Noahidism - Catholic and Jewish perspective
1) The Catholic view:From: The Law of Noah: One World Religion? - Michel Laurigan, Angelus/ Le Sel de la Terre. 2003, No.46
“Ecumenism is a phase in the battle between the Church and the Synagogue of Satan (Apoc. 2:9). The plan revealed in 1884 by Elijah Benamozegh, the cabalist rabbi from Livorno, Italy, was a new assault on the Church–not to wipe Catholicism off the face of the earth, but to "transform" it and bring it into accordance with the Noahic Law.1 Was the Second Vatican Council a step to implement this plan? …
After World War II, Jewish organizations sought to address the Christian world on the necessity of revising the teaching of the Church on Judaism. In 1946, the Oxford Conference, under the auspices of British and American Jewish organizations, reunited Catholics and Protestants for a debate concerning problems encountered since the war: a simple first contact. A second international conference was organized at Seelisberg, in Switzerland, primarily concerned with the problem of anti-Semitism. To a large degree, this was a gathering of experts.24 Among the 60 or so participants figured Fr.Journet.25 Jacques Maritain, for his part, was unable to participate at the conference; however, he sent a warm message of encouragement.26 Jules Isaac became the "key player" at this gathering. The conference culminated in a manifesto entitled The Ten Points of Seelisberg. Of these ten points, we can retain the following:
5) Avoid distorting or misrepresenting biblical or post-biblical Judaism with the object of extolling Christianity.
6) Avoid using the word "Jews" in the exclusive sense of the enemies of Jesus, and the words "the enemies of Jesus" to designate the whole Jewish people.
7) Avoid presenting the Passion in such a way as to bring the odium of the killing of Jesus upon all Jews or upon Jews alone...
8) Avoid promoting the superstitious notion that the Jewish people are reprobate, accursed, reserved for a destiny of suffering.27
"The archives of Jules Isaac bear witness to the tireless activity of our author." The words are of Andre Kaspi, who recently published a biography outlining the personality of Jules Isaac.28 In it he confirms a number of known facts and reveals a few others. One of the most important contributions of Jules Isaac was his book Jesus and Israel, which sought to prove that the Jewish people were neither deicide nor cursed, but that Christianity was responsible for ambient anti-Semitism by its theological anti-Judaism. This work went on to expose twenty-one points, a veritable "manifesto" for a new theology of the Judeo-Christian relationship.
In 1948, Isaac founded "Judeo-Christian Friendship," whose aim was clearly proclaimed: the "rectification of Christian teaching." Many liberal Catholics participated in these gatherings whose bias was evident. "The ten points of Seelisberg and the twenty-one points of Jesus and Israel were passed out on all sides,"29 writes Kaspi. At the same time, Isaac was persuaded to meet with the head of the Catholic Church. Pius XII received him briefly October 16, 1949, at Castel Gandolfo. Jules Isaac exposed the ten points of Seelisberg to the Sovereign Pontiff; the outcome of the meeting was of little satisfaction to a writer of history manuals. In October 1959, Cletta Mayer and Daniel Mayer–founders of CEPA (Centre d'Etudes des Problemes Actuels, Center for the Study of Modern Problems), in close collaboration with the Anti-Defamation League (an association created in 1913 by the Masonic Lodge B'nai B'rith)–"met with Jules Isaac in Paris at the Hotel Terminus and spoke with him of an eventual proposition for John XXIII. Jules Isaac approved."30
The idea of convoking a council had been launched by John XXIII several months earlier.31 A preparatory commission was established, in which participated a number of theologians and eminent personalities. However, in the shadows an anti-council was in preparation that was to supplant the true one when the time came. Ralph Wiltgen has given sufficient proof of the fact in The Rhine Flows into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II.32
