CENTRO PRO UNIONE N. 63 - Spring 2003 ISSN: 1122-0384 semi-annual Bulletin In this issue: Letter from the Director ...................................................p. 2 The Pontifical Biblical Document The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the New Testament. A Jewish Perspective Jack Bemporad....................................................p. 3 The Observers at Vatican Two. An Unique Experience of Dialogue Thomas Stransky...................................................p. 8 Mass Without the Consecration? The Historic Agreement on the Eucharist between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East Promulgated 26 October 2001 Robert F. Taft.....................................................p. 15 A Bibliography of Interchurch and Interconfessional Theological Dialogues Eighteenth Supplement (2003) .......................................... p. 28 Centro Pro Unione - Via S. Maria dell'Anima, 30 - 00186 Rome, Italy A Center conducted by the Franciscan Friars of the AtonementDirector's Desk In this issue of the Bulletin we are please to present the texts of some of the lectures held at the Centro over the past months. With the publication of the important Pontifical Biblical Commission’s document: “The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the New Testament” we felt it important to have the observations of an engaged Jewish Rabbi in the dialogue with the Catholic Church. We turned to Rabbi Jack Bemporad to offer his reflections on this document. We feel that our readers will find his remarks very interesting. This lecture was co-sponsored with our friends from SIDIC-Rome, a ministry of the Sisters of Notre Dame de Sion. For this year’s celebration of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, the Centro invited long time friend and expert, the Paulist Tom Stransky to offer his personal reflections on some of the events that took place in the lecture hall of the Centro Pro Unione during the Council years—kind of a “if these walls could speak” lecture. Tom did not disappoint our public! His lecture “The Observers at Vatican Two. An Unique Experience of Dialogue” is found in this issue. A prayer vigil for Christian unity followed his lecture and was led by Pastor Pieter Bouman, Methodist Pastor of the Ponte Sant’Angelo church in Rome with the homily of Pastor Paolo Rica of the Waldensian Faculty in Rome. Co-sponsoring the prayer service with the Centro was the Vincent Pallotti Institute and the Lay Centre at Foyer Unitas. The fifth Paul Wattson-Lurana White lecture had to be moved to March this year due to the illness of the speaker. The wait was certainly worthwhile as can be seen from Prof. Robert Taft’s brilliant lecture on the implications of the recent document concerning the validity of the ancient Eucharistic anaphora of Addaï and Mari. This year’s lecture entitled “Anglican-Roman Catholic Relations: A New Step to be Taken, A New Stage to be Reached?” will be given by Dr. Mary Tanner. Also included in this issue is the eighteenth supplement of the “Bibliography of Interchurch and Interconfessional Theological Dialogues” prepared by our librarian, Dr. Loredana Nepi. All of this material is found in the Centro’s library and is on line on our web site as well (www.prounione.urbe.it). In addition to the lectures published here, the year’s activities have included two other major lectures: Prof. Lawrence Cunningham of the University of Notre Dame spoke on “Thomas Merton: Dialogue and the Contemplative Life” and “Matteo: fonte per l’ecumene cristiana. La nuova traduzione letterario-teologica del Vangelo” given by Professor Valdo Bertalot, President of the Biblical Association in Italy and Prof. Luca De Santis, Professor of New Testament Exegesis at the Angelicum. We hope to publish these in a future issue of the Bulletin. The Spring saw many diverse groups visiting the Centro from the Ecumenical Institute of Bossey to a group of pastoral care ministers from Sweden to the annual course prepared for the College of St. Olaf in Northfield, Minnesota. We are most thankful for the visits of these groups since it gives us a chance to share our vision for the unity of Christians and hear other visions. I hope that you will enjoy the contents of this issue. Please remember that this Bulletin is sent to you free of charge but we always welcome a sign of your appreciation by making a donation to help us cover the expense of printing and mailing. Peace and all good! This periodical is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, published by the American Theological Library Association, 250 S. Wacker Dr., 16 th Floor., Chicago, IL 60606 (http://www.atla.com). James F. Puglisi, sa DirectorN. 63 /Spring 2002Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 3 Centro Conferences CCCC The Pontifical Biblical Document The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the New Testament A Jewish Perspective Rabbi Jack Bemporad Director, The Center for Interreligious Understanding (USA) (Conference held at the Centro Pro Unione, Thursday, 12 December 2002) The pontifical Biblical document 1 is an important step in the direction of better understanding between Catholics and Jews. In some respects it makes new, significant and positive affirmations as to Catholic appreciation of Judaism. In other respects it is problematic and I will deal with these in detail, but even here the document is both important and helpful since it tries in an honest and comprehensive manner to clearly present a Catholic understanding of the place of the Jewish people and its scriptures in the New Testament. The document places its findings in the inter religious context both in its preface and in more detail in the concluding sections. First of all I want to express my appreciation to the Pontifical Biblical