In fact, by then there were hardly any publications focusing specifically on the preparation process of Nostra Aetate. Now, over a decade after Fr. In the volume containing the proceedings of the international conference held in Jerusalem in late October and early November , published in , there are four contributions, apart from the aforementioned article by Fr.
Stansky, that attempt at shedding new light on the origins of Nostra Aetate. The most extensive and thorough study, however, is a lengthy article by Mathijs Lamberigts and Leo Declerck, [8] published in the series of Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs in volume 40, edited by Marianne Moyaert and Didier Pollefeyt. It is very well structured and helps to understand the various dynamics active behind the scenes of the Council when the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity was working on the preparation of the document on Jews.
When it comes to the Jewish involvement and role in the preparatory stages of the work on Nostra Aetate, apart from the aforementioned article on Jules Isaac, there are several interesting publications on the engagement or disengagement of Rabbis A.
Heschel and J. Soloveitchik in the work of Vatican II. The earliest one, penned by Reuven Kimelman, was published in and was dedicated to both figures. The most recent contribution, [12] a personal text by Susannah Heschel regarding A.
One may notice that in the publications focusing on the origins of Nostra Aetate Jewish contributions are mentioned. Heschel, but usually the main interest of the authors is drawn to inter-Vatican political and theological complexities as well as external tensions, mainly of political nature, such as the opposition of the Arab countries etc. Even if in the preconciliar consilia et vota [13] solicited in there was no mention of the Jewish question and one could have an impression that it is not the will nor interest of the Church to work on a theological clarification of Catholic-Jewish relations and the issue of anti-Semitism, there was a silent work done in this field even before Pope John XXIII established the Secretariatus ad christianorum unitatem fovendam [14] SCUF and gave it the mandate to work also in the field of Catholic-Jewish relations.
This period, called here the prehistory of Nostra Aetate, [15] will be shortly described below. Catholic-Jewish or Christian-Jewish relations were not in a good condition for almost two thousand years and, undoubtedly, the Holocaust was a peak of all the anti-Jewish superventions in the history of the world. In light of that, it might seem very surprising that there was almost no reaction and self-reflection regarding anti-Semitism within the Church.
Taking that into account, one may not be astonished that the mere fact that the Jewish question became one of the responsibilities of the SCUF, reflecting to some extent the ambiguous attitude of the Church towards the Jewish people, was a source of concern for many Jews who feared Catholic attempts at conversion. One of them, an early reaction to the tragedy of the Shoah, was the interreligious ecumenical on Christian side Seelisberg Conference in , where German Catholic bishops were present as well.
Its outcome — the document known as the Ten Points of Seelisberg — proved to be one of the cornerstones of the later conciliar work on the document describing the Catholic view on the Jews. One of the conference's participants was a French Holocaust survivor, Jules Isaac, who would later play a very significant role in convincing the pope to include the Jewish question into the conciliar area of interest.
He used that opportunity to hand him the Ten Points of Seelisberg but there was no possibility of a longer conversation. The dynamics on the Catholic side were unfolding slowly, which is a very interesting subject in itself, but unfortunately not researched extensively. On the other hand, there was also a small group of scholars who wanted to clarify the relation between the Church and Jews from a theological standpoint. One particularly curious phenomenon on the Catholic side was also the activity of the congregation of the Sisters of Sion who played a significant yet silent role in the dialogue with Judaism.
Established in by two Jewish brothers, Marie-Theodore and Marie-Alphonse Ratisbonne, who converted to Catholicism, the congregation was to raise poor young Jewish girls and help them become Christian, which judged according with the contemporary view of Christian-Jewish relations might seem a dubious goal.
Nevertheless, it was not the only objective, as Emma Green writes:. While conversion was certainly part of their overall mission in the Church, in their schools and orphanages, they sought to create a safe spiritual home for all children and a place of welcome for Jewish women.
One may say that given the supersessionist convictions of the Church in those days, Sisters of Sion did what was possible on the way to salvation and reconciliation by creating a safe haven for Jewish underprivileged youth. In the s the congregation, having acknowledged the need for a reformulation of its call, issued documents weakening its stand on the conversion of Jews and highlighting the question of creating bonds of friendship with the Jewish people.
In those wishes, as Fr. Stransky recalls, there was scarcely any concern raised about the Jewish-Christian relations. Thus, things had already started to change, though they were not to take full shape until six years later. Undoubtedly, that meeting became a trigger for the long chain of events that finally led to the promulgation of Nostra Aetate. The mission to examine the Jewish question, together with the materials submitted by Isaac, was entrusted to Cardinal Bea and his Secretariat.
