Another Vatican II Peritus Confirmed to be Estranged from the Gospel

From Cardinal Biffi comes testimony of a speech prepared by Vatican II peritus, Fr. Giuseppi Dossetti containing plain dual-covenant theology.

A few comments: Cardinal Biffi's assessment of a grave distortion of the Gospel at the most fundamental level is exceedingly mild.

The "contemporary German author" Cardinal Biffi has in mind is likely Jürgen Moltmann, although, it could be any given German Cardinal or Bishop, or a certain German Pope who is in the habit of reckless statements and acts that betray an ambivalence towards the Gospel at best.

This is useful information but in the big picture it seems to be a limited hang-out for English speakers. Could Cardinal Biffi be unaware of his neighbor, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini's, L'assurdo di Auschwitz e il Mistero della Croce and many other such works? Could he be unaware that one of John Paul II's first papal acts was to offer a Mass at Auschwitz and proclaim, "I kneel at this Golgotha of the modern world"? Does this not at least represent a grave alteration of Christology fatally compromising the whole perspective of "sacred doctrine"? Dual-covenant ("Noahide") theology and the Calvary-relativising theology of Auschwitz are tightly intertwined within the contemporary German school of philosophy/theology that Biffi makes reference to which John Paul II and Benedict XVI were certainly influenced by.

That such violence to the Gospel could be excused as a concession to "Jewish-Christian dialogue" only demonstrates the problem inherent to that "dialogue."

... AN UNPRESENTABLE CHRISTOLOGY


At the end of October 1991, [Vatican II peritus, Fr. Giuseppi] Dossetti graciously brought me the speech I had commissioned from him for the centenary of Lercaro's birth. "Examine it, change it, add, remove freely," he told me. He was certainly sincere: at that moment, the man of God and faithful priest was speaking.

Unfortunately, I found something that wasn't right. And it was the idea, presented favorably by Dossetti, that just as Jesus is the Savior of the Christians, so also the Torah, the Mosaic law, is also currently the path of salvation for the Jews. The assertion was shared by a contemporary German author, and was probably favored by Dossetti because he saw its usefulness for Jewish-Christian dialogue.

But with chief responsibility for orthodoxy in my Church, I could never have accepted putting into doubt the revealed truth that Jesus Christ is the only Savior of all. [...]

"Fr. Giuseppe," I said to him, "haven't you ever read the pages of Saint Paul, and the narration of the Acts of the Apostles? Doesn't it seem to you that in the first Christian community, the problem was exactly the opposite? In those days, it was accepted peacefully and without a doubt that Jesus was the Redeemer of the Jews; if anything, what was discussed was whether the gentiles could also be fully reached by his salvific action."

Besides, it should be enough – I thought to myself – not to forget a little phrase from the letter to the Romans, where it says that the Gospel of Christ "is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: for Jew first, and then Greek" (cf. Rm. 1:16).

Dossetti was not in the habit of renouncing any of his convictions. Here in the end he gave in when I warned him that, if necessary, I would interrupt and publicly contradict him; and he acquiesced to say only this: "It does not seem consistent with the thinking of Saint Paul to say that the way of salvation for Christians is Christ, and for Jews is the Mosaic Law." There was no longer anything erroneous in this statement, and I did not raise any objections, even if I would have preferred that there had not even been a reference to such an aberrant theological opinion.

This "incident" made me reflect a great deal, and I immediately judged it to be of extreme gravity, although I did not speak of it with anyone at the time. Any alteration of Christology fatally compromises the whole perspective of "sacred doctrine." In a man of faith and of sincere religious life like Fr. Dossetti, it was plausible that the misstep was the result of a mistaken and inexact general methodological approach ... ("Cardinal Biffi Breaks Another Taboo. On Dossetti," Sandro Magister, Chiesa, January 3, 2011)

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1346167?eng=y

Also see:

Vatican II Peritus: Because of "The Holocaust," Church Must Reinterpret Gospel

David Klinghoffer Pushes Phony "Noahide Laws"

David Klinghoffer, whom Skull and Bones Bill Buckley employed as a writer for his National Review (the opinion-shaping rag for his "respectable conservative movement") is revealing what Buckley's "respectable conservative movement" formula, which The Remnant and others have apparently adopted, is really about.

A Gentile Torah-Believer's Testimony

David Klinghoffer

Friday May 15, 2009

Recently a particularly thoughtful commenter on this blog mentioned in passing that he identifies as a Noachide, that is, a Gentile believer in Torah. I was so interested to hear this that I wrote to him and asked for his story, which he graciously provided. I am copying it below. It's truly a privilege for me to have such a person among my readers.