commission for such a difficult and valiant effort. The problem it addresses has haunted Jews and Christians for centuries. What is the real and binding connection between our two faiths. Even the most superficial view of the New Testament immediately impresses the reader with its indissoluble connection to the Hebrew Bible and if one is cognizant of Rabbinic texts and institutions with the Rabbinic context within which it emerged. I think it took daring for the Pontifical Commission to present its results when so much of the material it covers is in the process of intense scrutiny and changing scholarly opinions. This uncertainty is not just in the study of early Rabbinic Judaism but also in New Testament research, both in the scholarly work on the historical Jesus, and even more so in the intense debate over the Apostle Paul. One of the many merits of this document is that it is viewed as part of an ongoing process embodying the results of current work, which is subject to revision. The leitmotif of the document is announced in Cardinal Ratzinger’s introduction where he quotes section 84: “Without the Old Testament the New Testament would be an unintelligible book, a plant deprived of its roots and destined to dry up and wither.” Hence any attempt to view the NT as self-sufficient or in a Marcionite context is again repudiated but in a much more vigorous form. The document clearly reaffirms the past statements of the Church in the section on pastoral orientations. The Second Vatican Council, in its recommendation that there be “understanding and mutual esteem between Christians and Jews, declared that these will be born especially from biblical and theological study, as well as from fraternal dialogue” (§86). The present Document has been composed in this spirit; it hopes to make a positive contribution to it, and encourages in the Church of Christ the love towards Jews that Pope Paul VI emphasized on the day of the promulgation of the conciliar document Nostra aetate. With this text, Vatican Two laid the foundations for a new understanding of our relations with Jews when it said that “according to the apostle (Paul), the Jews, because of their ancestors, still remain very dear to God, whose gifts and calling are irrevocable (Rm 11:29.)” 2 Through his teaching, John Paul II has, on many occasions, taken the initiative in developing this Declaration. During a visit to the synagogue of Mainz (1980) he said: “The encounter between the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been abrogated by God (cf. Rm 11:29), and that of the New Covenant is also an internal dialogue in our Church, similar to that between the first and second part of its Bible.” 3 Later, addressing the Jewish communities of Italy during a visit to the synagogue of Rome (1986), he declared: “The Church of Christ discovers her ‘bond’ with Judaism ‘by searching into her own mystery’ (cf. Nostra aetate). The Jewish religion is not ‘extrinsic’ to us, but in a certain way is ‘intrinsic’ to our religion. With Judaism therefore we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearly beloved brothers and, in a certain way it could be said that you are our elder brothers.” 4 “An attitude of respect, esteem and love for the Jewish people is the only truly Christian attitude in a situation, which is mysteriously part of the beneficent and positive plan of God. 1 PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION, The Jewish People and Their Scriptures in the Christian Bible (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2002). All references to this document appear in the text. 2 VATICAN II, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non- Christian Religions, Nostra aetate, §4. 3 JOHN PAUL II, “Dialogue. The Road to Understanding”, Origins 10, 25 (1980) 400. 4 JOHN PAUL II, “Discourse at the Rome Synagogue, 13 April 1986”, Origins, 15, 45 (1986) 731.4 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 63 /Spring 2002 Dialogue is possible, since Jews and Christians share a rich common patrimony that unites them. It is greatly to be desired that prejudice and misunderstanding be gradually eliminated on both sides, in favor of a better understanding of the patrimony they share and to strengthen the links that bind them.” 5 Never before as far as I am aware has as unequivocal an affirmation as the following been made by a pontifical commission. “The New Testament recognizes the divine authority of the Jewish Scriptures and supports itself on this authority. When the New Testament speaks of the ‘Scriptures’ and refers to ‘that which is written,’ it is to the Jewish Scriptures that it refers” (§84). Cardinal Ratzinger believes that the Hebrew Bible can become a common ground for the fostering of positive relations between Christians and Jews. Another very positive affirmation of this document that Cardinal Ratzinger alludes to is in section §22. Here what is affirmed is that: “Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Sacred Scriptures from the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading which developed in parallel fashion. Both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings are the result and expression. Consequently, both are irreducible” (§22). In clarifying what this twofold reading entails, and in clearing the ground for a “possible” Jewish reading, the text states: “It would be wrong to consider the prophecies of the O.T. as some kind of photographic anticipations of future events. All the texts, including those which later were read as Messianic prophecies, already had an immediate import and meaning for their contemporaries before attaining a fuller meaning for future hearers. The messiah-ship of Jesus has a meaning that is new and original.” He continue stating that it is therefore better not to excessively