Don Curzio Nitoglia - Q&A on the Zionist state and Vatican II
source: Shoah, Stato d’Israele, Concilio Vaticano Secondo. Cinzia Notaro Intervista Don Curzio Nitogliatranslation: google-auto
Q. What is the reason for the new relationship between Judaism and Christianity?
A. According to Nathan Ben Horim (New horizons between Jews and Christians, Padova, Messaggero, 2011), former minister at the Israeli Embassy in Italy in charge of relations with the Holy See from 1980 to 1986, it is due "to three events: the Shoah (1), the birth of the State of Israel and the Second Vatican Council" (ibidem, p. 11).
Q. What is the significance of the Shoah (1942-45) for Judaism, from which the State of Israel was born in 1948?
R. Above all ethnic and also normative-religious. From these historical, moral, political, ethnic-religious reflections (since Judaism is a people or lineage that recognizes itself in a certain ethical practice or religiosity (2) the Second Vatican Council was born (1962-65), which "marks an epochal turning point in the history of the Catholic Church (3) [...] One of the most significant changes of the Council concerned the relationship with the Jews [...] "who still remain very dear to God".
Q. Without such events, would the change in the Christian view of the Jews not have been possible?
A. Definitely not. In fact, the Israeli diplomat admits that it would never have happened if there had not been the Shoah and the birth of the State of Israel" (ibidem, p. 12). He defines Judaism with the trinomial "Torah, People, Land" (ib., p. 107). Then he quotes the maître à penser of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Martin Buber: "Land and People, predestined for each other to realize together the kingdom of the Lord in this world" (ib., p. 108). The Israeli diplomat also explains that the masters of the Talmud immediately after the destruction of the Temple tried to save Israel by affirming that "residence in the Land of Israel is equivalent to the observance of all the commandments of the Torah: whoever resides there has a share in the future world (which is not the afterlife, but this world in the future), whoever leaves it is like one who has no God" (ib., p. 111).
Q. Is the problem of the Council substantially linked to the Judaization of Christianity (Nostra Aetate, October 28, 1965)?
A. Certainly and it is inextricably linked to that of the Shoah and Zionism. Those who do not want to admit it are incapable of seeing reality or do not want to admit it, because it is not convenient for them.
Q. After Nostra Aetate, have there been other post-conciliar documents on Judaism-Christianity relations?
A. Yes. The first is “Guidelines and Suggestions for the Application of the Declaration “Nostra Aetate” n. 4 (December 1, 1974). It is very significant and makes explicit the Declaration Nostra Aetate. In fact, the Guidelines urge us to study post-biblical Judaism starting from how today's Jews define themselves, that is, according to Talmudic and post-biblical literature (ibid., p. 14). Furthermore, the Guidelines make explicit, after about 8 years, the conciliar affirmation – still very nuanced and imprecise – according to which the Covenant between God and the Jewish people “remains” (ibid.) and from it the Aids for a correct presentation of the Jews and Judaism (26 June 1985), after another 10 years, make explicit the scope not only of spiritual or religious nature of Judaism today, but above all “ethnic-religious-cultural, with its own history linked to a specific Land” (ibid., p. 15) or “the question of the Land and the State of Israel” (ibid., p. 44), which led, 8 years later, to the Concordat of the Holy See with Israel (30 December 1993, begun formally and juridically on 29 July 1992 (4)), which “was the logical conclusion of the journey begun about thirty years earlier with Nostra aetate, n.4” (ib., p. 44).
Q. Briefly, how can we define Judaism today?
A. It is nothing other than ethnic belonging to a people, lineage or “race”, which may or may not involve a certain religiosity or better morality or spiritual practice, but which has as its principal and essential element the blood bond between Jews and the historical-geographical bond with the Holy Land, then Palestine and today the State of Israel. This is today's and post-biblical Judaism. Therefore, one cannot speak of it referring only to the religious aspect, which is entirely contingent in Judaism (it may or may not be there, it does not essentially, but only accidentally, modify Judaism), but one must highlight the ethnic or racial unity and the bond that this people claims to still have today after 2000 years with the Land of their fathers, the Holy Land, Judea, then Syria-Palestine and today the State of Israel. “When dealing with Judaism, it is practically impossible to draw a clear and absolute separation between the interreligious level and that of political relations with the State of Israel” (ib., p. 43).