But first a note of introduction. A few weeks back I startled some Jewish readers by saying that Judaism in its classical sources is a missionary religion. Not that Jews are enjoined to convert Gentiles to Judaism, but rather to draw them to the primordial Torah religion of Noachism. This is assumed to be the faith practiced by Noah and bequeathed to humanity.

In this model, which the Talmud details in tractate Sanhedrin, Jews follow the moral and ritual Mosaic code, while Gentiles follow the Noachide code. But the model of spiritual reality revealed in the Torah is a gift given to both Jews and Gentiles.

Maimonides makes it very clear in his Mishneh Torah that Jews are commanded to use whatever means are at our disposal to encourage (that's putting it mildly) non-Jews in this Noachide path (Laws of Kings 6:10). Yes, Judaism is an aggressively missionary religion, if not in current practice then in theory.

That having been said, I'll introduce you to my reader and friend, Brian Beckman:

I'm a physicist, and was brought up as a very conservative, traditional Catholic. The church changed dramatically in my youth. From my point of view, it wasn't wrenching, because I didn't change. That left me without an emotional connection to God, but also free to pursue a more durable, intellectual connection.


It can be tricky to look for God in a science-saturated life, but if one digs deep enough, one will find the need either for an Original Cause or for an Anthropic Principle. While I grant that anthropism is logically coherent, I find it empty, like a tautology. It's equally sound to suppose that the universe is here because God wants it. At that point, all one needs to compose a logically coherent notion of God is to study and sift good ideas from bad ones, which, as a physicist, I know how to do.

I am an unofficial Noahide. I follow the Seven Laws of Noah found in the Torah and detailed by Maimonides. I'm unofficial only because I have not yet had the chance to take a formal oath, but I would certainly do so. In ancient Israel, I might have been ger toshav -- a legal alien, and I might have aspired to be ger tzedek -- a righteous gentile, a very high calling indeed, likely beyond my ability to achieve.

These laws contain nothing surprising to any typical American with a passing acquaintance with the Bible and the Ten Commandments. According to my reading of Rabbi Elijah Benamozegh (see Jewish and Christian Ethics, and Israel and Humanity), a typical American Christian trying to follow basic Christian ethics would, in fact, be a de-facto Noahide even if not aware of it. 




That's kind of the point though. How did an nice, ordinary, American Catholic boy like me end up in such an unusual place? Visions? Dramatic conversions? No, much more boring. I found it by studying and listening to smart people.

There are three aspects to my Noahism: how I act, how I think, and what I believe. 

Practically, I study Torah almost daily and, when I have the privilege, I share Shabbat and other events with my Orthodox Jewish friends. These are new habits for me, but not conflicting with the life I've led since I went into religious "dry docks" in the early 1970s. Like many others, my traditionalist ship was unable to respond quickly enough to the tidal changes in the Catholic Church and I just put religion in-toto into safe storage and got on with other things. 




In my thinking, I've reached a synthesis that I can articulate and defend. Orthodox Jews and Catholics regard the Torah (the five books of Moses) as a direct revelation from God. But there is a fork in the road: Orthodox Jews regard it as permanent and immutable, like the laws of physics. Catholic doctrine studies the Bible in the light of St. Paul and the Church fathers. In that light, Jesus' resurrection changed everything and the Old Law doesn't apply any more, even though Jesus himself didn't repudiate it. So which is it? After four years exploring the "permanent and immutable" hypothesis (just beginning, really), I haven't found anything yet to refute it. I know of no place where the Torah states that it is changeable, and I know many places where it states that it is permanent. So if it is, in fact, true, then it seems it must be permanent and immutable.

There are those who reject revelation and treat the Torah not like the laws of physics but as ordinary human literature. I like to note that the claim of Sinai (two million eye witnesses to the theophany) is so outrageous that it must either be true or the most astounding hoax in human history. I have met people who can name their ancestors back to Sinai and claim unbroken verbal transmission of the eye-witness account. It is impressive that a claim like this can last more than 3,000 years with an entire nation believing it. I'll take it on faith.



I believe there is One God, the God of Israel. This much is in keeping with Catholic doctrine, which adds the Mystery of the Trinity. I personally come to grips with this as follows. If Jesus is divine, then he is completely identical with God the Father (according to the doctrinal Mystery). It would then seem inconceivable that Jesus could have any objection at all to devoting oneself to God and to the selfsame Torah that Jesus himself embraced. I realize that this is a personal syllogism and that Catholics will barbecue me over it, but it's the way I have always seen things even when I was a churchgoer.




