The second emblematic memory from that papal pilgrimage came on March 26 when John Paul walked slowly down the great esplanade before the Western Wall of Herod’s Temple, stopped at the Wall, bowed his head in prayer, and then—like millions of pilgrims before him—left a petition in one of the Wall’s crevices: God of our fathers, you chose Abraham and his descendants to bring your Name to the nations; we are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant. Amen. Joannes Paulus PP. II. These two episodes give us the key to understanding Pope St. John Paul II. He could preach solidarity, embody solidarity, and call people to a deeper solidarity because he was a radically converted Christian disciple: one who believed in the depth of his being that salvation history—the story of God’s self-revelation to the People of Israel and ultimately in Jesus Christ—is the deepest truth, the inner truth, of world history.
How many Jews converted to Christ because of John Paul II? What was the justification for not preaching Christ to the Jews? If there needed to be a healing of memories, why should that be only one-sided? Any preaching about the political duties and obligations of Jews living in Christian countries, or formerly Christian countries, or political consequences if they reject these responsibilities and identities? If there needs to be a time out, a hands-off approach so that memories can be healed, let memories be healed, but both parties must recognize the wrongs that have been committed, and there must be an honest expression by both parties of what they find at fault with the other. Are both partners equal in their dialogue?
Was Abraham a Pharisee? Moses? David? The Maccabees? How can John Paul II then call Pharisees "our elder brothers"? Our elder brothers are Abraham and the righteous ones of the Old Testament, followed by the sons of Israel who came to know Christ and believed, the first Christians. Christianity is not a "Jewish heresy," it is the true Judaism, if we can even put Christianity into the category of "religion" and rename it such. Would the Israelites have said they had a religion that was to be called "Judaism"? The system of belief and worship could be given a name as being particular to their people, but is that how they would have understood the system, or would they have given priority to God in understanding their "religion"?
John 8:39, Galatians 3:7-9 -- but Saints John and Paul, both true Jews in their ethnicity, which was superseded by their supernatural adoption by God, are anti-semites? Perhaps much of the confusion can be attributed to Vatican II and John Paul II. We can get a document from the Roman Curia like this as a result:
COMMISSION FOR RELIGIOUS RELATIONS WITH THE JEWS
"THE GIFTS AND THE CALLING OF GOD ARE IRREVOCABLE" (Rom 11:29)
A REFLECTION ON THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO CATHOLIC–JEWISH RELATIONS ON THE OCCASION OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF "NOSTRA AETATE" (NO.4)
In its critical parts, this document uses bad exegesis and equivocation to support its claims regarding the heirs of the Pharisees. It also avoids a discussion of the parts of the Gospel of St. John and the letters of St. Paul that would also be relevant to a Christian discussion of the Pharisee religion/Talmudic Judaism.
None of the claims by John Paul II, Vatican II, or various documents from the Roman Curia, or any other Latin source for that matter, touching upon the adherents of Talmudic Judaism or Talmudic Judaism itself can be infallible, since they involve judgments of particulars that do not directly pertain to the Christian Mystery, except the question of salvation. How are we to be saved? And the Gospel and Tradition are quite clear on that: through the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ. Hence the necessity of the document Dominus Iesus. Either Talmudic Judaism is the same as the salvation by Christ, or it is not. There is no alternative, even if some Christians attempt mental gymnastics to create one. A religion which is predicated upon the denial that Christ is the Son of God cannot be salvific, regardless of the subjectivity of its adherents, who may be saved despite their erroneous beliefs. That religion cannot be the faith of Abraham, which is not something Abraham gives of his own initiative, but is a response to God Himself.
Weigel's attribution of solidarity to John Paul II seems to mean nothing more than the "human fraternity" being pushed by Francis. Human solidarity is not equal, not even comparable to communion with the Most Holy Trinity.
No comments:
Post a Comment