The Church though isn’t saying that there are two Covenants through which people can be saved. Here is what Benedict XVI says…

“Israel is in the hands of God, who will save it ‘as a whole’ at the proper time, when the number of Gentiles is full.”

BXVI quotes Cistercian abbess and Biblical writer Hildegard Brem: “The church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews, since she must wait for the time fixed for this by God.”

At some point Jesus will bring the Jews into full communion in the last days. If anti Semitism wins ie holocausts and suppressions of any sort, Christianity will be inevitably distorted.
When read in context, we find that in Jesus’ time, the Jewish hierarchy had gone astray. Caiaphas wasn’t even Jewish himself, he certainly wasn’t from the tribe of Levi, and yet because of their pact with Rome, he was appointed as High Priest by Caesar himself. Up to this point, Israel, not necessarily every individual Jew, was facing judgement because of their idolatry and disobedience with regards to upholding the covenant. Jesus was coming to save them, all of them, despite their actions. That was the main message of the gospel. God could’ve condemned them, but instead He sends His Son to save them from their sins, something the law couldn’t do.
We know that Jewish leaders waywardness was not the reason God sent His Son to dwell among us, because His plan was for the salvation of all. (1 Tim 2:3-4) The Pope isn’t advocating for “telling Jews today that they don’t need to believe in Jesus” but rather rejecting a specific attitude, that despite it sounding healthy, has been a long time portal for the evil of anti semitism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top