Friday, May 22, 2015

Nostra Aetate

There has been some anti-Semitic comments expressed by some commentors. Some of the comments have not been published due to the fact that it is too vile.  Apparently, some people do not believe that Jews and Christians worship the same God.  How some people conclude that the Jews worship a different God is beyond me.  If one were to ask a Jew the name of the God they worship, their answer would be "Yahweh" or "YHWH".  Is Yahweh supposed to be another or different God than who the Christians worship??? Yahweh is the one and only true God, and Christians also worship Yahweh.   

In the Jerusalem Bible, which is a Catholic Bible, the name "Yahweh" is found there.  This simply means that the Jews and the Christians worship the same God.  God revealed Himself to the Jews in their history, but to the Christians, this same God revealed Himself through His Son Jesus Christ.  However, Christians are aware of God's nature....that He is three persons in one God.  Today, both Christians and Jews are waiting for the Messiah.  For Christians, they are waiting for His return; for the Jews, they await His coming.  On that Day, Christians will recognize Christ and bow down to Him, and the Jews will recognize Yahweh and bow down to Him.  

John 14:9  Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, shew us the Father?  

The following was taken from the document Nostra Aetate, which was written in 1965:

Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)

The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.

As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).(12)

Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.

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.

Nostra Aetate


  1. So what's your point Diana? Your introductory paragraphs are just assertions that are not supported by the passages from Nostra Aetate. Those quotes simply say:

    The beginnings of the revelation of Christ occurred under the old covenant
    Christ calls all people to be one, including Jews and Gentiles alike. In other words, faith in Christ will bring people together.
    That Jesus Christ was born in the flesh of a Jewish familial line. This is an honor for the Jewish people
    God does not repent of the gifts he makes or the calls he issues - no surprise there
    We ought to be nice to each other
    We don't hold the Jewish people as a whole either now or then responsible for the death of Jesus - or as cursed or rejected by God. Nor do we say this is the position of scripture
    Because we reject all forms of persecution, we reject persecution against the Jewish people

    So, where does it say that the expected but not-yet-come Messiah of the Jewish faithful will coincide with the second coming of Christ?

    If the expected Jewish Messiah is to come in the flesh and be a real historical leader who will do real historical things (according to them), and the second coming of Christ is not a return of Christ to this world in that way, who do say is wrong?

    If you assert that these events are the same, are you suggesting that the Jews are wrong about their Messiah? Or are you saying that the Church is mistaken about Jesus second coming?

    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:06 am,

      Are you saying that the Jews do not worship the same God as the Christians?

    2. Which Jews, Diana? These ones clearly do not worship the same God as the Christians:

      Can you be more specific please?

    3. Dear Anonymous at 11:23 am,

      See my entry post above. I was referring to the Jews who believe in Yahweh. Did I say anything about the atheists and the agnostics in my entry post????? I am surprised you did not ask me "which Christians?"

    4. Can you give me a list of "Christian Atheists"? I think not. And this is an important point.

      But, anyway, presumably you are asking - do religious Jews, believing in Yahweh, worship the same God as the Christians?

      And I suspect that your question is somehow related to the unspoken suggestion that we must agree with the Jews in order to love them. This is patently false - The command for Christians to love the other person, to be benevolent and beneficent toward them, is independent of what the other believes. I just want to get that out there.

      But to return to your question. If by "same" you mean "identical", then the answer is no, because surely the intent of the worship is important to the worship itself. In other words, is it possible to worship implicitly what you reject explicitly?

      If God is truly three-in-one, then the worship of the religious Jew excludes that possibility and hence it is false worship.

      In Christianity, there is a second difference however, which I would have thought you would know. IN Christianity it is Christ himself who acts in the liturgy - Christ is the priest and victim and the action of worship originates, extends and concludes with him. Christians simply join with Christ in communion with him, by the action of the Holy Spirit. It is an entirely different and Divine Worship, unlike the ancient ways.

      Certainly, who-I-say-God-is for the religious Jew has similarities to the who-I-say-God-is for the Christian - ie One, Eternal, Transcendent, Omnipotent God. But without the revelation of Jesus Christ it is an incomplete understanding

      Finally, a name is simply a name. It merely points to a reality. If the reality is different, it doesn't matter if the name is the same. Simon (peter) was not the same person as Simon (magus) simply because they were called the same thing. if I named my dog "Yahweh" and worshipped him, would you say he is the same dog that the Jews worship.