I am very fortunate to have found this path, and it is only because of the wisdom and kindness of certain Orthodox Jewish acquaintances, now dear friends, that I was even aware of it, let alone enabled to pursue it.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofpriests/2009/05/a-gentile-torah-believers-testimony.html

See:

Who Says Judaism Isn't a Proselytizing System?

The REAL Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow

Kosher-Catholic Paulist Press Publishes Rabbi Benamozegh's "Noahide" Tome as "Classic of Western Spirituality"

Anti-Defamation League's Interfaith Affairs Director Emeritus Rabbi Leon Klenicki who below champion's the Kabbalist Elijah Benamozegh's attempt to transform Christendom into a "Noahide" Golem, was made a papal knight by Benedict XVI in 2007:

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/VaticanJewish_96/5119_96.htm

In 1998 Rabbi-Knight Klenicki announced that the Vatican had been conscribed in the rabbinic inquisition against the heresy of "Holocaust denial."

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/11/catholic-jewish-relations-move-forward.html

I hope that opponents of "dual-covenant" theory will read this interview closely because it reveals a truth regarding this theory that is missed by most investigators, which is, "dual-covenant" theory is the "Noahide Laws." According to the Rabbis, "Jews" have their own exclusive covenant and the other "70 Nations" have another non-Biblical, lower-tier covenant which the rabbis contrived for them which culminates in the Talmudic "Noahide Laws."

Never forget that when the rabbis and the bishops "dialogue" about "dual-covenant" theory, that it's the Talmudic "Noahide covenant" that applies for Christians, not the Biblical covenants. Their challenge is to make the Talmudic "Noahide Laws" appear to be Biblical. We saw a Vatican attempt at this impossible task last year:

Papal Commission Promotes Noahide Laws

This is all pretended in accordance with the popular delusion that Christianity is the "daughter religion" of rabbinic Judaism--a ridiculous proposition if there ever was one.

Israel and Humanity: A Study on the Problem of a Universal Religion, and Its Solution.

By Elijah Benamozegh

Translated by Maxwell Uria, in the series Classics of Western Spirituality. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1995. US$22.95.

Elijah Benamozegh's Israel and Humanity appeared originally in Italian at the end of the nineteenth century. Rabbi Benamozegh was the spiritual leader of the Jewish community of Livorno, Italy, and a well-known kabbalist and religious leader of great influence in European Jewry.

Benamozegh's book is an important contribution to Christian-Jewish dialogue, and by his reflection on the meaning of Christianity, he became a pioneering figure, inspiring both Jews and Christians to reflect on the meaning of the Jewish-Christian encounter in our time. Israel and Humanity is a reflection on the meaning of Christianity for Judaism, as well as a personal, very interesting story.

The following dialogue was prepared by Reverend James Loughran and Rabbi Leon Klenicki and published by the Central Conference of American Rabbis' CCAR Journal, 4/1999. Rabbi Klenicki kindly forwarded it with a strong recommendation to use the book to further the Christian-Jewish encounter. Father Loughran is the Director of the Commission on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the Catholic Diocese of New York. Rabbi Klenicki is the Director of the Anti-Defamation League's Department of Interfaith Affairs.

The Thought and Life of Elijah Benamozegh

A Dialogue on a Pioneer of Christian-Jewish Understanding

James Loughran and Leon Klenicki

Rev. James Loughran: Paulist Press recently published a translation of Elijah Benamozegh’s book, Israel and Humanity. It is a valuable contribution to the dialogue between Judaism and Christianity, because it makes available to the English-speaking world the thoughts of an important nineteenth-century Italian rabbi in the theological discourse of what has come to be called the “dual-covenant” theory.

Rabbi Leon Klenicki: Rabbi Benamozegh may not be known to many people, so I think it is important to give a brief sketch of his life and his thought.

Elijah ben Abraham Benamozegh (1823-1900), whose family had come to Italy from Morocco, was a rabbi of the important Jewish community of Livorno (Leghom), an intellectual leader of nineteenth century Italian Jewry, and its most articulate advocate of Kabbalah. Among his distinguished volumes, Israel and Humanity is perhaps his masterpiece.