Q. Does asking for the “benefit of reasonable doubt” about the plan to exterminate six million European Jews by gas chambers and crematoria by the Third Reich of Germany, and asking for chemical-physical and archival evidence of it (without denying it a priori), ipso facto mean blaspheming?
A. Yes, as well as questioning the reality of the State of Israel and the revolutionary change in the theology of Judaism set forth by Nostra Aetate. The “Williamson case” is incomprehensible if one does not know post-Christian or post-biblical Judaism in its entirety: a people who have a Land given to them by God in perpetuity. It is incomprehensible if one does not read it in the light of the “Krah case”, similar to that attempted by Jules Isaac with Bea and Roncalli before the beginning of Vatican II. So the Jewish people are the sole and legitimate masters of Palestine, they are still in “Covenant” with God, they have not been replaced by Christianity. If for 2000 years he abandoned Palestine, he nevertheless maintained the right of ownership over it, given to him as a perpetual and inalienable inheritance by God and the event that made him become aware of this was the Shoah, which also changed the mentality of Christians and led to Nostra Aetate, which would cease if the myth of the Holocaust and of the State of Israel as the perpetual kingdom of the Jewish people were to fall.
Q. What does accepting the Second Vatican Council entail?
A. In the light of Tradition or not, as long as one accepts it, it is ultimately a practical question, ultimately devoid of doctrinal depth (5) ...however it is equivalent to accepting the permanent Alliance between God and Judaism today, the ethnic-racial uniqueness of the Jewish people (for which one is a Jew only if one is the son of a Jewish mother and grandson of a Jewish maternal grandmother (6) and not if one practices Jewish religiosity), the State of Israel (which implicitly would like to deny the prophecy of Christ on the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel (7) and accepting the event that made both the Jews, who were assimilating themselves in the 18th century with the Enlightenment to the Christian or secular European world, and the Christians who had separated themselves from the "Synagogue of Satan" (Rev., II, 9) with the teaching of the New Testament, interpreted unanimously by the ecclesiastical Fathers and the constant Magisterium of the Church, become aware of all this. up to Pius XII (8). Judaism, the current “Master of this world” asks everyone to recognize the Shoah, the permanence of its Covenant with God and the right to dominate the Holy Land (1900 BC with Abraham until the destruction of the Temple 70 AD), then (from 70 to 1948) Syria-Palestine, which today (since May 15, 1948) is unjustly called the State of Israel.
Q. Is there an irreconcilability between traditional Catholic doctrine and the pastoral doctrine of Vatican II?
R. Ambassador Ben Horim sums up this irreconcilability in a syllogism: “The exile after the destruction of Jerusalem had been interpreted by Christianity as the punishment and proof of rejection. The return to Zion constituted […] a provocation for Christian theology […]. Nostra aetate, by cancelling the accusation of deicide and affirming the perennial validity of God's promises (Old Covenant) with its implications, should have definitively removed the theological obstacle. Therefore, the promise of the Land (of Israel) and the reunion of the (Jewish) people with it should not be excluded” (ib., p. 67).
Q. Is this why when speaking about Judaism we must keep in mind the ethnic element, of “blood and soil”?
R. Element of a people who possess a Land in perpetuity, who are in perpetual Covenant with “God” (even if they do not believe in it, in fact Zionism is a secularist and agnostic or a-religious movement if not even atheist). Christians have overturned their pre-conciliar vision of Judaism, which had rejected Christ the Messiah and God and which had been abandoned by God, who had erected a New and Eternal Covenant with all (pagans and Jews faithful to Christ). Therefore Judaism had been driven out of its Homeland, destroyed in 70 and totally razed to the ground in 135 by Rome. This revolution per diamentrum of Jewish-Christian relations began with the Second Vatican Council with Nostra aetate (28 October 1965) and led 28 years later to the recognition of the State of Israel by Pope John Paul II (30 December 1993), in light of the Shoah (1943-45).
Q. Shoah, God's permanent covenant with the people of Israel and the Jewish state form a whole?
A. If one removes just one of these three pieces, one denies all of present-day Judaism, in its desire for world domination, as the chosen people, “royal and priestly”, “holocaustified”, but “resurrected” and “master of this world” together with its creature: Americanism (9), which has given it the war power to terrorize anyone who dares to “doubt”.