In mid-June 1960, on the advice of Monsignor Julien, Isaac addressed himself to Augustine Cardinal Bea, the German Jesuit. "I found in him a powerful supporter." It is true that a certain gossip already suspected Cardinal Bea of having "remained Jewish at heart."33 His support was even more powerful than Isaac could have ever hoped. He obtained an audience with Jean XXIII without difficulty, June 13, 1960. On this occasion, Isaac handed the Pope a thesis entitled: On the Necessity of a Reform of Christian Teaching Regarding Israel. "I asked if I might carry away with me some glimmer of hope," Isaac recounts. John XXIII replied that he was entitled to more than a hope, but "that he was not an absolute monarch." After Isaac had left, John XXIII made it quite clear to the administrators of the Vatican Curia that he expected a firm condemnation of Catholic "anti-Semitism" to come from the council he had just convoked. Henceforth there were a number of exchanges between the council offices at the Vatican and organizations of the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League, as well as those of B'nai B'rith. These Jewish associations knew how to make themselves heard at Rome.34
Indeed, if Isaac worked relentlessly, he was not alone. Rabbi Abraham J. Heschel of the Jewish Theological Seminary of New York, who had heard of Bea for the first time 30 years before in Berlin, sought to meet with the cardinal in Rome. On that occasion, the two men discussed two files prepared by the American Jewish Committee, one on "The image of the Jews in Catholic teaching," the other 20 pages concerning "Anti-Jewish elements in the Catholic liturgy." Heschel declared that he hoped the Council would expurgate from Catholic teaching all suggestion that the Jews were a cursed race. At the same time, Heschel added, the Council would in no way exhort the Jews to become Christians.35
During the same time-frame, Dr. Goldmann, head of the World Conference of Jewish Organizations, also confided his aspirations to John XXIII. In addition, B'nai B'rith put pressure on Catholics to reform their liturgy and suppress in their religious services any word that might seem unfavorable to the Jews and that calls to mind the "deicide." "Wise and long-mitred heads around the Curia warned that the bishops in council should not touch this issue with ten-foot staffs. But still there was John XXIII, who said they must."36
At Rome, therefore, various Fathers busied themselves with the drafting of a text on Judaism, including Fr. Baum and Monsignor John Osterreicher,37 members of Cardinal Bea's general staff. The declaration, containing a clear refutation of the accusation of deicide, was to be presented at the first session of the Council, opening October 11, 1962. The World Jewish Congress was pleased with the drafting of such a text; it made its satisfaction known, and decided to send the Israeli Dr. Chaïm Y. Ward to the Council as an observer.
The Vatican was immediately besieged by protestations from Arab countries, outraged by the preferential treatment accorded to the Jews. As a result, in June 1962, the Secretary of State, in accord with Cardinal Bea, withdrew from the agenda the discussion of the planned declaration De Judaeis, prepared by the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity.38 An agency–close enough to the Curia to have access to the private addresses of 2,200 cardinals and bishops temporarily residing in Rome–sent simultaneously to each of them a 900-page book entitled The Plot Against the Church and signed with a pseudonym, Maurice Pinay. The thesis of the book–based on numerous facts and multiple citations–was that the Jews had constantly sought to infiltrate the Church and subvert her teaching and that they were on the point of succeeding. Such documentary evidence should have warned the Council Fathers of a subversive movement within the Council. The utmost prudence was called for.
The withdrawal of the project for a declaration on the Jews at the first session of the Council was a veritable defeat for Bea, who nonetheless refused to be discouraged. March 31, 1963, at the Hotel Plana in New York, he had a secret meeting with the authorities of the American Jewish Committee,39 who insisted that the united bishops change the theology of the Church concerning the history of salvation. "Globally," he said, "the Jews are accused of being guilty of deicide, and a curse supposedly weighs upon them." He refuted these two accusations and reassured the rabbis. Those present in the room wanted to know if the declaration would admit publicly that deicide, the curse, and the rejection of the Jewish people by God, were errors in Christian teaching. Bea replied evasively and this high-society gathering drew to a close over a glass of sherry!...