Israel and Humanity forms a grand synthesis of Benamozegh’s religious thought. It is at once a wide-ranging summa of scriptural, Talmudic, Midrashic, and kabbalistic ideas, and an intensely personal account of Jewish identity. It is also a systematic, meticulously reasoned philosophy of Judaism in its relation to the other religions of mankind, especially its daughter religions, Christianity and Islam. Scrupulously Orthodox in his Jewish perspective, Benamozegh was a highly original thinker and wholly at ease in European secular and religious culture. His book breathes the exceptionally tolerant religious atmosphere of nineteenthth-century Italy.

Rev. JL: Benamozegh’s attitude toward Christianity is almost fraternal His insights, based on the Law of Noah and the use of kabbalistic traditions, lead him to believe that Judaism and Christianity can work as religious partners in telling the world that God is One. Jews should remain absolutely committed to Judaism, which he prefers to call “Hebraism” and Gentiles should learn of the One God through Christianity. As a thoroughly Orthodox rabbi, Benamozegh does not attempt a theological fusion of Judaism and Christianity, but he is theologically progressive when he examines Christianity’s relationship with Judaism

Given all the other urgent needs of the Jewish-Christian dialogue, a theological examination of this kind among Jewish scholars is most welcome by Christians like me. We continue to work on the priorities of a reckoning of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust and the relationship of Christians with the State of Israel. Christian scholars have also developed a better understanding of how Judaism is treated in Christian theology, voiding theories of a theology of contempt. A Jewish theological treatment of Christianity can assist us as well in strengthening the trust between our communities.

Benamozegh’s attitude about Christianity is, basically, that it is a true path to knowledge of the One God for Gentiles who follow the proscriptions of the Noahide Law.

Rabbi LK: As a matter of fact, Benamozegh’s book was the result of a conversation he had with Aime Palliere (1875-1949), who wanted to convert to Judaism. Benamozegh was very influential in his community, in the nineteenth century.. He told Palliere that there was no need for his conversion. He stressed the point that Aime had a mission and a vocation by himself. That mission was to bring God to humanity by following the traditions of Noah and Jesus according to the rabbi’s interpretation. Palliere lived in France during the Nazi occupation and was involved in saving Jews from deportation.

Rabbi Benamozegh’s book, nearly a hundred years old, is especially significant for our dialogue, and particularly to the understanding of the spiritual and theological meaning of our witnessing together in the world.

Rev. JL: Benamozegh certainly suggests there can be cooperation between Judaism and Christianity when he writes, “For Judaism, the world is like a great family, where the father lives in immediate contact with his children, who are the different peoples of the earth. Among these children there is a first-born, who, in conformity with ancient institutions, was the priest of the family, charged with executing the father’s orders, and with replacing him in his absence.... Such is the Jewish conception of the world. In heaven a single God, father of all humans alike; on earth a family of people, among whom Israel is the ‘first-born’” (p. 53).

Benamozegh dedicates a whole section of his book to promote the ideas of the universality of Judaism. Judaism is not, contrary to stereotypes, closed in on itself. it has a universal mission. As the Jewish people live halakhah, the life of Torah, they minister not only on their own behalf but on behalf of the whole human race. This concept was enlightening for me. At the same time, he limits the priestly ministry to Judaism, which is a concept not accepted by Christianity.

Rabbi LK: Benamozegh, rooted in the Jewish medieval philosophical heritage, tries to understand Christianity in the design of God, overcoming what I call the “triumphalism of memories.” Many Jews approach Christianity through the lens of past experiences of Christian anti-Semitism, and present realities in certain Latin American and European countries. There is, in contrast with the past, a new reality. It is the growing Christian theological recognition of Israel’s ongoing role in God’s covenant, and the Christian condemnation of anti-Semitism. Jews are challenged to reflect upon the meaning of Christianity as a “partner” in God’s design. Benamozegh was aware of this idea even before our late-twentieth-century formulation. For him, both Judaism and Christianity are the arms of God toward a world that has had to keep God’s commandments.

Rev. JL: Rediscovering Benamozegh in our time is most exciting and gives Jewish scholars a strong argument that there is precedence for discussing Christianity in theological terms without fear of conversion or disputation.

Benamozegh offers a clear Jewish perspective that there is one true and universal religion in which all people recognize the One God and are obedient to the covenant God made with Noah. He does not see a conflict between Jewish obedience to the Torah and Christians finding God through belief in Jesus, as long as they accept the Noahide commandments [according to which, belief in the divinity of Jesus is punished with execution. M.P.].