Q. Does Judaism present itself first and foremost as a people?
A. And then as a State and all this in the light of the Shoah, which made it rediscover its identity, which was about to be lost with the assimilation during the Enlightenment. Vatican II and the post-council (Orientations, 1 December 1974; Aids, 26 June 1985; Concordat between the Holy See and Israel, 30 December 1993) have accepted the lesson of Pharisaic rabbinism and excommunicate anyone who calls into question even one of these three “secular dogmas” (see the “Williamson case”, which has not been understood in all its potential gravity and religious, political, social and “terrorist-penal” danger). Therefore, accepting the Second Vatican Council (also in the light of Tradition, which is not the apostolic one, which condemns it, but the false, spurious and infernal one of Lucifer and the serpent of Eden), means accepting Talmudic Judaism, which is the contradiction of Christianity founded by Jesus on Peter (unity and Trinity of God, divinity of Christ, New and eternal Covenant with all peoples who believe in Jesus true God and true man and in the Holy Trinity, which replaced the Old Covenant, perfecting it in the Blood of Christ).
Q. Are the Jews our “elder Brothers”?
R. Horim himself reports this conviction that almost all Christians have, but that no one dares to say, while it is explicitly expressed with the definition of “Elder Brothers”: “The traditional doctrine (it is a dogma of Faith) extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is in contrast with the speech of the Pope (John Paul II) to the “Catholic experts for Judaism”, in which he spoke of the possibility for Jews and Christians to reach, through different but finally convergent paths (the “parallel convergences” of Aldo Moro), a true brotherhood of reconciliation” (ib., p. 59). Here the hermeneutics of continuity is authoritatively denied by our “Elder Brothers in the Faith” (John Paul II, 1986) or “Fathers in the Faith” (Benedict XVI, 2011). He then cites the phrase of John Paul II in Mainz in 1980 on the “Ancient Covenant never revoked” and concludes that “such words would imply the coexistence of two valid Covenants” (ib., p. 60). But then, why did the Son become incarnate and die on the Cross for the salvation of all men and not just of one race, if there is an Covenant still standing that guarantees the salvation of those who are part of it?
Q. If Christianity became Judaized with Vatican II, should Judaism also become Christianized?
A. According to Horim (p.76) the argument is only valid one way, that is, for Christians towards Judaism, while it is absolutely not applicable for Jews towards Christianity. In fact:
1°) Christianity made Judaism suffer until the Shoah, while Judaism never persecuted Christianity. To which one can easily respond by citing the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, which divinely reveal the continuous persecution of Judaism against Jesus, the Apostles and the first Christian Disciples. Furthermore, history has amply demonstrated that the persecutions carried out by pagan Rome against Christians were incited by Judaism (see Umberto Benigni [+ 1934], Marta Sordi [+ 2010] and Ilaria Ramelli;
2°) Christianity was born from Judaism, while Judaism owes nothing to Christianity. Here too the answer is all too simple. Christianity was born from God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who decreed from eternity the Incarnation of the Word in the womb of the Virgin Mary. This is revealed in the Old Testament (from Genesis to the Maccabees). Therefore the Old Testament was all relative to the New Testament and to Jesus Christ. Hence Moses and the Prophets announced the coming Christ, who was rejected by the "false Israel" and welcomed by the "true Israel", that is, by those who, faithful to the spirit of the Old Testament, welcomed the Messiah Jesus Christ who came, a "small relic of Israel" (St. Paul) to whom the rest of the human race (the Pagans) joined.
Q. Is today's Judaism the "false Israel" faithful to the letter of the Torah?
A. Certainly. The “letter kills while it is the spirit that gives life” (St. Paul). Therefore Christianity has received nothing positive from post-biblical or current Judaism, while Mosaic or Old Testament Judaism is relative and totally ordered to Christianity without which it has no reason to exist. Therefore today's Judaism is objectively in a state of error and blindness, having rejected the Messiah and the Only Savior of the world and must convert to Christ. The Judeo-Christian position (both on the part of Vatican II and on the Jewish-Talmudic side) is completely overturned and distorted, in rupture per diametrum and not in continuity with the “Sources of Revelation”. But the Author persists in the hardening of the heart and the blinding of the mind of his ancestors, asserting: “There is no constitutive element of Judaism of its nature that requires a comparison with Christianity […]. Therefore, Christian expectations regarding the possibility of significant theological changes in Judaism will inevitably be disappointed” (ib., p. 77). The invocation “His Blood be upon us and upon our children” continues to echo in the mouths of Talmudic Jews.
