Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

It's said that the full deposit of the faith was revealed by Jesus. For example, before Vatican II the Church was overtly anti-Jewish. St. Thomas Aquinas writes in the Summa Theologica that "it would be licit, according to Tradition, to hold the Jews in perpetual servitude for their crime against Our Lord." The Church had the Good Friday prayer that addressed "the perfidious Jews." That prayer is no longer said. The Church sanctioned the expelling of Jews from many nations. The Church in some places made the Jews wear special symbols so that they could be distinguished from gentiles. In the 17-19th centuries you had a series of popes condemning the rising influence of "Judeo-Masonry." St. Pius X had a conversation with Theodore Herzl and told him that he can't recognize the proposed state of Israel until the Jews recognize the Church and convert. This overtly anti-Jewish attitude of the Church that existed for 1960-odd years just seemed to vanish after Vatican II, and was replaced with a positive view of the Jews. I've even heard senior Churchman refer to Talmudic Jews as elder brothers of Catholics. This 360-degree about face on the subject of Jews is just one of many radical changes that occurred to the Church in the wake of Vatican II. If the full deposit of the faith was revealed by Jesus, then how can the Church teach contradiction? How can the Church teach one thing about the Jews for nearly two millenia, and now practically fawn over them?

share|improve this question
4  
"It's said that..." Given that this entire question is predicated on "it's said that...", it would be really helpful to know who said that or where it's stated. –  Andrew Leach Aug 10 at 8:25
1  
Supporting this statement: For example, before Vatican II the Church was overtly anti-Jewish. for example. –  FMS Aug 10 at 8:41
4  
360-degree isn't an about face :) –  Benjol Aug 11 at 10:15
    
Any answer to this question would be complex and lengthy. To undertake such a task would require motivation from you. So why are you asking? –  gideon marx Aug 11 at 16:36
1  
Great Question, I have often wondered the same thing especialy being that the....majority of jews are orthodox jews whom reject Jesus as The Messiah and even teach against him saying we Christians in error for our faith –  eliyah Aug 28 at 2:33

4 Answers 4

up vote 0 down vote accepted

It's said that the full deposit of the faith was revealed by Jesus. For example, before Vatican II the Church was overtly anti-Jewish.

A classic example would be the Jesuit's Civiltà Cattolica articles:

  1. Jewish Ritual Murder (1881)
  2. Jewish Question in Europe (1890)

The Church has always been against Judaism, but never against Jews as a race. She has allowed the Jews, even in the times when Church and State were closer, to raise their children in Judaism.

See also the article "Maximilian Kolbe to the Masons: You Are Controlled by the Jews," which also discusses the Church's condemnation of the anti-Christian Talmud, which, along with the Torah, are the Jews' two sacred texts.

St. Thomas Aquinas writes in the Summa Theologica that "it would be licit, according to Tradition, to hold the Jews in perpetual servitude for their crime against Our Lord."

Where exactly are you taking this quotation from? Also, St. Thomas doesn't advocate enslaving Jews; he'd rather they convert. For a good opusculum on St. Thomas's views of the Jews, see: Epistola ad ducissam Brabantiae.

The Church had the Good Friday prayer that addressed "the perfidious Jews." That prayer is no longer said. The Church sanctioned the expelling of Jews from many nations. The Church in some places made the Jews wear special symbols so that they could be distinguished from gentiles.

The Jews' own laws proscribed this (cf. St. Thomas's Epistola ad ducissam Brabantiae q. 8).

In the 17-19th centuries you had a series of popes condemning the rising influence of "Judeo-Masonry."

Yes, like Pope Leo XIII's encyclical against Freemasonry and naturalism, Humanum Genus, or Msgr. Dillon's Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked, which Pope Leo XIII highly recommended every Catholic read.

St. Pius X had a conversation with Theodore Herzl and told him that he can't recognize the proposed state of Israel until the Jews recognize the Church and convert. This overtly anti-Jewish attitude of the Church that existed for 1960-odd years just seemed to vanish after Vatican II, and was replaced with a positive view of the Jews. I've even heard senior Churchman refer to Talmudic Jews as elder brothers of Catholics. This 360-degree about face on the subject of Jews is just one of many radical changes that occurred to the Church in the wake of Vatican II. If the full deposit of the faith was revealed by Jesus, then how can the Church teach contradiction? How can the Church teach one thing about the Jews for nearly two millenia, and now practically fawn over them?