    5. Dear Anonymous at 12:37 pm,

      Here is a list of Christian atheists:

      You stated: "But to return to your question. If by "same" you mean "identical", then the answer is no,"

      The Catholic Church disagrees with you. Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis PRAYED and WORSHPED together with the Jews in their synagogues because the Catholic Church teaches that the one true God revealed Himself to Abraham. The Jews believed in the God of Abraham. Christians ALSO believe in the God of Abraham. Catholics and Jews believe in the same God, but they SEE Him differently.

      You also stated: " Finally, a name is simply a name. It merely points to a reality. If the reality is different, it doesn't matter if the name is the same. Simon (peter) was not the same person as Simon (magus) simply because they were called the same thing. if I named my dog "Yahweh" and worshipped him, would you say he is the same dog that the Jews worship"

      I find it insulting that you would compare the name of God to a dog. So, here is your reality. The God of Abraham told Moses that His name is "I AM.' In the New Testament, Jesus also revealed His name as "I AM." (John 8:58). By the way, Christ was praying to Yahweh in the Garden of Gethsemane. Catholics and Jews worship and pray to the same God, but we see Him differently than our Jewish brothers because Catholics know God's nature.

    6. That Christian atheism is an absurdity is demonstrated simply by referring to the definition of Christianity:

      "Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, fully divine and fully human, and the savior of humanity whose coming as Christ or the Messiah was prophesied in the Old Testament.[7]"

      You say:

      "Catholics and Jews believe in the same God, but they SEE Him differently."

      Explain please how "believe" and "see" are distinct concepts in this sentence.

      By your reasoning Catholics and Muslims worship the same God too - Allah being the Arabic name for the same "El" of the Hebrew scriptures. God is not simply a name, but a reality - revealed partially or fully. A partial revelation is useless until it is fulfilled. Jesus is the full revelation of the Father, and to compare the two is not only futile and insulting, but it is an implicit denial of the Kingship of Christ and the Will of God.

      Do you think that God wills the Jewish (and all) people to know him in Christ? Do you think ignorance is a sacrament that means they need not know Jesus?

      Do you believe that one can worship implicitly what they reject explicitly?

    7. "The Catholic Church disagrees with you. Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis PRAYED and WORSHPED together with the Jews in their synagogues because the Catholic Church teaches that the one true God revealed Himself to Abraham. The Jews believed in the God of Abraham. Christians ALSO believe in the God of Abraham. Catholics and Jews believe in the same God, but they SEE Him differently."

      That's similar, not identical

    8. Dear Anonymous at 3:56 pm,

      According to "Identical" is defined as:

      1. similar or alike in every way:
      The two cars are identical except for their license plates.

      2. being the very same; selfsame:
      This is the identical room we stayed in last year.

      3. agreeing exactly:
      identical opinions.

      Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis prayed together with the Jews in the synagogues because Christians and Jews pray to the same God.

    9. Dear Anonymous at 3:36 pm,

      You said that Christian atheism is an absurdity. Of course it is just like Jewish atheism is an absurdity. Both were created by the secular world that had nothing to do with Christianity or Judaism.

      You also asked: "Explain please how "believe" and "see" are distinct concepts in this sentence."

      Let us look for example at my husband's mother. My husband grew up with his mother. She gave birth to him and raised him up. Between me and my husband, who do you think knows his mother more? I believe his mother exist, but I see his mother differently than he does. He knows more about her than I do and has seen sides of her that I haven't seen since he grew up with her.

      It is the same with the Jews and Christians. When Jews and Christians speak of God, they speak of the same God because there is ONLY ONE God. However, Christians grew up knowing God's nature (the Holy Trinity). The Jews only see God in the center. Christians, on the other hand, see three persons in that one same God in the center. We see a side of Him (His nature) that Jews have not yet seen nor experienced.

      This meeting with the Jews have opened up the eyes of some of them when they heard that God loves them. As one Rabbi pointed out, they have never heard in their synagogues that God loves them. Thanks to the Christians, these Jewish Rabbis are now enlightened with God's love and that is something they can bring back to their people......that God loves them.

      You also mentioned the Muslims. Allah is the Arabic name of "God." Arab Christians also call God "Allah." According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Capitalization is mine):

      CCC 841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and TOGETHER WITH US they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

      Anonymous, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that "TOGETHER WITH US" the Muslims adore the one merciful other words, the SAME God. Pope Francis also went into a Mosque and prayed together with the Muslims. The Pope and the Muslims prayed to the same God. The Muslims are also ignorant of God's nature. However, unlike the Jews, the Muslims accept Jesus as the Messiah and the Word of God.

    10. "the Muslims accept Jesus as the Messiah and the Word of God. "


    11. This whole argument is stupid. Please allow me to demonstrate.

      John and Barry both believe that the earth exists, and they both believe there is only one earth.