D. On July 7, 2011, Cardinal Kurt Koch wrote in L'Osservatore Romano that “The Cross of Jesus is the permanent and universal Yom Kippur (forgiveness) for Jews and Christians.”
R. L'Osservatore Romano replied to him on 29 July 2011: "If the terms of the speech are those of indicating to the Jews the way of the cross, one does not understand the reason for a dialogue and the reason for Assisi" (10). The cardinal then dusted off the neo-conciliar doctrine by writing that for Christianity "God's Covenant with the people of Israel has permanent validity and (also) faith in universal redemption in Jesus Christ". What one cannot understand is how Jesus can be the universal Saviour if Judaism remains in Covenant with God. Clerically and rabbinically one could say that Jesus is the Saviour of all... non-Jews. Already on October 8, 2008, Rabbi Di Segni had explained in L'Osservatore Romano that the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur expresses the “irreconcilable differences between the two worlds” of Judaism and that “having Yom Kippur, Judaism does not need the salvation from sin proposed by the Christian Faith”.
Q. Is this not a dialogue, but a monologue by Israel alone?
R. Israel would like to indoctrinate Christianity sub specie boni and succeeds with the current post-conciliar prelates, blinded and hardened of heart. This is a “mystery of iniquity”. It is the analogous risk that the current traditionalist world runs in the “dialogue” with neo-modernism, which resolves itself in a “monologue” under the guise of goodness and sweetness, cleverly passing it off as “dialogue”, but with the aim of absorbing and yielding anti-modernism to the conciliar and post-conciliar novelties. Ben Horim’s phrase is revealing when
he writes: “It is not the question of truth (that counts), but whether there is a common pathos (a feeling, a passion). The supreme question is whether we are alive or dead to the expectations of the “living God” […]. It is up to us, Jews and Christians, leaving behind conflicts and rivalries, to face together the challenges of our time” (ib., p. 78). Nostra aetate, 4 and Lumen gentium, 16 (“the gifts of God (Old Covenant) are irrevocable”) cannot be questioned and left to free debate otherwise the Jewish-Christian “dialogue” would cease.
Q. What is the point of continually talking without reaching the Truth?
A. It is the same old tactic of neo-communism towards “adult Christians”, which made them act together with it, to make them similar to itself. Agere seguitur esse, one acts as one is. Now if I act together with communism, I start from a position tendentially similar to it and little by little I inevitably become equal to it; if I act together with today’s Judaism, little by little I Judaize and – God forbid – if I act together with neo-modernism, I inevitably become a neo-modernist, at least practically at first (the “anonymous neo-modernists”) and then also speculatively. The primacy of praxis over theory is a cornerstone of Talmudism, communism and modernism.
Caveamus! Latet in erba anguis. One must act as one thinks, otherwise one ends up thinking as one acts.
NOTES
1 «Without the poisoning of Christian spirits throughout the centuries, the Holocaust would have been unthinkable» (NATHAN BEN HORIM, Nuovi orizzonti…, p. 51). As can be seen, the Shoah for today's Judaism has a very precise theological value, it is the daughter of the Catholic doctrine revealed and defined by SAINT PETER up to PIUS XII. Accepting it means implicitly denying the Catholic doctrine of Apostolic Tradition.
2 – «A religious faith linked to a specific Land» (NATHAN BEN HORIM, New horizons…, p. 70).
3 – The Author even speaks of the «revolutionary nature of the change of direction [of Nostra aetate, n. 4]» (NATHAN BEN HORIM, Nuovi orizzonti…, p. 73).
4- JOHN PAUL II in the 'Apostolic Letter' Redemptionis anno of Good Friday in April 1984 explicitly and formally named the first among all the Pontiffs "the State of Israel" cf. NATHAN BEN HORIM, Nuovi orizzonti…, p. 92.
5 – Mons. BRUNERO GHERARDINI has attempted, with various books of high theological depth, to pose the doctrinal problem of whether there is, in reality and not only verbally, continuity between the pastoral teaching of the Second Vatican Council and the Apostolic Tradition. See B. GHERARDINI Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. A discourse to be given, Frigento, Casa Mariana Editrice, 2009; ID., Tradidi quod et accepi. Tradition, life and youth of the Church, Frigento, Casa Mariana Editrice, 2010; ID., Second Vatican Council. The failed discourse, Turin, Lindau, 2011; ID., Quaecumque dixero vobis. Word of God and Tradition compared with history and theology, Turin, Lindau, 2011. But some 'bag carriers' or 'fixers' of the ecclesial world have reduced everything to a practical-practical exchange of mercy, a do ut des.