The Church doesn't teach contradictions; the Vatican II Conciliar Church (which is not the Catholic Church, but really a puppet of the Jews) teaches these things.

Read Maurice Pinay's Plot Against the Church, which was sent out to all participants of Vatican II as a warning of Judeo-Masonic/Communist hijacking of the council.

Other interesting case studies are E. Michael Jones's "L’affaire Williamson" and his masterpiece The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit.

share|improve this answer
    
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. –  Caleb Aug 13 at 14:28

I disagree with the OP about his thesis that the Church has always been overtly anti-Semitic/Jewish. The examples are not compared to the time period in which they were expressed to see what the rest of the world said and how they said what they said. As a matter of fact, the Church has not been anti-Jewish in any official capacity.

St. Augustine has been infamously accused of many things including being anti-Jewish, yet his ruling in favor of a Jewish man in a case brought before him by the Jewish man in which the man's mother sold property that belonged to him to a bishop. The bishop in question refused the man's request to return his land in which he offered to pay the bishop. This is why the man brought his case before St. Augustine. After reviewing the case, Augustine wrote to the bishop in question and told him he was sure he wished to do the right thing and told him he had to return the Jewish man's land to him. Sounds anti-Jewish? Didn't think so, because Augustine was not an anti-Semite. Nor was Aquinas.

Gregory the Great "emptied the papal treasury to ransom prisoners of the Lombards and to care for persecuted Jews and victims of plague and famine" (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=3466).

What Vatican II did was to open new frontiers by referring to the Jews as our elder brothers in the faith from which all Catholics come. Much good fruit has been borne with the improved relations between Catholics and Jews (amongst all religious traditions and non-Christian religions).

share|improve this answer
    
For the Church to be anti-Semitic, it would mean she is against herself being the bride of Christ, his Mystical Body, having issued from his side. You have the makings of a good answer that would be greatly enhanced if it were supported. –  FMS Aug 28 at 3:31
    
@Andy: The bulk of your reply is an anecdote about St. Augustine siding in favor of a Jew in a land dispute with a gentile. One can be anti-Jewish and still uphold the law. Being anti-Jewish doesn't mean that you steal from Jews. A secular Jewish judge may believe Jews to be superior to gentiles, but this won't prevent him in ruling in favor of some gentile. The pre-Vatican II Church can't be called anti-semitic, as it condemned Jews for their theology, and not for genetics. The rest of your reply is easily refuted by the facts in my OP. –  user8547 Aug 29 at 3:26
    
This is a very opinion-based answer regarding the Jews as a race. The question asks about the Jews' status in Catholic theology. –  Geremia Sep 6 at 1:19
    
I asked this question 27 days ago and the only good answer I received was from Geremia. You'd think more Catholics would question this fundamental change in the Church regarding Jews. It's an astonishing development. So astonishing that it seems the Vatican II Church may not be the Catholic Church. If it is the Catholic Church, then that means the Church contradicts itself. The Church today seems to attract very low quality people. Who but an imbecile could take a religion seriously which contradicts itself? The Church is no longer producing people like St. Gemma Galgani or St. Peter Canisius. –  user8547 Sep 6 at 21:44
    
@Andy: "Gregory the Great "emptied the papal treasury to ransom . . ." Catholic Encyclopedia: "We shall probably be right, therefore, in attributing Gregory's protection of the Jews to his respect for law and justice, rather than to any ideas of toleration differing from those current at the time." - newadvent.org/cathen/06780a.htm –  user8547 Sep 9 at 9:54

Drawing from: Judaism | Crossing the Threshold of Hope | Pope St. John Paul II [the Great]


Why did the Catholic Church change so radically after Vatican II in regards to the status of Jews?