insist “...on the probative value attributable to the fulfillment of prophecy [which] must be discarded.” (§21). This is all very positive since it clearly maintains separate readings of the Biblical foundations of Judaism and Christianity and also makes room for a reading for the Biblical prophecies in non fulfillment terms. It also perceptively affirms that what happened in Jesus from a Christian point of view was “new and original.” And again later: “Although the Christian reader is aware that the internal dynamism of the Old Testament finds its goal in Jesus, this is a retrospective perception whose point of departure is not in the text as such, but in the events of the New Testament proclaimed by the apostolic preaching. It cannot be said, therefore that Jews do not see what has been proclaimed in the text, but the Christians, in the light of Christ and in the Spirit, discovers in the text an additional meaning that was hidden there” (§21). What is left hanging is what exactly is the difference between Jewish and Christian Messianic expectations? The obvious answer from a Jewish perspective is that the Messiah is seen in the Hebrew Bible as ushering in a Messianic age of Justice and peace for all. Here the Jewish communities view of the very texts used by the Church in a Christological manner are viewed very differently in Judaism. Recognizing this divergence a remarkable and welcome affirmation follows: “Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain. It can become for us Christians a powerful stimulant to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. Like them, we too, live in expectation. The difference is that for us the One who is to come will have the traits of the Jesus who has already come and is already present and active among us.” (§22) From a theological point of view this is a most important step forward in recognizing the legitimacy of a Jewish understanding of the Messiah not merely by rejecting the long standing belief that Jewish Messianic hopes are vain but even more that traditional Jewish expectations can become a powerful stimulus to keep alive the eschatological understanding of the Christian faith. What this accomplishes is the identifying of Jewish expectations of the coming of the Messiah with the second coming of Jesus and in this sense we both share this anticipation. One caution however is necessary. The concept of the Messiah in Jewish thought has not the same centrality as it does in Christianity. I think our great teacher Leo Baeck expressed this accurately when he states: “the hope is no longer for one man who will renew the world but for the new world that is to arise upon the earth. For it is inconsistent with the way of Judaism that one man should be lifted above humanity to be its destiny. The conception of the one man retired into the background on favor of the conception of the one time; the Messiah gives way to the “days of the Messiah” and side by side with it the more definite expression of the Kingdom of God.” 6 There is much that could be said about the documents detailed analysis of the relationship between the OT and the Jewish environment that accompanied the NT and the NT itself. Much as I have noted is very positive. The long descriptions of Paul’s teaching in paragraphs 36 and 37 ending in §36 with the words: “Paul is convinced that at the end, God, in his inscrutable wisdom, will graft all Israel back onto their own olive tree, ‘all Israel will be saved’” is very positive indeed. Also at the conclusion of each section there are a number of positive assertions about Judaism and the Jewish people. If the parallel development from the Hebrew Bible as the original foundational covenant would be traced in two directions with the Christian emerging out of its early Rabbinic context then a more incisive connection between our two faiths would ensue. However in 5 Cf., ibid., 732. 6 L. BAECK, Essence of Judaism (NY: Shocken Books, 1961). N. 63 /Spring 2002Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 5 the detailed comparison I find the discussion somewhat wooden, mechanical, and not properly valenced. It is all presented on the same level without clarifying what is essential and what is peripherals. Its chief defect can be simply stated. The document evinces little awareness of the great debt the authors of the NT owe to Rabbinic Judaism and the almost complete lack of appreciation for what early Rabbinic Judaism contributed. The clearest example is pooftexting, a rabbinic contribution which lies at the whole foundation of the Gospels and Paul. It is not simply the use of hermeneutic principles but the whole innovation of using Biblical verses as prooftexts that is Pharisaic and fundamental to the way the early Rabbinic sages, and after them Jesus and Paul established their authority. This is clearly seen in Jesus’ controversy with the Sadducees in Mathew 22:23-32. This is very important for understanding the controversies in the NT. The New Testament clearly identifies Jesus as a Jew. The religious terminology he used came from Judaism. When asked, “What is the chief one of all the commandments? Jesus replied, ‘The chief one is: Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord, and you must love the Lord your God with your whole heart, with your whole soul and with your whole mind, and with your whole strength. The second is this. You must love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:32ff) In affirming the central teachings of religion, Jesus responded much as Hillel or Rabbi Akiba responded when asked similar questions. When a pagan challenged Hillel to summarize the whole of the Torah while he stood on one foot, Hillel answered, “what is hateful to you do not unto your fellow human being, this is the whole of the Torah the rest is commentary, go