Posted on 05/13/2002 7:11:13 PM PDT by 1 spark
VATICAN CITY, Jan. 17 — The Vatican has issued what some Jewish scholars are calling an important document that explicitly says, "The Jewish wait for the Messiah is not in vain."
The scholarly work, effectively a rejection of and apology for the way some Christians have viewed the Old Testament, was signed by the pope's theologian, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
The document says Jews and Christians in fact share the wait for the Messiah, though Jews are waiting for the first coming, and Christians for the second.
"The difference consists in the fact that for us, he who will come will have the same traits of that Jesus who has already come," wrote Cardinal Ratzinger, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
At least one Jewish scholar said the new document is a marked departure from "Dominus Iesus," a study of the redemptive role of Jesus that was released last year in Cardinal Ratzinger's name and that fanned disputes between Catholic and Jewish scholars.
The new document also says Catholics must regard the Old Testament as "retaining all of its value, not just as literature, but its moral value," said Joaquín Navarro-Valls, the pope's spokesman. "You cannot say, `Now that Jesus has come, it becomes a second-rate document.' "
"The expectancy of the Messiah was in the Old Testament," he went on, "and if the Old Testament keeps its value, then it keeps that as a value, too. It says you cannot just say all the Jews are wrong and we are right."
Asked whether that could be taken to mean that the Messiah may or may not have come, Dr. Navarro- Valls said no. "It means it would be wrong for a Catholic to wait for the Messiah, but not for a Jew," he said.
The document, the result of years of work by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, goes on to apologize for the fact that certain New Testament passages that criticize the Pharisees, for example, had been used to justify anti-Semitism.
Everything in the report is now considered part of official church doctrine, Dr. Navarro-Valls said.
The Rev. Albert Vanhoye, a Jesuit scholar who worked on the commission, said the project sees Scripture as a link between Christians and Jews, and the New Testament as a continuation of the Old, though divergent in obvious ways.
A number of Jewish scholars and leaders said they were pleased but stunned and would have to take some time to digest fully the complicated, 210-page study, published in French and Italian.
"This is something altogether new, especially compared with the earlier document from Ratzinger that was so controversial," said Rabbi Alberto Piattelli, a professor and leader of the Jewish community in Rome.
"This latest declaration is a step forward" in closing the wounds opened by that earlier document, Rabbi Piattelli said. "It recognizes the value of the Jewish position regarding the wait for the Messiah, changes the whole exegesis of biblical studies and restores our biblical passages to their original meaning. I was surprised."
Prof. Michael R. Marrus, dean of graduate studies at the University of Toronto, who specializes in the history of the Holocaust, was also complimentary. Professor Marrus was among the Jewish members of a panel studying the Vatican's role in the Holocaust, but the group was disbanded after disputes between Catholic and Jewish scholars.
"This is important," he said, "and all the more so because it comes from Cardinal Ratzinger, who is not considered the most liberal spokesman for the church. It represents real and remarkable progress on the Catholic-Jewish front," even as the dispute over the Catholic Church's wartime history seems to be hardening, he added.
At least initially, the only voices of dissent were on the Catholic side, where some traditionalists said they felt the church under Pope John Paul II had done altogether too much apologizing already.
Vittorio Messori, a Catholic writer and commentator, said he respects the pope but "his apologies leave me perplexed."
"He's inspired and has his reasons," Mr. Messori said, "but what's dangerous in these apologies is that he seems to say the church itself has been wrong in its teaching," rather than just some within the church.
The oddest thing about the document from the Jewish perspective is that it was so quietly released. It has been in bookstores here since November, but as a small book titled "The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible," it drew no notice until the Italian news agency ANSA printed a small report on it Wednesday.
Tullia Zevi, a longtime Jewish community leader and commentator here, said: "The widespread opinion on the document is that it's trying to question the validity of past attitudes of the church, and seems an attempt to move us closer to together. So why was such an important document kept secret?"
One possibility, she said, was that the church was trying to avoid criticism within its own ranks.
Vatican officials, however, say it was not announced because it was seen mainly as a theological study intended for other theologians.
The Vatican is governed by tradition and habit, and is thus quite able to keep silent about even important new policies. In December, for example, word emerged without fanfare of new rules on the treatment of priests accused of pedophilia.
Andrea Riccardi, the founder of the Sant'Egidio Community, a left- leaning Catholic group with a history of mediating international conflicts and promoting religious dialogue, said he was most impressed by the depth of the new document.
"This should be reassuring" to Jews, he said, "especially because these last years have not been easy."
He said the document in no way backtracks from "Dominus Iesus" ("The Lord Jesus"), but does represent a significant shift.
"In the past, we've talked about an ancient, common heritage," he said. "But now, for the first time, we're talking about our future waiting for the Messiah and the end of time."