It is not so much a radical change, than recognition that while there have been setbacks and obstacles in the past, the insights which inspired the Declaration Nostra Aetate are finding concrete expression in various ways, all being under the mysterious workings of God and his plan of Salvation for all peoples.

I am pleased that my ministry in the See of Saint Peter has taken place during the period following the Second Vatican Council, when the insights which inspired the Declaration Nostra Aetate are finding concrete expression in various ways. Thus the way two great moments of divine election-the Old and the New Covenants-are drawing closer together.

The insight of this saintly Pope, shaped by personal experience, has also helped mold the post Vatican II relationship between the Church and the the people of God of the Old Testament:

The New Covenant has its roots in the Old. The time when the people of the Old Covenant will be able to see themselves as part of the New is, naturally, a question to be left to the Holy Spirit. We, as human beings, try only not to put obstacles in the way. The form this "not putting obstacles" takes is certainly dialogue between Christians and Jews, which, on the Church's part, is being carried forward by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.


For the true children of God in the Old and in the New, there is always this understanding:

Once, after the conclusion of one of my meetings with the Jewish community, someone present said: "I want to thank the Pope for all that the Catholic Church has done over the last two thousand years to make the true God known."

These words indirectly indicate how the New Covenant serves to fulfill all that is rooted in the vocation of Abraham, in God's covenant with Israel at Sinai, and in the whole rich heritage of the inspired Prophets who, hundreds of years before that fulfillment, pointed in the Sacred Scriptures to the One whom God would send in the "fullness of time" (cf. Gal 4:4).

share|improve this answer
1  
The Jews today are not at all the "people of God of the Old Testament" because (1) the Old Covenant ceased when the temple veil ripped 2 millennia ago and (2) Jews today follow a different religion, that with the Talmud as a "holy," anti-Christian text (cf., e.g., the Council of Florence's Cantate Domino). –  Geremia Aug 18 at 0:45
2  
@Geremia Maybe this should be taken up in another question. The Old covenant lapsed, hoping I have used the right terminology, but Israel is still God's People, Jesus himself being the New Israel and incorporating into his [Mystical] Body the Church, both Jew and gentile, in the New and Everlasting covenant. –  FMS Aug 18 at 4:12
1  
@FMShyanguya Israel is the Catholic Church. Unless the Jews convert, they are not part of the Catholic Church. See this; he explains everything very well. –  Geremia Aug 18 at 4:27

Vatican II was implemented by the Roman Catholic Church basically to ecumenise with other Christian Denominations. And the ultimate goal in doing this is to finally end up causing the Protestant Churches who are supposed to be protesting against the unbiblical doctrines and practices of Rome to stop protesting and to unite with the Catholic Church on common points of doctrine, or else to finally become Catholic themselves.

And so that is why they changed their stance in regards to the Jews as well as the Christian Protestant Churches. Now we see things like Tony Palmer and how when he was alive he, the Jesuit Pope Francis and Protestant Preacher Kenneth Copeland all united and claimed that there was not any more protest from the Protestants. That was the Roman Catholic Church's goal from the start. They desire to squelch the protest of the Protestants and of other Religious groups.

One of the tricks the Catholic Church used to bring about this ecumenical movement was to change their music. They would have a more laid back style of music and become more 'Protestant-like' in their worship services. And at the same time they infiltrate Protestant Churches and seek to make them a little more 'Catholic. So then, with the Catholic Church becoming more Protestant, at least outwardly, and the Protestant Church becoming more Catholic in reality... soon you will not be able to tell the difference between the two.

The Order of the Jesuits was created to counteract the Protestant Reformation and to undo any of the progress the Reformers had made. The Catholic Church said that Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin was the 'guiding star' behind the Vatican II. The Jesuits are known for not sparing any disguise to achieve their goals. They have what's called Inculturation and Acculturation. One is to infiltrate other Churches to make them more Catholic and the other is to make their own Church more Protestant to disguise the differences between the two so that finally you won't be able to tell the difference. The goal is to make the entire World Catholic and to wipe out Protestantism. That was what the Jesuit Order was formed for, and that is what the current Pope Francis is, a Jesuit.This tells us that their goal has nearly been achieved. Do they have to pretend to like the Jews? No problem, they will do that if that's what it takes to convince people that they are not going to do like during the Dark Ages when millions of protesters were tortured and killed because supposedly they were 'heretics' for simply disagreeing with Rome's doctrines. Have the Pope kiss the Koran in public? No problem, they will do that too, if that's what it takes to make people view them as being no threat to other Religions.