and learn,” 7 and Akiba affirmed that the central principle of the Torah is “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 8 The selection of the passage from Deuteronomy is Rabbinic and completely accepted by Jesus, and incidentally by the earliest Christian prayer communities. The conflicts relating to Sabbath Observance and the dietary laws are in principle no different than the disagreements between the various schools of Judaism of that time. They resemble the type of differences that took place between the schools of Hillel and Shammai, (incidentally neither Hillel nor Shammai were rabbis as is affirmed in the text), between the Sadducee and Pharisees, and are really not such as to separate Jesus from Judaism. Y. Kaufmann in his important work Golah v Nekhar points out that “no controversy concerning the ‘Son of God’ concept as such is reported in the New Testament.” 9 If I am not mistaken there is no debate between Jesus and his Jewish antagonist over whether Jesus is the Messiah or not, no debate on the virgin births or incarnation or any “dogma that may have separated the Christian sectarians from Judaism.” 10 On the critical question of authority many spoke with authority and indeed their own authority basing it in one form or another on the received tradition. Luke 16:31 clearly endorses the authority of Moses and the prophets, and as Kaufmann points out “Jesus never cites a prophetic word which was revealed to him or claims ‘authority’ to alter Pentateuchal statutes. He either explicates the texts according to the expository system of the Pharisees, or cites the intent and spirit of the law; so in his discussion with the Pharisees in Mark 2:23-28 (and parallels Matthew 12:1-4; Luke 6:1-5), Jesus quotes a well known rabbinic dictum, the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, but what is more important he then bases the legitimacy of what his disciples did through an interpretation of scripture and not on his own authority and the interpretation is a typical rabbinic hermeneutical method of inferring from minor to major. Perhaps, as I have noted above, the clearest example of the Pharisaic manner of Jesus’ exegesis is in his teaching the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees rejected any form of resurrection and immortality as being not based on the Pentateuch. The Pharisees and Jesus defend both and defend their position using the same Hermeneutical principles. Jesus does not teach the Doctrines of Immortality and Resurrection as a prophet proclaiming the word of God nor on the basis of his own authority but rather on scriptural exegesis. Thus, Kaufmann after a careful analysis points out that on the issue of oaths and vows “the difference of opinions concerned Halachic niceties; and Jesus’ reasoning is definitely Pharisaic.” 11 Let me make this as clear as possible. The ancient prayer of the synagogue emphasizing resurrection clearly connects Rabbinic Judaism and the NT. It states “He sustains life with His grace, revives the dead with His boundless mercy, supports the falling, heals the sick, loosens the bounds, and keeps his faith with those who sleep in the dust. Who is like unto Thee master of mighty acts, and who bears resemblance unto Thee, O King, Who deadens and enlivens and causes salvation to flower? And Thou art indeed utterly trustworthy to resurrect the dead. Praised be Thou, O Lord, Who causes the dead to come to life.” This is foundational and must be recognized for a proper understanding of Judaism and its relation to the NT. A related, for me, disconcerting aspect of this document is the constant quotes from texts that the Jewish community never accepted, nor ever quoted in authorized spirsces as important for a description of Judaism such as the Dead Sea Scroll. To use such tests in explicating what the Jews believed is the equivalent, in a reconstruction of Christianity for one to quote all the non- canonical gospels like the Gospel of Thomas as an appropriate description of early Christianity, while ignoring the texts of the NT. I do not in any way wish to minimize the importance of the summary statements in each section, which are all positive and affirmative of Judaism and the Jewish people, but in the comparisons in the intermediate sections the fundamental question is not clearly addressed. This question can be stated in its sharpest form in the following manner: what is unique to Christianity if all Jewish elements that contributed to it were deleted? In an endeavor to answer this question, I am reminded of a statement by Raymond Brown, who, in a lecture on the book of Acts asked why Jesus as founder of Christianity did not establish laws and institutions like Moses and Mohammed? His answer was that he did not have to, since he accepted the fundamental teachings and institutions of Judaism. The synagogue was a foundational institution. Judaism was the only religion prior to Christianity and Islam that 7 Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 31A. 8 Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 24. 9 Y. KAUFMANN, Christianity and Judaism: Two Covenants (Jerusalem: Magnus Press, 1988) 24. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid.6 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 63 /Spring 2002 made religion central in one’s life and put one’s faith in God before all else. The belief in Monotheism is the foundation stone without which the whole revolutionary faith of Judaism would be impossible as well as Christianity. Monotheism is not just the belief in one God as one element among other elements in the Hebrew Bible. It integrates and transforms all the basic elements that makes for the very possibility of their being a Judaism as well as a Christianity and Islam. The essence of Judaism is the affirmation of Monotheism and all that this implies. This was, and remains, its greatest contribution to the world. The belief in Monotheism is not just the affirmation that God is one as opposed to the multiplicity of pagan deities, but more importantly, Monotheism brought about a revolution in religious thinking that to this day is the foundation for the three great Monotheistic faiths of the western world, Judaism , Christianity, and Islam. Monotheism implies : •Spiritual creator God: As long as the gods were forces in nature as was true of all pre- biblical religion then each deity had a certain domain and was characterized by arbitrariness and conflict. There was the battle between the gods and nature was seen in constant strife. •The Jewish Biblical view of a God that was not one among a number of natural forces, but the transcendent spiritual creator of nature. This revolutionary view which was initiated by the Prophets made it possible to see nature as the creation of God as a cosmos and not a chaos. Also since God created nature God is not a natural force but a spiritual being. God transcends nature. •Another consequence of Monotheism is that Human Beings are made in and for the Divine image. They have a spark of the Divine. Hence they must be treated with respect and as ends in themselves and not solely as objects of use. Since God is a spiritual being then Human Beings made in the Divine image also transcend physical nature. They also have a spiritual quality that manifests itself not only in natural processes but in ethical action. •As a result of the new concept of Human nature as a spiritual and not simply physical reality History is now possible. The Bible was the first book that actually viewed society as historical and not just cyclical. History became the means through which human values and goals could be realized. This also was a consequence of Monotheism •Just as Monotheism affirmed one God and one Cosmos it also made it possible to believe in one ideal goal of history which would be constituted by a society of Justice and Peace. It is this working for a society of Justice and Peace which gives human beings their tasks and responsibilities in the world. It is a threefold responsibility. A) For themselves, in the sense that the spark of the Divine within them must be tended and realized and used to deal with all self centered action at the expense of others. B) for others who also are made in the Divine image. The Bible was the first book to indicate that all human beings have a claim on us and that in the sight of God they are spiritually equal. Thus the ideal of a Just society for all was a basic affirmation of Monotheism. C) for God wh o is the ground for the order, value and meaning in the world and in our lives. •Monotheism means that Peace is now a possible ideal. With no warfare between the Gods and one cosmos and one goal of history then the realization of peace is now the end of all our striving. •Monotheism also in the Bible affirmed that the Jewish People were given the task of taking on the burden of making Monotheism known to the world. This was the concept in the Prophets of the mission of Israel. This mission was to made God and Righteousness real in the world. •Monotheism also affirmed the centrality of the ethical which brought about the revolutionary idea that all ritual was not to be seen as a means of cajoling or bribing or propitiating God but as a means of the implementation of the ethical. As a result the ethical and the holy became indissoluble. The holy was seen as all that realizes the spiritual in man and brings him close to God and since the holy is inoperative without the ethical the prophets viewed ethical behavior and not ritual as central to Judaism. For example on Yom Kippur only ethical sins are listed and God will not forgive sins of a moral nature without moral-spiritual regeneration on our part. Ritual should be a symbolization, implementation, and a continual reminder of our ethical ideals and values. •The goal of Jewish life on an individual basis is A) the transformation of self by using our best selves to deal with our worst selves. B) the transformation of society by establishing a just social order. C) taking our place in history by building on the past and doing our part. As Rabbi Tarfon said “it is not yours to finish the task neither is it yours to exempt yourselves from it. •The rejection of Monotheism is idolatry. Idolatry is the having of a false sense of the Holy. It is the making sacred of all those things, objects, persons, institutions that have no right to be sacred. Monotheism in its ethical and ritual manifestations enjoins us to continually guard ourselves against the temptation to attribute holiness to the projection of our fears and desires. An idol is a false hope. It is the taking of something that is finite, limited, and time bound, and giving it the status of the ultimate and eternal. The worst form of idolatry is the acting as if we are the center of the universe and that all is there to serve us and to cater to us as if we were divine. It is the taking of ourselves and all extensions of ourselves as the true sacred without any consideration for the claims of others. It is not recognizing our proper place in the scheme of things. All of the above constitutes the foundational covenant which became part and parcel of the Christian religion. A conceptual connectedness rather than a mechanical textual comparison is what is needed in any future work. There is no need for me to elaborate on this before this group except to say that the distinction between faith and works is a distinction, which is alien to Judaism. One fulfills one’s faith through one’s works and one’s works establishes and reinforces one’s faith. Herman Cohen has pointed out that the “idea of humanity” came from the Hebrew Bible and we can add so much more, most especially the ideal of a society of Justice and peace for all the world. 