 |
Consequences of Vatican II
Main Excerpts of
The Deicide and the Council
Fr. Juan Carlos Ceriani
With the aim of extending ecumenism to all religions, including Judaism, Vatican Council II rejected the tradition of the Church. To do so, it falsified Scripture. Regarding the Jews, this falsification was made in three points: the alliance, the deicide and the so-called anti-Semitism.
For the reader to understand what was done, we will first set out some distinctions about the Jewish people. “Israel” has two meanings:
Talmudic Jews who reject Christ, not to be confused with the spiritual Israel |
- First, there is the spiritual Israel, the people of God in the Old Testament until the time of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Its mission was to prepare for the coming of the Messiah, in whom it would find its apex of perfection. The only legitimate and exclusive continuation of this Israel and its sacred mission is the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ.
- Second, there is the carnal Israel which interpreted the promise of God and the notion of the Messiah Himself as a temporal victory, and thus rejected the first coming of Our Lord. This Israel includes, on one hand, the Jewish people who came after Christ and are called with a special preference to be converted and baptized. … On the other hand, there is Talmudic Judaism, the religion of the present day Jews, which rejected the Messiah, committed deicide and persecutes the Church …
The Catholic Church loves the spiritual Israel since she is its heir; she also loves the carnal Israel and calls it to conversion. At the same time, she defends herself against the pretensions, hatred and persecutions of Talmudic Judaism.
The Council wanted to reconcile the Church with Talmudic Judaism at any cost. To reach its goal, it disguised such reconciliation by confusing the spiritual and carnal Israel, that is, it did not differentiate the Jewish people open to conversion from the pharisaic and Talmudic Judaism. It identified the former with the latter, attributing to Talmudic Judaism the spiritual goods of the elect people, the spiritual Israel, which were inherited by the Catholic Church.
Thus the Council supposedly seeked unity with Judaism on a common religious ground, which, however, does not exist because of the apostasy of Judaism. Hence, it denied, covered and condemned everything that opposed this pretended religious common base.
JP II in the Rome synagogue embracing rabbi Toaff |
When John Paul II visited the Rome synagogue on April 13, 1986, he reaffirmed the Council’s teaching. The three points of Nostra aetate he highlighted show the falsification of Revelation and the abandonment of Tradition regarding the alliance, the deicide and anti-Semitism.
Indeed, he affirmed: “The Jewish religion is not extrinsic to us, but in a certain way intrinsic to our own religion. Therefore, you are our preferred brothers, and, we may say, our elder brothers.”
Further he said: “One cannot attribute to the Jews as a people any hereditary or collective guilt for what took place in the Passion of Jesus. … So any alleged theological justification for discriminatory measures or, worse still, for acts of persecution is unfounded.”
Further on, he drew the final consequences of this: “It is not licit to say that the Jews are reprobates or cursed,” but rather one should say, according to St. Paul “that the Jews remain dear to God, Who called them to an irrevocable vocation.”
The scandal of the Cross
What spoils this beautiful creation of Vatican II is the Cross. The inopportune, embarrassing Cross of Christ, scandal to the Jews! The Council did its best to annul the crucifixion of Jesus. In its eagerness for Judaic friendship, it tried to declare Judaism innocent of any crime. It forbade to say that the Jews were guilty of deicide. The 1964 definitive text of the Nostra aetate did not use this word. However, the fact remains that because of the hypostatic union, the One who was crucified in His human nature is a Divine Person. Therefore, the deicide was committed.
The Jewish mob rejecting Christ |
So it was necessary for the Council to say that the Jews did not commit this crime. To reach this goal, the Council took three steps: It stated, first, that only some Jews were at Golgotha; second, that they were not perfectly conscious of what was happening; third, that it is our sins, the sins of all men and not the Jews which caused the death of Christ. This is an incredible falsification!
Here is what the Council said: “Even though the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ, nonetheless, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews of that time without distinction, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as reprobates or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.” (Nostra aetate, 4)
Here is what John Paul II said: “It is not possible to attribute to the Jews as a people any hereditary or collective guilt for what happened in the passion of Jesus. … neither without distinction to the Jews of that time nor to today’s Jews.”
It is obvious that it is not possible to attribute guilt to all Jews without distinction, but why didn’t the Council and the Pope make the necessary distinctions and then pointed out which Jews are guilty? …
For the Council and John Paul II, however, today’s Jews are guilty of nothing. We will see that this doctrine cannot be sustained.
