Question concerning Vatican II

[Patristic]

I watched an interview last night on MSNBC in which one of the editors of Newsweek Magazine was being questioned about Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Newsweek's latest edition has an article in which they attempt to answer the question of who was responsible for Jesus' death. The thing that aggrevated me was that the representative of Newsweek said that Gibson's version of the passion narrative contradicts what the Church stated in Vatican II. He said the Church used to believe Jews were responsible for crucifying Jesus, but that they disavowed this view at Vatican II. I just wanted to hear from my fellow Catholics what Vatican II actually said concerning this because I have a feeling that the editor wasn't being totally honest, but was rather misrepresenting what the Church taught.

 

[Roald]

From Nostra Aetate--a document of Vatican II

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.

edited to add origin of document

 

[Michelina]

The Council repeated what the Church has always said. There is no such thing as "collective guilt": ALL Jews are not responsible for the death of Jesus. Some individual Jews and P. Pilate were formally responsible for His crucifixion. We are all materially responsible for it.

Newsweek's guy does us all a disservice by implying that this was something new.

It is true that ignorant people sometimes used 'collective guilt' as an excuse to hate Jews. Which would be like Jews trying to impute collective guilt for the Holocaust to all non-jews.

 

[Patristic]

Thank you, I had a hunch the Church taught something along those lines, but I wasn't sure.

 

[Filia Mariae]

That whole article is ridiculous editorializing.

Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

 

[Patristic]

That whole article is ridiculous editorializing.

I haven't read the article yet, but every year around Easter time Time and Newsweek usually release their articles supposedly telling the world who Jesus really was since us Christians don't really know who He was. Anyways, I figure the article probably quotes the like of John Dominic Crossan whose views are downright ludicrous.

 

[Michelina]

I figure the article probably quotes the like of John Dominic Crossan whose views are downright ludicrous.

Is he that oldish, slim, Irish bloke who appears in Discovery Channel dopey-mentaries?

 

[Patristic]

Is he that oldish, slim, Irish bloke who appears in Discovery Channel dopey-mentaries?

Yeah, that would be him. I remember having to read a few of his books and wanting to throw them out the window.

 

[Michelina]

Thanks, I thought so. He ticks me off too.

 

[Patristic]

Thanks, I thought so. He ticks me off big time.

Same here. I was told he used to be a Catholic priest, but he left the Church because he was heavily involved in the Jesus Seminar and agreed with a lot of their views. I don't know if any of this is true, but it's what I have been told.

 

[Michelina]

It's true, I think. I know he was a priest, saw him in his collar when he was younger. Now he's always in civvies. He may have been in an order and is now 'out'. Don't know for sure about the priesthood.

 

[nyj]

Yes, he was a priest. Yes, he is involved in the Jesus Seminar. May God have mercy on their souls.