12 Almost in passing the text makes many very significant points that 12 H. COHEN, Religion of Reason (Atlanta: Scholar Press, 1995) especially chapter 13. N. 63 /Spring 2002Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 7 are helpful for Christian Jewish relations. At the end of § 28 it states “God was never resigned to leaving his people in wretchedness. He always reinstates them in the path of true greatness, for the benefit of the whole of humanity.” What a wonderful affirmation of the nature and role of the Jewish people. The text introduces contextual language to interpret the troublesome text for many non Christians of Acts 4:12. In commenting on a servant passage in second Isaiah it clearly recognizes the servant as the People Israel, which is destined to be a light to the nations (§34). While there seems to be some hesitation in interpreting Paul in Romans as I indicated above the long section at §§ 36 and 37 is very positive. What is especially helpful is the document’s claim that the unconditional promises given to Abraham includes the “gift of the land” (§37) “to your descendants I give this land” in § 39 again it states “the Lord commits himself to the gift of the land”. All of the above is positive. There is, however, unfortunately, much that from a Jewish perspective is troublesome. First is the treatment of Paul, and especially Galatians and Romans. I personally believe that the work of Stendhal and Gager that Paul was indeed the apostle to the gentiles and that the strictures as to those under the law were strictures against Judaizers is convincing. The careful analysis of both Galatians and Romans in Gager’s book Reinventing Paul makes it clear that the disputes Paul alludes to were disputes “within the Jesus –movement, not with Jews or Judaism outside.” 13 Building on the ground breaking work of Krister Stendahl, Gager summarizes his two books on Paul as follows: “When Paul summarizes his gospel in 8:1f (“There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus…For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death), he does so using language characteristic of Gentiles throughout the letter. When he speaks unambiguously of the law and Israel, he never uses terms like condemnation and death. Moreover, there is a strong thematic continuity between Chapters 1-4, which emphasizes the disobedience, the sins, and redemption of the Gentiles, and Chapters 5-8, which speak of their new life in Christ. Any other reading goes against the grain not just of the entire letter but of every Jewish understanding of the law. Little wonder that older Jewish readers of Paul spoke with dismay of his profound distortion of Judaism. But if, as more recent readers have discovered, Paul is not speaking of the law and Israel, that issue disappears. Still, the damage has been done. “I believe it a great tragedy that generations of Christians have seen Jews through these dark lenses.”14 Apropos this position the words of Stendhal are central “To me the climax of Romans is actually chapters 9-11. i.e., his reflections on the relation between church and synagogue, the church and the Jewish people- not “Christianity” and “Judaism,” not the attitudes of the gospel versus the attitudes of the law. The question is the relation between two communities and their coexistence in the mysterious plan of God. It should be noted that Paul does not say that when the time of God’s kingdom, the consummation, comes Israel will accept Jesus as the Messiah. He says only that the time will come when “all Israel will be saved” (11:26). It is stunning to note that Paul writes this whole section of Romans (10:18-11:36) without using the name of Jesus Christ. This includes the final doxology (11:33-36), the only such doxology in his writings without any christologial element.”15 I am not claiming that such a revisionist view of Paul is conclusive. What I am saying is that its claims must be carefully weighed and dealt with. The text does mention Judaizers so that it is at least aware of its importance. A second issue that needs clarification is the identification of the prophets condemnation of Israelites society with Jesus’s condemnation of the Jewish leadership. What is involved are the kind of controversies mentioned above not what is stated in the text. The Prophetic criticism in the Hebrew Bible evinces a concern for two issues, idolatry and social justice. Kaufmann points out that the classical prophets believe that it is not only idolatry but also injustice, the oppression of the poor and needy, the exploitation and social corruption of the ruling classes that would lead to exile. Their condemnation is accompanied with a broken heart for the great tragedy that is befalling their people. Moses plea has a parallel in Paul in Romans chapter 9 but to claim that the leadership of the Jewish people were intent on killing Jesus and destroying Christianity is totally unwarranted as is evidenced by the compelling scholarship both Jewish and non Jewish for the last 100 years. It was the Roman government and Pontius Pilate who were doing the oppressing, not the Pharisaic leadership. We know that the high priest was the appointee of the Procurator and functioned as his henchman. The oppressive nature of the Roman government can be seen by the numerous revolts against Rome. I do not want these criticisms in any way to take away from what I can only view as a most important step forward in Catholic Jewish relations. There is no question that the intent and in the main the execution of this document is motivated by a sincere desire for genuinely warm and loving relations between our two faiths. No more fitting conclusion can be the whole hearted agreement on my part with the hope expressed in the texts conclusion “that prejudice and misunderstanding be gradually eliminated” for both of us “ in favor of a better understanding of the patrimony” we share so as to strengthen the links that bind us. 13 J.G. GAGER, Reinventing Paul ([NY]: Oxford University Press, 2000) 69. 