Over the course of the second session of the Council, in the fall of 1963, the declaration on the Jews was put in the hands of the bishops. From then on it became the fourth chapter of a declaration on ecumenism, which apparently allowed it to pass more discreetly. M. Schuster, the European director of the Jewish-American Committee, considered the distribution of the project to the Council Fathers as "one of the greatest moments in History." The text was discussed at length40 and then strangely withdrawn from the vote at the end of the session. The defenders of Catholic orthodoxy had just distributed a number of works on The Jews in the Light of Scripture and Tradition,41 which should also have alerted the Council Fathers to the enemy's game. Apparently, the warning was again heeded. "Something happened in the wings," commented the National Catholic Welfare Conference.
Without going into the details of a long story, let us just say that two other projects would be proposed and discussed at length during the third and fourth sessions. Over the course of 1964 and 1965, Jewish interventions before Paul VI were to multiply. The personalities with the most influence over the Pope were Joseph Lichten of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, Zachariah Schuster and Leonard Sperry of the American Jewish Committee, the American Cardinal Spellman, Arthur J. Goldberg, American Supreme Court judge, and Rabbi Heschel.
Roddy makes the following revelation: In Rome [before the third session], six members of the American Jewish Committee had an audience with the Pope....The Pope told his callers he agreed with all Cardinal Spellman had said about Jewish guilt.
A few lines later, he again underlines: With the American Jewish Committee's Shuster beside him, Heschel talked hard about deicide42 and guilt, and asked the Pontiff to press for a declaration in which Catholics would be forbidden to proselytize Jews.43
On November 20, 1964, during the third session, bishops and cardinals united voted by a large majority in favor of the provisional schema concerning the Church's attitude toward Judaism.44Leon de Poncins hastened to draft an opuscule entitled The Jewish Problem Before the Council, which was distributed to all the Fathers before the fourth and last session. It was the final warning. In his introduction, the author observes "a profound misconception of the essence of Judaism on the part of the Council Fathers."45 The brochure did a certain amount of good, permitting the "front of refusal"46to sharpen its arguments. This front managed to eliminate certain expressions from the first version such as: "Although a large part of the chosen people remain temporarily far from Christ, it would be an injustice to call them a people under a curse...or deicide." It had them replaced by those that figure in the final version of Nostra Aetate adopted October 28, 1965, by 2221 voices, against only 88, during the fourth session: "The Jews should not be presented as repudiated or cursed by God, as though such a conclusion followed from Scripture."
After these troubled years of an unprecedented doctrinal war; after these struggles for influence among the Curia and the Council Fathers; after the diffusion of numerous texts defending the theology of salvation as taught by the Church for two millennia, a compromise was reached over a new text. On the whole, the Jews were disappointed by the document's content. They had hoped for more. Yet a door had been opened...one it would be difficult to close. Indeed, for the first time with Nostra Aetate, the bishops of the Catholic Church had given a positive and bold presentation of unbelieving Jews. André Chouraqui underlines the fact, together with its ramifications:
All of a sudden, the Church, struck by near-total amnesia for almost two millennia, remembers the spiritual bond uniting it to Israel, the race of Abraham, restored to the privileged situation of elder brother in the family of the people of God. This fundamental theological recognition is heavy with consequences that will be revealed for centuries to come....We had to wait twenty centuries before the Church came to a new awareness of her Jewish roots....What is more, the Church categorically rejects all form of proselytism in their regard. She forbids what she once taught.47
John Halperin, of the Office of the World Jewish Conference in Geneva, confirmed Chouraqui's statements on the occasion of a colloquium at Fribourg: We need to emphasize the fact that the 1965 declaration Nostra Aetate truly opened the way toward an entirely new dialogue and inaugurated in the Church a new way of looking48 at the Jews and Judaism by manifesting the Church's openness to substituting a doctrine of respect for one of contempt.49
Menahem Macina50 corroborates this judgment: We must not forget the immense progress that the declaration Nostra Aetate represents in comparison with the previous situation. A single observation will allow us to appreciate the distance that has been covered. The reader may know that popes and councils, when they promulgate documents destined to all of Christendom, customarily seek out citations in the writings of their predecessors to support the teaching they intend to promote by their new documents, in order to illustrate the continuity of Church doctrine and tradition. However, unlike the Council's text on Islam, there is not a single reference in the declaration on the Jews to any positive precedent, be it in the works of the Fathers, or of ecclesiastical writers, or of the popes.51
Numerous testimonies could be cited to confirm this analysis. We will end with this statement by Paul Giniewski in his fundamental work, Christian Anti-Judaism: The Mutation: "The schema on the Jews, which might have been considered as an end, proved on the contrary and very rapidly to be the inauguration of a new phase in the positive evolution of Judeo-Christian relations."52
The door had been opened....53 The men of the Church admitted that the Jews were no longer "a people under a curse." No longer cursed, nor reprobate. "Henceforth," Chouraqui continues, "the Church recognized the permanence of Judaism in the plan of God, and the irreversible character of the principles defined by Nostra Aetate, thus refusing any restriction or ambiguity in the dialogue with the Jews." The seeds had been sown; they had only to grow... "From then on, it was necessary to keep going forward on the road to mutual recognition between Jews and Christians. But it was impossible to dismiss as profit and loss two thousand years of bloody struggle."54 The purification of the Christian sphere55 could now begin.