Its members were informed about that enlargement of their responsibilities on the first meeting, held in mid November Goldman was probably also meant to be a Jewish observer to the Council. The issue of the Jewish representation at the Council gave rise to a disagreement in which two main standpoints are discernable.
Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel argued that the dialogue with the Catholic Church is necessary and inevitable, while Rabbi Joseph Ber Soloveitchik was against Jewish-Christian theological-religious dialogue, including Jewish presence at the Council which he viewed as a purely religious event, with the exception of the dialogue on completely secular, societal issues. Before the opening of the Council, Cardinal Bea met not only with Goldman but also with many other significant Jewish figures.
An organization that was particularly active in forming relations with the Vatican was the American Jewish Committee which was granted a privilege of having a series of audiences and discussions with Cardinal Bea regarding the document De Iudaeis.
As a result of the first audience, which took place in July , Cardinal Bea requested a memorandum on anti-Jewish elements in Catholic religious instruction to be prepared and sent to him by the organization. In fact, in response to this desire, the AJC prepared and sent two memoranda in the summer and fall of [37] : The Image of the Jew in Catholic Teaching [38] and Anti- Jewish Elements in Catholic Liturgy [39] which were later followed also by a memorandum prepared by Heschel and titled On Improving Catholic-Jewish Relations [40].
After sending the memoranda, the AJC decided to reinforce their position by arranging a personal meeting between Cardinal Bea and the AJC representatives. Herkheimer from Frankfurt, were sent to Rome, [43] in order to present some positive suggestions for the improvement of Catholic-Jewish relations. As a result, a document containing them was submitted in May [45] followed by the third memorandum, crafted by Heschel in cooperation with AJC's Interreligious Affairs Department.
Meanwhile, Cardinal Bea and his Secretariat worked on the materials that had been gradually provided. Apparently, in the Middle-East, religion and politics were so closely interconnected that it seemed impossible for Arab politicians that the declaration on Jews would not at the same time constitute a declaration of political support towards the newly established state of Israel. Throughout the whole process of drafting the document concerning the Jewish question , this point of view and constant protests from Arab political leaders and bishops from the Middle East resulting from them, were a serious challenge for the SCUF and a threat to the promulgation of such a document.
Apart from that, it created many tensions between the SCUF and the Secretariat of the State of Vatican which was responsible for foreign affairs. As if the political situation was not delicate enough, a serious faux pas on the Jewish side occurred in June , a few months before the opening of the first session of the Council. In view of predicted political repercussions, the Secretary of the State, Cardinal Cicognani, decided to withdraw De Iudaeis from the agenda of the Central Preparatory Commission [51] and Vardi ended up as an observer with a position equal to journalists and no official recognition from the Holy See.
The second session of the Council took place a year later, starting on September 29 th , and the year of the first conciliar intersession witnessed many changes -- the most significant of them being undoubtedly the death of John XXIII.
The pope beloved by many, passed away in June and was succeeded by Paul VI who was feared to be more moderate in his views on Catholic-Jewish relations. In the intersession time, in March , Cardinal Bea undertook a journey to the United States in order to present and promote his agenda. Heschel presided over this meeting. During the second session, on November 8 th , , a document entitled De Catholicorum habitudine ad non christianos et maxime ad Judaeos Text B was distributed as a part of chapter 4 of De Oecumenismo.
The text was brief and highlighted topics which were previously discussed during the meeting held by Bea with Jewish leaders: the unique place of Judaism among other religions, Jewish roots of Christianity and Jewishness of the Virgin Mary and Apostles. Moreover, it rejected the Jewish responsibility for deicide and the view that they are cursed by God. Even though Cardinal Bea said repeatedly that the approach of the text is purely religious, [57] bishops coming from the Middle East saw the text as inopportune and threatening for the situation of the Christian minority in the Arab countries.
Nevertheless, the Conciliar Fathers had the opportunity to submit their written remarks concerning chapter 4 and chapter 5 that were not discussed. ISBN Edited by Philip A. Cunningham, Norbert J. Hofmann, S. These collections are the products of conferences held to observe the fortieth anniversary in of the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on NonChristian Religions, Nostra Aetate, specifically its fourth section on the Church's understanding of Jews and Judaism. Both volumes include Jewish and Catholic authors.
Both have significance for historians not only of the Council but also of subsequent Jewish-Catholic relations up to the present. Continue with Facebook. Sign up with Google. Log in with Microsoft. Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library. Sign Up Log In. Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. A short summary of this paper. Download Download PDF. Translate PDF. This paper will concentrate on the origins of this famous document but specifically on the Jewish contributions to this process. It remains a very interesting phenomena per se because no other non-Christian faith adherents had such an impact on official Church documents and teaching.