14 Ibid., 81. 15 K. STENDHAL, Paul among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980) 4.1 Sections of this lecture condense my far longer, footnoted survey, “Paul VI and the Observers/Guests to Vatican Council II,” in Paolo VI e l’Ecumenismo: colloquio internazionale di studio, Brescia, 25-26-27 settembre 1998, Pubblicazioni dell'Istituto Paolo VI, 23 (Brescia/Rome: Istituto Paolo VI/Edizione Studium, 2001) 118-158. See also my “The Foundation of the SPCU,” in Alberic STACPOOLE, ed., Vatican II by Those Who Were There (London: Chapman, 1986) 62-87. 8 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 63 / Spring 2002 Centro Conferences CCCC The Observers at Vatican Two An Unique Experience of Dialogue 1 Thomas Stransky, Paulist Tantur Ecumenical Institute, Jerusalem (Conference held at the Centro Pro Unione, Thursday, 23 January 2003) Vatican Two. Without taking account of its debates and resolutions, and of its interpreting “the signs of the times” of the early 1960s and the rest the century, it is impossible to understand modern Catholicism. The Church’s current consensus and dissents, its confidences, hesitations and nervousness in theology and ethics, in pastoral and missionary activities, in social and political involvements, in ecumenical and inter-religious commitments, and in the interplay of universal, regional and local church structures — all are conditioned by Vatican II deliberations and resulting quarrels about what the 16 promulgated documents intended clearly to say or not to say, or deliberately to leave ambiguous. Mississippi novelist William Faulkner is right: “The past is never dead, it’s not even past.” On the one hand, we are still too close to Vatican II. That proximity recalls Chairman Zhou Enlai’s answer in China when André Malraux, a self-acknowledged French intellectual, asked the communist premier what he thought of the 18 th century French Revolution: “It’s too early to tell.” On the other hand, we, all children of the Council, are becoming too distant from that “convulsive alteration of the whole religious landscape” (Gary Wills). Most Catholics today have been born after Vatican II; for them the center of the gravity of history lies in the future, not the past. The poet Robert Penn Warren reminds us: “History is not in the truth but in the telling.” Ruthless time is dispossessing us of council participants who in their tellings could still re-present the event. Less than 60 of the over 2450 Council Patres (or Fathers) are still breathing, and in charity one dares not inquire about the viable alertness of each one’s memory. Of the 189 official Observers and Guests, I can count at least 130 who have left the earthly scene. Of us four original staff members of Pope John’s 1960 Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity (SPCU), Cardinal Bea and Bishop Jean-François Arrighi have gone down to dust. Still living is 93-year-old Cardinal Willebrands, who in a Dutch convent of caring nuns bears the cross of mental and physical disabilities. Only I remain active in ecumenical and interreligious pastoral ministries, my heart and mind kept alert by daily immersion in the Israeli/Palestinian war zone. Thus, I am quite aware that this evening you have limping before you a 72-year-old museum piece. To quote the apologizing Irishman at a wedding: “It’s not me best hat, but it’s me only one.” Last May I gratefully accepted Fr. Jim Puglisi’s invitation to shorthand a few of my experiences and recollections of the Observers, their roles and influences at the Council. I willingly do this, before my own memory jogs into lax words for dim thoughts, or prompts those nostalgic fantasies which are a euphemism for lies. Who were Vatican II participants? The four-year event self-created a genius loci which conditioned a participating extended family. This unique family embraced Popes John XXIII and Paul VI and their fellow bishops; the official and private experts (periti); the Catholic female and male auditors; the journalists of the religious and the secular media; the delegated Observers and SPCU Guests; and those other Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestants, and Jews, who came to Rome for short or longer periods. Despite a plethora of available primary documents, published diaries, journals and books, the persistent question about this participating family remains partially unanswered: who influenced whom, in the spirit and thrust of the Council itself, and in specific themes and wordings of the drafts schemata? Indeed, influences were so porous that designating isolated conditioners and single agents, even the presiding popes, is the frustrating headache of the scrupulous historian. And an historian needs to be content also with the untraceables. Far more difficult to delineate is the changing environment of the ecumenical movement between 1959 and 1965, and to traceN. 