Sacred Scripture & the Jews
Sacred Scripture affirms quite clearly the hardness of all those people who remained in solidarity with the authorities who condemned Jesus and the mob who applauded His death. Far from repenting, the Jews of that time - and all those Jews who did not convert - have upheld that episode insofar as they have knowledge of it. This is another distinction that the Council and John Paul II did not make. …
Sacred Scripture tells us:
“Therefore, when the chief priests and officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, crucify Him, crucify Him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye Him, and crucify Him: for I find no fault in Him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law He ought to die, because He made himself the Son of God.” (Jn 19: 6-7).
“And when they had bound Him, they led Him away, and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor. Then Judas, which had betrayed Him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Pilate washes his hands, passing the guilt of Christ's death to the Jews |
“And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. wherefore that field was called, the field of blood, unto this day.
“Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.
“And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked Him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest it. And when He was accused of the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto Him, Hearest Thou not how many things they witness against Thee? And He answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.
“Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? For he knew that for envy they had delivered him. When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of Him.
“But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas. Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let Him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath He done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let Him be crucified.
“When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. Then he released Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.” (Mt 27: 2-26; see also Luke 22: 20-25; John 19: 14-16; Act 2: 22-23, 36)
Ignorance does not excuse the Jews from the guilt of deicide. This objection was clearly answered by St. Thomas 700 years ago (Summa theologiae, III, q. 47, a. 5, ad 3).
Degrees of participation in the deicide
The Jews committed deicide, but which Jews and in what proportion? To answer this one must look at the relationship of the Jewish people with the condemnation of Jesus, and their presence at that scene. As far as presence is concerned, the responsibility lies with the high priests as the moral instigators of the crime and the people who followed the iniquity of their leaders (Jn 18:35; 19:15; Mt 27:25)
These Scripture texts show not only the adhesion of the people of Israel who were present at the Passion calling for Christ’s crucifixion to fall on their heads, but also upon those in solidarity with them who were not there and those to come after those events.
The Church and the synagogue, blindfolded in its pride with its broken staff |
Between them there is a moral continuity - voluntarily assumed - whose point of union is the Law of Moses [interpreted according to the Talmud]: “We have a law, and by our law He ought to die.” …
To escape this accusation, the Jews must renounce that interpretation of the Law and repudiate their fathers’ condemnation of Jesus. All the Jews who still follow that law by virtue of which Christ was condemned as a blasphemer, are in some way voluntary participants in the deicide, although the proportion of guilt varies according to each one’s knowledge and consent. …
Just as the blessing and glory are due the Jewish people who continued to be faithful to the promise and became Catholics, so the curse and condemnation apply to those who continued to profess the perfidy of their fathers. …
The Council, however, concluded: “The Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. “ (NA, 4)
The Church has always taught that every man is called to convert and enter her bosom by baptism, so in this sense no one is absolutely cursed or rejected on this earth. But what the Council wrongly suggested is that official Judaism, the Synagogue, which committed the crime of deicide by condemning to death its Messiah and God and persisted in this perfidy through the centuries, should not be the object of reproof and malediction.
This is to confuse the terms and to lie.
Those Jews, who, by their faith in the promise, recognize Christ as Messiah, continue to be heirs of Abraham and the true people of God. But those unfortunate prevaricators who positively and obstinately reject Him, as their fathers did, are not the people of God so long as they continue in their infidelity. Hence they are reprobates and cursed, which does not imply that they will be so forever.
This article was first posted in the Argentine blog
Radio Cristiandad
Posted March 28, 2011
Related Topics of Interest
Awakening from a False Obedience
Benedict’s New Book Contradicts Church Teaching on Jews
Is the Catholic Church Becoming a Branch of the Synagogue?
Benedict XVI Visits the Cologne Synagogue
Visiting the New York Synagogue
Benedict Venerating Jewish Books
The Visit to the Cologne Synagogue
A Rabbi Who Rejects Christ Lectures the Church of Christ
Conversions? From Now on, Prohibited...
  
|
Vatican II | Hot Topics | Home | Books | CDs | Search | Contact Us | Donate
© 2002-
Tradition in Action, Inc. All Rights Reserved
|
|
|