6- “Mater semper certa, pater numquam”, explained the former chief rabbi of Rome Elio Toaff. (E. TOAFF, Essere ebreo, Milan, Bompiani, 1997).
7- Which remains standing in all its vigor, because Israel no longer has the Temple, the Priesthood and is not a peaceful Kingdom, but has been in a bloody and interminable war for 50 years, which it cannot win despite the disproportion of armaments, with the Palestinians (Christians and Muslims), who have inhabited the Holy Land for 2000 years. Attention! We must not forget that there are Christian and Roman Catholic Palestinians. Palestinian is not synonymous with Muslim.
8 – «The last COUNCIL of the Church that dealt with Judaism was that of BASEL, in 1431. This Council decreed the prohibition for Jews to have contact with Christians, they were to be excluded from public office, forced to wear a distinctive sign on their clothes […]. Instituted by the FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL in 1215» (NATHAN BEN HORIM, Nuovi orizzonti…, p. 50 and 52). The last papal Encyclical that spoke of the deicide of the Jewish people is the Mit brennender Sorge of PIUS XI (14 March 1937), which formally teaches that “The Word would have taken flesh from a people who would then have nailed Him to the Cross”. Now, starting from these citations of two dogmatic Councils and of the ordinary and authentic papal Magisterium, which cover a period of two hundred (1215-1431) and another five hundred years (1431-1937) of uninterrupted teaching. Where the "hermeneutics of continuity" between the traditional Magisterium and the pastoral one of Vatican II is, it is impossible to understand. It is a purely logical entity, which exists only in the minds of the "neomodernists & neoconservatives" and is not a real entity, which exists in objective and extra-mental reality. Such hermeneutics is similar to the Arabian phoenix, "everyone says it exists, but no one knows where it is!".
9- «In the non-Catholic 'Christian' sphere, there exists a robust 'Zionist' current that proposes a theological reading of the State of Israel. Some American Protestant movements belong to this sphere, which had an influence on American political life during the presidency of BUSH jr. In particular, we are referring to evangelical 'Dispensationalism', which favours the earthly Covenant [of God] with Israel rather than the spiritual one with the Church, and envisages the literal fulfillment of the Davidic promises in favour of Israel» (NATHAN BEN HORIM, Nuovi orizzonti…, cit., p. 22). Note how the Italian theoconservatives (especially “Alleanza Cattolica” and “Lepanto Foundation” – masters in “entrism” – led by the Brazilian 'TFP', are trying to infiltrate theoconservative, pro-Zionist and Americanist doctrines into traditional environments, which until now have been able to resist the scourge of neo-modernism, to bring them to compromise with the “cesspool of all heresies”, as SAINT PIUS X defined modernism in the Encyclical Pascendi of September 8, 1907.
10 – EUGENIO ZOLLI writes: «The Jewish people […] rejected the Revelation […] when it presented itself in its fullness with Christ, at least in the majority of its members» (entry Judaism, in “Dizionario di Teologia Morale”, edited by F. ROBERTI- P. PALAZZINI, Rome, Studium, V ed., 1968, 1st vol., p. 569). ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ CARMONA specifies: «The elements that determine the Jewish way of life or being Jewish are two, the ethnic one and the religious one, which can be found united or separate. The ethnic factor is basic and consists in belonging to a people» (The Jewish religion. History and theology, Cinisello Balsamo, San Paolo, 2005, p. 8 note 2). ELIO TOAFF specifies: «In the Talmud are found the origins of what is today's Judaism» (Essere ebreo, Milan, Bompiani, 1994, p. 107). JOSEPH BONSIRVEN explains that: «In the Talmud there are deviations […]. This is due to an accentuation of two dogmas: the election of the people of Israel and the authority of the Torah.
The concern to safeguard the holy nation leads to a suffocating separatism and particularism, to an inevitable ethnic pride, which easily becomes racism, in the hatred of the foreigner, in the cult of the people of Israel» (Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, Talmud entry, Paris, Letouzey, 1903-1950, col. 24).