63 / Spring 2002Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 9 the influence of the movement on the variety of council participants, and vice versa, their influence on participants in the world-wide movement. Who were the Observers? What, where and how did the Observers observe? I include here SPCU-invited Guests. Through complicated negotiations by the SPCU, the Observers were delegated by their Churches, such as the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Anglican and the Old Catholic; or by seven world confessional families, for example, the Lutheran World Federation, World Methodist Council, and the World Committee of Friends (Quakers); or by a national church, such as the Church of South India and the United Church in Japan; or in its unique position, by the World Council of Churches (WCC). In another category the SPCU itself invited Guests, either ad personam, e.g. Lutheran Oscar Cullmann and French Reformed Max Boegner; or representing an institution, such as the Orthodox theological institute of St. Sergius in Paris, St. Vladimir seminary in New York, and Taizé; or a church, such as the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Baptists and the Pentecostal Assemblies of God. Most were ordained clergy, all male, almost all professors of theology and social ethics, Scriptures and patristics, liturgy and church history. The WCC Observers were Swiss Reformed Lukas Vischer and Greek Orthodox lay philosopher-theologian Nikos Nissiotis, but over 30 had longer WCC experiences than these two; 17 had participated in the first WCC assembly (Amsterdam, 1948), and several more in WCC activities during the 1950s. Including their substitutes who came for shorter stretches, 167 Observers and 22 Guests over the four sessions – a mélange not only with different backgrounds and concerns, but also with “differing degrees of wariness” (A. Outler). The Observers’ church traditions had widely different dealings with the Catholic Church. They carried in mental bags varied lists of wishes and desires (vota et desideria), as they arrived in Rome with differing expectations, not all positive. In fact, most initial expectations of Vatican II in the Orthodox and Protestant worlds were anything but positive. For the Orthodox, unilaterally to convoke, in John XXIII’s words of January 25, 1959, “an Ecumenical Council for the Universal Church” displayed papal arrogance. An Ecumenical Council is of both the East and West, and the Universal Church requires its unanimity for doctrinal and disciplinary resolutions. Does the Catholic Church dare consider that a Synod, presided over by the bishop of Rome as patriarch of the West, can stamp dogmatic decisions with the seal of infallibility, and impose them on the Orthodox? For Lutheran Observer George Lindbeck, Pope John’s unqualified prediction of a “new Pentecost” rather shocked Protestants. Their textbooks perceived Trent and Vatican I not to be privileged arenas of the Holy Spirit but decisive symbols of aberrations from biblical faith. Would not the upcoming Vatican II repeat those unbiblical definitions or canons of Trent and Vatican I, even if perhaps with more politesse? “Semper idem” was the motto on the episcopal herald of Cardinal Ottaviani, president of the preparatory theological commission. How could Vatican II with integrity change the antimodernist encyclicals of Pius IX and Pius X, say, on religious liberty and ideal church-state relations, and on unnuanced home- is-Rome ecclesiology? The principal reason why the Baptist World Alliance asked the Unity Secretariat not to invite it to delegate official Observers was the overt church and state harassments and even persecution of Baptist and other Protestant minority groups in dominant “Catholic” countries in Latin America, Spain, Portugal and Italy, and nervous expectations that Vatican II would solemnly sanction these. The anti-Protestant behaviors, justified by the principle that error has no rights, was also a reason why to the first session the World Presbyterian Alliance delegated the Waldensian doyen Vittorio Subilia and Princeton professor James Nichols; the Alliance respected these two for their articulate, strong opposition to Catholic church-state theories and practices enshrined in legal concordats. In August 1960 Cardinal Montini of Milan worried that “a Council to re-establish the unity of Christians, after the vain endeavors history has seen, if it should fail in its sweep, would make worse the present state of affairs.” Even later papal clarifications that Vatican II would not be a reunion gathering but an internal, pastoral Catholic event for church aggiornamento did not lessen unease among ecumenical Protestants and Orthodox. Some asked: Is not the aggiornamento intent also proselytic, to beautify the old, lined and tired face, in order to lure separated brethren, susceptible to such new charms, to return home? Max Boegner recalled the private remark of a French Catholic theologian, then in Vatican-forced silence because of his ecumenical stances: “I pray that the Council not discuss, not say anything about church unity.” Likewise my own pessimism before the first session. Already in December of 1960, one of my primary SPCU obediences was the perusal of the solicited consilia et vota from all bishops, male superior generals, pontifical universities, and the roman curia discasteries – eventually 9,520 pages which the Vatican Press published sub secreto in 15 thick volumes. I was to seek out and note whatever pertained to the ten ecumenically related subjects which the first meeting of the SPCU members and consultors (November 14-16) had listed, e.g. relations with other Christians and with Jews; the ecumenical movement; mixed marriages; religious freedom; the Word of God in the life of the Church; heresy and schism; the priesthood of all believers and the role of laity in the Church. My general impression was most disheartening. Here was a collection of such disparate views of what Vatican II should do to incarnate Pope John’s aggiornamento, that who and what would win out was unanswerable. On the very eve of the Council, if I had been forced to predict, I would have given a more negative than positive conjecture, for by then I had carefully read also the 119 schemata of the preparatory commissions, including the critical duet from Ottaviani’s commission: On the Church and On the Two SourcesNext >