Waiting together?
"No," Mr. Riccardi said. "But waiting close to each other."
And, how do i post in RELIGION instead of General Interest? The format wouldn't behave.
maybe . . .
But not the same temperment
St. Luke tells us in his Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles all the references from the Old Testament that came true through the life and death of our Savior, Jesus Christ.
Re-read these two books and check out the fulfillments of these Old Testament prophecies!
Has ANY RABBI, in the HISTORY of the WORLD APOLOGISED for the HATE LITERATURE ABOUT OUR SAVIOUR AND HIS MOTHER THAT CONSTITUTED PARTS OF THE TALMUD?
I still don't know how it is possible to "apologise" for the errors commited by those LONG DEAD. I am too dull to grasp how that is done.
Well, at least the Jews, apparently , are pleased, and, after all, isn't that what is important - that they "approve" of Catholic Theological Texts?
Joaquin Navarro-Valls, Vatican spokesman. Navarro is most likely a converso-Jewish name. I wonder if he has a clue, most don't.
I am going to have to consume MASSIVE AMOUNTS of wine, marijuana and cocaine before THAT statement even begins to make sense.
What has happened to the mandate to TEACH ALL NATIONS? Hello, Rome..is there anybody still there?
These same guys CONTINUE to petition the Vatican for permission to go on a witch hunt in Catholic Archives. They are intent on proving evil. I'd tell them to go to hell...
Look, when are we going to grow-up and tell our enemies to take a hike? We wish no man evil but at the same time we HAVE to Defend the Deposit of Faith and that means telling EVERYONE THAT JESUS IS THE MESSIAH. JEWS ESPECIALLY. THE TRUTH IS NOT SERVED BY ANFRACTUOUS SOPHISTRIES THAT TRY TO PLEASE BOTH PARTIES.
O.K. I am done ranting. I'm gonna go get drunk.....
While I don't care for the tone of your post (no offense intended), I heartily agree with your thoughts on apologizing for the wrongs of others and am quite bewildered as to what, other than prostration before the court of public opinion, it accomplishes.
It used to bug the heck out of me when such a flawed individual as our former Commander in Chief would jet around apologizing for the failings of those in the past, his own failings dangling in front of him for everyone to see. I hope someone can enlighten me on just what is (truly) gained by such posturing.
Remember, now, you are permitted to "wait" for the Messiah -- you weren't given permission to "receive" him. Rome is so masterful with its choice of words -----
SD
I think we Jews have been punished enough by y'all for this, don't you?
It is worth noting further that it was the Romans who executed Jesus, not the Jews.
Additionally, for it to be "deicide", God would have to die. Jews of course do not accept that Jesus was God in the first place, so from our perspective his death could not be deicide. And the very idea of God dying is fraught with existential difficulties.
Has ANY RABBI, in the HISTORY of the WORLD APOLOGISED for the HATE LITERATURE ABOUT OUR SAVIOUR AND HIS MOTHER THAT CONSTITUTED PARTS OF THE TALMUD?
Well, at least you don't call it "blasphemy". There are parts of the Talmud that are critical of Jesus and Mary. Does this surprise you? It repeats rumors about them that were extant during the first centuries of the Christian movement (look up Origen's Contra Celsus). Certainly it is no worse in content, and far less in sheer volume, than the anti-Jewish writings of the church, from the gospel of John to the writings of the church fathers (John Chrysostom, notably).
It is hysterical fulminations such as yours which lead to popes having to apologize for the behavior of Catholics.
God desires Happiness for all His creatures. AS we haven't seen or read the Document, we don't really know what is in it. But, after the Catechism #840, I think we can expect an explication that wouldn't square with the notations in my Douay Rheims nor the thoughts of Justin the Martyr who wrote the "oldest extant Christian apology against Judaism," and included in "The Faith of the Early Fathers" by William A. Jurgens.
I must be impenetrably thick on this because I can't see how St. Justin was wrong when he wrote to Trypho, the Jew, "I have read, Trypho, that there will be a final law, and a covenant th emost authoritative of all, which must be observed by all men who seek after the inheritance of God. That law on Horeb is old, and was only for you; but this is for all in general. A law set down after another law abrogates that which ws before it, and a covenant made later likewise voids that which was made earlier. An eternal and final law, the Christ, is given to us, a faithful covenant after which there shall be no law, no precept, no commandment..."
Trent says that one may not disagree with the exegesis of the Church Fathers. Now, I am not saying this does. What I AM saying is I do not see how it doesn't. Is it TOO much to expect that an EXPLANATION IS NEEDED. It is impossible to imagine that Card Ratzinger didn't anticipate this wouldn't make it into the news, eventually.
You don't sound very confident that a thorough search of the Vatican archives would turn up clean.
Jesus is not the messiah, BTW.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.