ADDITIONAL STUDY INFORMATION

Inculturation:

One of the major activities of the Jesuits involved something called "Inculturation".

Malachi Martin explains it like this:

"The idea was to adapt so severely to the culture of the alien (one who was not a Catholic) that the missionary would acquire the mind of that culture, and would revamp both doctrine and moral practice to fit that alien culture." - The Jesuits, Malachi Martin.

Acculturation:

And then there is another tactic that the Roman Catholic Church is using called "Acculturation". This is something that means to adapt the practices of your own church-such as your worship format-to the practices of the different cultures or denominations that you are seeking to win over to Catholicism.

In this way, they believe, people will feel "comfortable" in the Catholic church and perhaps eventually join the catholic faith. For instance, Malachi Martin, former Jesuit, tells of how in some Catholic churches now they have coffee afterwards for "socialization time". Their bands play "Blues music-using trombones, kazoos, saxophones and top it off with drums to add a rhythmic foundation." - The Encounter, Malachi Martin.

And a Catholic priest, Andrew Greeley, tells a story of how things have changed in the Catholic church, for the purpose of enlarging their congregations:

"In many new Catholic churches, statutes, the stations (of the cross), and the stained glass windows have either been swept away or reduced to the diagrams or abstractions that would not offend the most fundamental protestant. Reverence and awe have been replaced by often cloying informality; solemnity by 'letting it all hang out' manners. Great music has been replaced by bad pseudo-folk music... As part of the final phase of our acculturation into American life, it became appropriate to abandon the whole mess, to... eliminate the mysteries and the medals, the invocations and the pieties, the blessings and the rosaries, the May crownings and the mumbo jumbo." - How to Save the Catholic Church, Andrew Greeley.

This is similar to Nero-linguistic Programming which is a form of hypnotism. There is a method used called 'Reframing'. They pretend to find common ground in which they agree with their opponent. This causes the opponent to relax and feel more at ease. But then they are lured a little at a time over to their own view until the opponent doesn't even realize that they have completely changed their view.

Celebration and Vatican II

The Vatican II Council issued recommendations on liturgy—the singing, prayers, congregational responses, and Scripture readings that make up a church service. These directives discussed ways to incorporate the whole church community in the service, making them more involved in worship procedures.

Churches were encouraged to shift away from traditional sermons that exhort and equip and instead concentrate on the cursory reading of extracts from the Psalms and Gospels. They were instructed to replace traditional hymns with popular music, modern musical instruments, and physical movement of the congregation. Churches were also encouraged to adapt their styles of worship to suit their cultures. The liturgical section of the Vatican II document, Volume 1, can be summarized as follows:

  1. Get the churches accustomed to celebration terminology and the celebration concept. Every function of the church becomes a celebration.

  2. Get the churches accustomed to a revitalized style of celebration service, encouraging a reduction of inhibition which includes physical gestures, bodily attitudes and movement.

  3. Set forth song and musical celebration services as the most effective celebrations.

  4. Utilizing popular religious songs and relating music to the various cultures and the temperaments of the people.

The "Instructions on Music in the Liturgy" section of the Vatican II document says this:

"...the unity of hearts is more profoundly achieved by the union of voices, minds are more easily raised to heavenly things by the beauty of sacred rites...In order that the faithful may actively participate more willingly and with greater benefit, it is fitting that the format of the celebration and the degree of participation in it should be varied as much as possible, according to the solemnity of the day and the nature of the congregation present...The participation (a) Should be above all internal (b) Must be, on the other hand, external also, that is, such as to show the internal participation by gestures and bodily attitudes, by acclamations, responses and singing."

--Austin Flannery (ed.), "Instructions on Music in the Liturgy," Vatican II Council: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents (New York: Costello Publishing, 1979): 81, 83-84.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.