It was particularly meaningful in shaping and developing Catholic-Jewish dialogue and reflecting on past attitudes of the Catholic Church towards Jewish people. In spite of the fact that the document was widely known and often was a subject of scholarly publications, in the opinion of Fr. Now, over a decade after Fr. Lamdan, A. II May - August , pp. Stansky, that attempt at shedding new light on the origins of Nostra Aetate.
The most extensive and thorough study, however, is a lengthy article by Mathijs Lamberigts and Leo Declerck,8 published in the series of Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs in volume 40, edited by Marianne Moyaert and Didier Pollefeyt.
It is very well structured and helps to understand different dynamics active behind the scenes of the Council when the SPCU was working on the preparation of the document on Jews. When it comes to the latter, Jewish involvement and role in the preparatory stages of the work on Nostra Aetate, apart from the aforementioned article on Jules Isaac, there are few interesting publications on the engagement or disengagement of Rabbis A.
Heschel and J. Soloveitchik in the work of the Vatican II. The earliest one, penned by Reuven Kimelman, was published in and was dedicated to both. A Historical Survey, [in:] M. Moyaert, D. Pollefeyt [ed. Soloveitchik and Abraham Joshua Heschel on Jewish. Christian Relations, Mode Judais , Vol.
The most recent contribution,12 a personal text regarding A. One may notice that in the publications focusing on the origins of Nostra Aetate Jewish contributions are mentioned. Heschel but usually the main interest of the authors is drawn to inter-Vatican political and theological complexities as well as external tensions, mainly of political nature, such as the opposition from Arab countries etc.
Rosenthal ed. See Stransky, p. This period, called here the prehistory of Nostra Aetate,14 will be shortly described below. Catholic-Jewish or Christian-Jewish relations were not in good condition for almost two thousand years and, undoubtedly, the Holocaust was a peak of all the anti-Jewish superventions in the history of the world. In light of that, it might seem very surprising that there was almost no reaction and self-reflection regarding anti-Semitism within the Church. Taking that into consideration, one may not be astonished that the mere fact that the Jewish question became one of the responsibilities of the SCUF, reflecting somehow ambiguous attitude of the Church towards the Jewish people, was a source of concern for many Jews who feared Catholic attempts of conversion.
One of them, an early reaction to the tragedy of Shoah, was the interreligious ecumenical on Christian side Seelisberg Conference in where also Catholic German bishops were present. Its outcome — the document known as the Ten Points of Seelisberg — proved to be one of the cornerstones in later conciliar work on the document describing Catholic view on the Jews.
One of the participants was a French Holocaust survivor, Jules Isaac, who will later play a very significant role in convincing the pope to include the Jewish question into the conciliar area of interest. He used that opportunity to hand him the Ten Points of Seelisberg but there was no possibility of a longer conversation. The dynamics on Catholic side were unfolding slowly, which is a very interesting subject on its own, but unfortunately not researched extensively.
On the other hand, there was also a small group of scholars who wanted to clarify the relation between the Church and Jews from a theological standpoint. Established in by two Jewish brothers Marie-Theodore and Marie-Alphonse Ratisbonne who converted to Catholicism, the congregation was to raise poor young Jewish 19 Stransky, p. While conversion was certainly part of their overall mission in the Church, in their schools and orphanages, they sought to create a safe spiritual home for all children and a place of welcome for Jewish women.
In the s the congregation, having seen the need of a reformulation of its call, issued documents weakening its stand on the conversion of the Jews and highlighting the question of creating bonds of friendship with the Jewish people. In those wishes, as Fr. Stransky recalls, there was scarcely any concern raised about the Jewish-Christian relations. A change already started though it was not to become flesh until six years later.
Undoubtedly, that meeting became a trigger to the long chain of events that finally led to the promulgation of Nostra Aetate. The mission to examine the Jewish question, together with the materials submitted by Isaac, was entrusted to Cardinal Bea and his Secretariat. Its members were informed about that enlargement of their responsibilities on the first meeting, held in the mid-November Probably Goldman was also meant to be a Jewish observer to the Council.
Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel argued that the dialogue with the Catholic Church is necessary and inevitable, while Rabbi Joseph Ber Soloveitchik was against Jewish-Christian theological-religious dialogue, including Jewish presence at the Council as purely religious event, with the exception of the dialogue on completely secular, societal issues.
0コメント