Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.


Previous discussions about this encyclopedia entry are archived here:

Contents

[edit] Unitarians

For those of us who are Unitarian-Universalists, it seems like a big omission not to mention UU views on the subject. JeMa 20:16, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Please put it in! Also, maybe someone out there is qualified to put in Franz Rosenzweig's relevant views? Slrubenstein

[edit] Love Your Neighbor as Yourself

Whose idea was it to insert the statement [Note, Bertrand Russell was a self-described philosophical agnostic and a practical atheist. Of concern to Christians is the Jewish definition of "neighbor" in the context of the "Golden Rule."] into the excerpt from R' Gordis' essay? The only way I can fathom such an insertion is that whoever made it is a covert antisemite or else someone who made this "enlightened observation" without bothering to spend the time learning what the Jewish definition of "neighbor" is in that context. (Leviticus 19:18) First, the word is mistranslated as "neighbor", it actually means "companion" or more loosely, "fellow traveller", and is parallelled 16 verses later, in Leviticus 19:34, with respect to Converts to Judaism. It has, in verse 18, always been understood as "fellow human", and therefore, as an admonition to love everyone, in the words of the Alter of Slobodka: The commandment is to love others kamokha as you love yourself. Just as you love yourself instinctively, without looking for reasons, so you should love others, even without reasons (Quoted from the Stone Edition Chumash, p. 662-3) R' Avraham Yehoshua Heschel of Kopitchinitz is said there to have made essentially the same observation. This is not, however, a unique-to-the-Litvaks, nor "newfangled" interpretation. To quote further back, (from the same source) Nachmanides explains that it is impossible for all but the saintliest people to feel literally the same love for others that they feel for themselves. ... It is human nature to say that we wish others well, but we want less for them than for ourselves. The Torah says no. A Jew can and should condition himself to want others to have the fullest degree of success he wants for himself. Rashi and Sifra record that R' Akiva said that this commandment is the fundamental rule of the Torah, (note: Jesus accords it second rank, and a fundamental philosophical difference between Christianity and Judaism is obviated by that fact...). Further back, this same concept is found in the Talmud, its application being attributed to a variety of rules concerning things from capital punishment to marital relations, and Hillel paraphrased it as "What is hateful to you, do not do to others."

In light of this, I vote that this callous and unstudied "comment" be removed from the article. Thoughts? Flames?

This is a valid point. I will make this edit. RK 23:13, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
In review, the reply did not recognise that the complaint was that the definition of 'neighbour' (in Bertrand Russell's quote)is a concern to Christians, and the reply offered a Jewish explanation of how Jews see the argument. Where's the Christian side of the discussion? 16:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Traditional Catholics

I changed the blatant mischaracterization of traditional Catholicism in this article. Traditional Catholics are not schismatic; except for the Sedevacantists (who are few and far between), we recognize His Holiness Pope John Paul II. And I deleted the following slanderous sentence: "In their view, Jews still are to be held as collectively responsible for murdering God, and all Jews are still believed to be damned unless they convert to Christianity."

Even Msgr Lefebvre accepted the classical Church teaching that outsiders might be saved (though they are saved in spite of their non-Catholic religions, not because of them).--MegaSilver 23:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What, none of the rad-trads believe that? Jayjg | (Talk) 23:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There are definitely some traditional Catholics who believe that Jews are collectively responsible for the murder of Christ. But that is not a point of Catholicism at all, much less traditional Catholicism.
The thing is, traditional Catholics usually reject or look with skepticism upon Vatican II. One of the things Vatican II did was to expressly condemn blaming Christ's death collectively on the Jewish people. That is not our beef with Vatican II, but some people (i.e., Abraham Foxman, William F. Buckley [ironically, a traditional Catholic]) think it important that everyone seek out and destroy anything even hinting at anti-Semitism or anti-Israelism.--MegaSilver 06:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Um, so it's true they believe that? Why would you remove it then? Jayjg (talk) 15:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
For the third time, belief that the Jews are collectively responsible for the death of Christ is NOT a staple belief of Traditional Catholicism. There are some INDIVIDUAL Traditional Catholics (among others) who believe that, but to accuse Traditional Catholics as a whole--which the article as you want it does--is pure malice. I am a Traditional Catholic and I most certainly do not blame my Jewish friends for the death of Christ.
You are incorrect. The belief that Jews are collectively responsible for the death of Jesus is traditional Catholicism. I cannot imagine why you would claim otherwise. RK 23:13, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
If you cannot draw the distinction, please do not presume to be competent to edit this page, or anything else for that matter.--MegaSilver 00:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
MegaSilver, you do not need to be angry or insulting. JayJG is competant and learned in this subject. So are many others here. And we know that the traditional Catholic position is not what you would wish it to be. You need to differentiate between what most Catholics believe today, and what most Catholics have believed throughout history. If you wish to dispute this position, then it is up to you bring forth serious academic sources and primary sources which can back up your position. For instance, which scholars of Christian history believe that most Catholics have not held such beliefs, and why do they hold such views? Writing in such a fashion would only improve the article. Simply deleting the sentence that you find bothersome does not. RK 23:13, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

The traditional Catholic position is this: while it is obvious historical fact that, proximately, it was Jews who used Roman power to kill the one Christians consider the Messiah, it is also true -- and has been taught as true since the Church's beginning -- that we are all responsible. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, issued by Pope St. Pius V (A.D. 1566-1572), taught:

"Furthermore men of all ranks and conditions were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. Gentiles and Jews were the advisers, the authors, the ministers of His Passion: Judas betrayed Him, Peter denied Him, all the rest deserted Him."

and

"In this guilt are involved all those who fall frequently into sin; for, as our sins consigned Christ the Lord to the death of the cross, most certainly those who wallow in sin and iniquity crucify to themselves again the Son of God, as far as in them lies, and make a mockery of Him. This guilt seems more enormous in us than in the Jews, since according to the testimony of the same Apostle: If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory; while we, on the contrary, professing to know Him, yet denying Him by our actions, seem in some sort to lay violent hands on him."

It is also a fact that post-Temple Judaism (i.e., Pharisaic rabbinism, as opposed to the religion of the Old Testament) can be characterized by orthodox Christians as a "Deicide" religion in that Jews exult in the death of Christ (per the Talmud, Toledoth Yeshu, etc.), Whom orthodox Christians consider God.

It is also a fact that the animosity between Christians and Jews had little to do with theology (including the rampant Jewish anti-Christianism that never gets mentioned) and much to do with usury. Used2BAnonymous 12:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


Despite the rhetoric, UsedtoBeanonymous hardly speaks for traditional Catholicism. What the Church teaches is what traditional Catholics believe, some have indeed broken away from Church teaching, which is expressed best by Vatican II Pope Paul VI in Nostra Aetate (1965):

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. 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. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ

In no way does it point to any interchangability of the Jewish faith and Catholic faith, rather, the recognition of the failed leadership of the Pharasees of the time. We may also see this viewpoint from a famous traditionalist, Mel Gibson, in his commentary of the movie, "Passion of the Christ". Recall Vatican II is not universally rejected by traditionalist Catholics, the misuse of the Council and the misapplication to ratify any new innovation in the Church is what traditional Catholics abhor. Dominick (TALK) 13:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] announcing policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reflections on Covenant and Mission

I removed the obviously biased & innacurate statement that the "Reflections on Covenant and Mission" issued jointly by the USCCB & NCS "contract[s] Catholic doctrine." Makrina 01:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)