      John looks out his window and notices that the world around him looks flat, and that water runs downhill. He concludes that the entire earth is, in fact, flat. He believes in the earth, but sees it a certain way.

      Barry, on the other hand, is an astronaut, and he sees the earth rather differently – as a sort of sphere, in fact. Barry believes in the earth’s existence too, but sees something different to John.

      Because they see the earth differently, albeit only in some limited respects: John and Barry do quite different things, and have quite different attitudes. John, for example, will not travel on ships, for fear of falling of the earth’s edge.

      Now, what good can be achieved by merely affirming that both John and Barry believe in the same, one earth. Certainly, there is not another earth, but that doesn’t mean John and Barry “believe” in the same one. John’s is flat, for a start, and on John’s earth, sailing is dangerous.

      Given that the earth is actually not flat, if Barry was to remain silent and not point out to John his mistaken understanding; could he be considered his friend? Would it be charitable to allow John to continue in his false belief? Even if John’s understanding is partially correct (the earth is flat in certain areas) his overall understanding is plain wrong – ie it doesn’t match reality.

      Barry certainly doesn’t hate John for being wrong, in fact, he likes him. So he decides to tell him the truth, and not have a party celebrating that they both simply believe in the earth.

    12. Dear Anonymous at 9:41 pm,

      Apparently, you have never read the Qu'ran nor spoken to any of the few Muslims who live on this island. The Qu'ran says that Jesus was the Messiah many times, and the Muslims believe that He is the Messiah. There is also a passage in the Qu'ran saying that Jesus is the Word of God. The passage is found in Sura 4.171.

    13. Dear Anonymous at 10:08 pm,

      See my response to you in the following weblink:

    14. Dear Diana at 5.39 am (can't sleep huh?)

      With respect, thats not the point. What difference does it make if Muslims believe Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, if they reject his teaching and do not recognise him as the Lord? There is only one name under heaven and earth....

    15. Dear Anonymous at 12:29 pm,

      I am always awake at 4:00 am, preparing breakfast for the family. Rarely do I get on the computer at 5:30 am.

      Have you not heard? Thousands of Muslims are converting to Christianity in Africa.

  2. And yet in the NCW communities on Guam at least, the word "Yahweh" when spoken in readings is to be replaced with "The Lord", a standing order since the communities are born...

    1. Benedict XVI is the one who asked it not be used.

  3. Diane, look at what they're saying in the jungle.

    AnonymousMay 24, 2015 at 12:54 PM

    Oh, tony with hair! And that gross big fat TONGUE. feeling really ILL. And a younger , not so haggard Pat, the Tall Woman. Diana, any comment? BTW ...Tony's dirty feet.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 1:45 pm,

      All I can say is that this anonymous poster of 12:54 pm is very perceptive. This is how the Archbishop looks like (See weblink below). The photo was taken in 2014, which is only last year. Notice that the Archbishop has very little hair and is almost bald.

      And suddenly, the jungle comes up with a photo of a very young Archbishop with a head full of hair and makes it look like he was frolicking in the Dead Sea of THIS YEAR, 2015. It appears to me that some people did some photo cropping and editing. How desperate the jungle must be and how gullible the junglefolks are.

    2. Actually it doesn't matter whether the picture was taken in 2015, 2005, 1995 or 1985. It is clear that this is picture of the Archbishop, with his tongue hanging out, frolicking with a woman. Pre-NCW or post-NCW it is inappropriate behavior on his part.

    3. Dear Anonymous at 3:05 pm,

      You did not understand what I said about cropping and editing. Those are fake pictures. The Archbishop's face and Pat Cotman's face were put in someone's bodies swimming at the beach.

    4. Dear Anonymous at 3:05 pm,

      You did not understand what I said about cropping and editing. Those are fake pictures. The Archbishop's face and Pat Cotman's face were put in someone's bodies swimming at the beach.

    5. Sorry, Diana, dear,not photoshopped. That can easily be detected. Besides, haven't you noticed that the Arcbishop has cut back on travel to look so devoted to his flock? Guess you have. Who said it was 2015. You.

    6. Dear Anonymous at 5:36 am,

      It is photoshopped. The shades of both their faces are a different shade. Also, opening your mouth wide with your tongue sticking out while in the waters of the Dead Sea is a no-no. The Dead Sea is not a regular beach. Warning signs are posted around telling tourists not to dip their head in the water. And if the water is swallowed or gets in their eyes, they will suffer.

