Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Mopping up the Israel Lobby Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/mopping_up_the_israel_lobby#9266 Post contents: Sid, we have discussed this before, I do not wish to crowd up this thread with hundreds of writebacks! But, very simply, you are not correct. Nostra Aetate of Vatican II while distinguishing between the culpability of those Jews who were directly responsible for Christ's death, and others who "cannot be charged" with the Crucifixion, did NOT reject the traditional theology of Deicide (cf. Nostra Aetate, no. 4). In fact, the proposed rejection of this traditional theology was taken OUT of the final schema (the one that was voted on and accepted by the Council). Excellent accounts of this process of just how the schema was modified substantially are found in Joseph Roddy's article, "How the Jews Changed Catholic Teaching, LOOK, vol 30, no. 2, January 25, 1966; in Leon de Poncins, JUDAISM AND THE VATICAN (Britons, 1966); and in Fr. Romano Amerio's classic account, IOTA UNUM; A STUDY OF CHANGES IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE XXTH CENTURY (English translation, Sarto House, 1996) I recommend you go read these. Lastly, once again you simply do not understand theology. Specifically, regarding Vatican II, I refer you to a document of the Council, attached to the Council's declarations, the Nota Praevia, of November 16, 1965 (issued under the signature of Msgr. Pericle Felici, on behalf of both the Fathers and the Pope), which explains the theological standing of the doctrines taught by the council. This critical declaration states that in view of the "pastoral nature of the council," "Sancta Synodus tantum de rebus fidei vel morum ob Ecclesia tenenda definit quae ut talia aperte ipsa declaravit." That is, nothing in the council's documents is declared to constitute a doctrinal definition unless the council openly and formally declares it such. And the Nota continues, --unless it reaffirms the already defined teaching of the Church. You and I have sparred over this in past threads, and I will NOT get into a written shouting match with again. I will say this: your statement that anyone who questions the theology of a "pastoral" declaration---which itself contains serious questions of expression and syntax, in additional to material differences with previous teaching by the Church on the subject---is a "heretic" and "outside the Church" is completely wrongheaded, and a misunderstanding of both the continuity of Catholic doctrine and history. You turn Vatican II into dogma, but conveniently forget the doctrinal and dogmatic teachings of the Church of nineteen centuries. You may write back all you want to; I am NOT going to debate this with you AGAIN. For those interested, I recommend going back and re-reading earlier threads from, I think, September. No more. Sent at: 2008 05 15