Rabbi LK: Benamozegh follows an idea that was already rooted in some Jewish medieval thinkers, that is, that the first covenant was established by God with Noah entailing moral commandments. These are the seven Noahide laws: prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, illicit intercourse, theft, eating the meat of a living animal, and the maintenance of justice.

These basic laws were supposed to be followed by Noah and his family in order to become partners in the covenant with God. He fails, and God decides, according to rabbinic thought, to choose Abram to be a witness of the moral covenant with God. Abram and Sarai changed their names to Abraham and Sarah in accepting God’s call, as a testimony to the fact that a religious commitment changes the life of the individual and the community. These are the two covenants revealed in the biblical text, one of God with all humanity, and the other with Israel.

Rev. JL: A problem arises here for Christian tradition. The dual covenant approach of Benamozegh and other Jewish scholars is appreciated for the fact that at least it legitimizes Christianity as a valid religion. At the same time, it is in disagreement with Christian self-description.

Christian theology teaches that the Christian covenant with God is something much more particular than the covenant with Noah. Throughout the New Testament and in the course of Christian interpretation throughout tradition, Christianity sees itself as the successor of all the covenants made between God and humanity in all of scripture. Christianity has a covenant with God sealed in the blood of Jesus, whom we accept as the universal Messiah.

As a result, we do not consider ourselves gentiles. Gentiles are non-Jewish nonbelievers. Our language gives us away on this. In the Roman Catholic Church we always consider our mission to be “ad gentes” to the nations. Once a person is incorporated into the Church, he or she shares, through the Christian covenant, in the heritage of Israel as well as the heritage of all humanity. We say that we are children of Abraham by adoption. Our theologies here are probably not reconcilable.

In our own modern theology of Judaism’s relationship with Christianity, we are able to say that we believe the covenants with Abraham and Moses have never been revoked and are still in effect for Jews. At the same time, we cannot comprehend the possibility of Christianity existing separate from its Jewish inheritance.

Rabbi LK: I sincerely think that at this stage of our dialogue and encounter, we Jews need to consider the meaning and purpose of Jesus and Christianity in God’s design. I share Benamozegh’s belief that Jesus fulfills God’s covenant with Noah. I feel, however, the need to reflect on the Christian theological claim of descent from Abraham.

Rev. JL: I appreciate the potential of the dual covenant theory as promoted by Benamozegh, because in many ways he does see Christianity as more than just another monotheistic religion teaching moral values. He speaks rather lovingly of Christianity as a “daughter” religion. There is a definite link here between Judaism and Christianity.

He even attempts to reconcile the concept of Trinity with monotheism, using kabbalistic ideas about the theory of “emanation.” On page 68, he wonders if the three persons of the Trinity don’t actually merge somehow into a greater unity. This is not in agreement with the Christian dogma of the Trinity, but with his desire to understand it; to demonstrate a theory of flexibility in Jewish monotheism to allow for Christian monotheism is most commendable.

Benamozegh is far ahead of his time among Jewish scholars. He can look beyond the sins of Christians to the beauty of the message and the reality of their faith in the same God who is the God of Israel. His work is truly important and can be a great catalyst for further discussion.

Rabbi LK: The translation and publication of Benamozegh’s book by the Paulist Press in its beautiful collection, “The Classics of Western Spirituality” is a real contribution to our present relationship and discussion. This book would have caused some problems forty or fifty years ago. Nowadays, the Christian-Jewish encounter is one in which we can share our traditions without any fear of syncretism or spiritual confusion.

The importance of Benamozegh is his invitation to dialogue at a theological level. We Christians and Jews have to deal with social and economic problems, with questions of racism, anti-Catholicism, and anti-Semitism, but we also have the need, I would even say obligation, to consider theological matters. I’m using the word “consider,” not “discuss.” Our theological considerations should be undertaken with a sense of commitment, respecting the other person as a fellow child of God, not as an adversary. I must clarify that considering and discussing theology evokes for Jews the memory of the reality of medieval European confrontations.

That time is over, and it is important for us to deal with religious matters coming out of our respective theological commitments. Otherwise, our dialogue will continue being an encounter of “tea and sympathy” that Benamozegh would consider lacking spiritual weight.

Rev. JL: I would like to add to your words an invitation. I invite Christian-Jewish dialogue groups to study Elijah Benamozegh’s Israel and Humanity. In doing so, they will be challenged to think in a deeper way about the knowledge of God and our joint testimony to God.

http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=1445