      Anonymous, it was only recently that the Archbishop was in the retreat in Israel. And suddenly, the jungle posts a very young Archbishop in the waters of the Dead Sea with the statement that the Archdiocese burns while he frolic there??? Me thinks one exaggerates too much.

    7. I trust Tim Rohr enough to know he would not post any fake pictures.

    8. Dear Anonymous at 8:47 am,

      The fact that he put "Dead Sea Frolic UPDATE" already shows that he is misleading his readers into thinking that the photo is an UPDATE on what is really going on in the retreat in Israel when in fact no one went swimming in the Dead Sea during the entire retreat. The photo is a fake.

    9. Diana, the use of the word "update" in "Dead Sea Frolic UPDATE" was in reference to the progression of photos:

      The first post of the photo on 5/20 under the title "Not Everybody Gets To …" had the approaching body of the male whited out and the face of the woman being approached by the male was blurred.

      The second post of the photo on 5/21 under the title "Dead Sea Frolic Update" showed the bodies of the male and female in the water with only their faces blurred. So the word "UPDATE" was referring to the fact that more of the photo was being revealed, and not in reference to "the retreat in Israel" as you claim.

      The third post of the photo on 5/24 under the title "It's Not About the Swim," the one that Anonymous May 24, 2015 @ 1:45 PM wrote about, showed the faces of BOTH the male and the female. And the male turned out to be the archbishop.

      You clearly regard Tim Rohr as your enemy and yet you underestimate him. If Tim Rohr really wanted to make people think that the photo was one from the recent "retreat in Israel" he would not have shown the archbishop with so much hair. He would have made sure to show the archbishop's receding hairline to make sure it looked authentic as a 2015 photo.

      As a matter of fact Tim Rohr never said that it was a recent photo. One of the commenters said it was from 2000. YOU are the one who said it was a 2015 photo in your 1:52PM comment.

    10. Dear Anonymous at 6:58 pm,

      Tim Rohr already said that the Archbishop is frolicking around the world while the Archdiocese burn, and he publishes a photo at a time when the Archbishop returned from Israel. Why didn't he publish a photo of the Archbishop frolicking in the Philippines? Or Rome? Or even Paris?

      I have said many times that Tim Rohr and the Latin Traditional Catholics are fellow Catholics and brothers. The enemy had always been Satan. Unfortunately, all Tim has been doing for almost two years is bashing the Archbishop and the NCW. He never had anything good to say in his blog. It is almost two years since Father Paul and Monsignor James was removed.........and so far, what has he gotten????? Anthony Apuron is STILL the Archbishop. You can complain to Rome with letters and photos all you want, but it has already been almost two years.

  4. @Diana and friends- why lie and pretend it isn't real- It is VERY real and I was there. Just acknowledge it, it's an old photo of Apuron being "bought" with promises and lies. This was years ago. I have more and already sent them to CCOG, Tim Rohr, and to the Holy See. Would you like a list of who was there and the itinerary? Guess who took the photo :-).

    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:06 am,

      See my comment above. An "update" is not considered "old". And all I see is a cropped up photo of a very young Archbishop with the title "Dead Sea Frolic UPDATE" on it. You can invent stories all you want and give them to the Holy See all you want. Have you noticed that Rome has not responded at all??? Archbishop Krebs was here and the Vatican Delegation was here. Your letters and photos were sent, and so far what do you have? Any response from Rome yet?

    2. They're just trying to crucify the Bishop For WHAT

  5. From another Jewish participant at the recent Domus party:

    "Our Catholic friends, who came to this meeting from around the world to meet Jews, may have been surprised by the actual encounter. People generally do not conform to stereotypes. Jews of today are certainly not the Jews of Jesus’ time, who undoubtedly were, themselves, not of one ilk; we are not all conservative on issues of family; there is not necessarily a correlation between religious observance and an active search for spiritual meaning; we have not necessarily ‘found’ religion or found that ‘religion’ provides the answers to our existential questions. The expectations of our Catholic partners that we would conform to certain traits and values and that ‘religion’ for us was the same as it was for them meant that there was no possibility of genuine dialogue. There was not yet a clear appreciation of the ‘present and particular being’ of the Jews of today.

    "While most of the Jewish delegates were aware of that document, they were not prepared for the expressions of love for Jewish belief and were taken aback by the appropriation of Jewish prayer, particularly the Shema, which they (the Neo-Cats) invoke enthusiastically.

    There was a danger that our dialogue would indeed be monologue: that the Christians would be speaking to the imaginary Jews whose Judaism was that of Jesus and that the Jews would be reluctant to engage with a group whose zeal for Jesus could be understood to preclude genuine respect for beliefs in which he has no role."