From Purification to the Introduction of the Noahic Religion
Purifying the Christian Sphere
Christians first said, "We, too, are Israel." Then they said, "We, too, are the true Israel." And finally: "We alone are the true Israel."56 The debates subsequent to Vatican II's "new awareness" have little by little prepared the Christian world for a new theology of the relations between the Church and Judaism.57 To change our mentality by "many educational efforts" aimed at those of the "Christian sphere": such was the object of the directives issued by the Vatican58 and by the various episcopacies for nearly 40 years. This effort tends toward:
1) Emphasizing the permanence of the first Covenant;
2) Teaching respect for the (unbelieving) Jewish people, "a priestly nation";
3) Renouncing all attempt to convert the Jews
4) Constantly advancing dialogue and cooperation with Judaism;
5) Preparing the way toward a Noahic religion
Influential members of the Vatican have encouraged the various episcopacies to publish declarations whose theological content is visibly opposed to the Church's magisterium.
The New "Theology of the Covenant" Introduced by the Episcopacy
Two examples will serve to illustrate our thesis: the text of the French Episcopal Committee for Jewish Relations (Easter, 1973) and the American Episcopacy's Reflections on Covenant and Mission (August 12, 2002). According to the Jews, these two declarations go far beyond the affirmations of the Council. The heterodox expressions are obvious:
Christians should regard Judaism not only as a social and historical reality, but as one that is above all religious; not as an outdated relic of a venerable past, but as a living, evolving reality. The principle indicators of this vitality of the Jewish people are: the testimony of its collective fidelity to one God; its fervor in examining the Scriptures to discover the meaning of human life in the light of Revelation; its search for an identity among other men; its constant effort to gather together into a reunited community. These signs pose to us, Christians, a question that touches the heart of our faith: What is the mission proper to the Jewish people in the plan of God?
An election that endures: the first Covenant was not passing. Contrary to an exegesis that is ancient but difficult to defend, it does not follow from the New Testament that the Jewish people were despoiled of their election. On the contrary, the whole of Scripture moves us to recognize the sign of God's fidelity to His people in the Jewish people's constant effort to remain faithful to the Law and the Covenant. Indeed, the New Covenant did not render the first one obsolete. The Jewish people are conscious of having received a universal mission to the Nations, by way of their unique vocation.59
What is this mission? We will examine that in a paragraph below. The second declaration, more recent, is that of the American bishops. It is truly astonishing:
The Roman Catholic reflections describe the growing respect for the Jewish tradition that has unfolded since the Second Vatican Council. A deepening Catholic appreciation of the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people, together with a recognition of a divinely-given mission to Jews to witness to God's faithful love, lead to the conclusion that campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.60
"Changing the Theology" of the Theologians
The testimonies of theologians on the permanence of the first Covenant are abundant and we could produce a litany of citations. Here are a few of them:
Perhaps we should go to the heart of the issue and consider the dethronement of the mother-religion by the daughter-religion under a new perspective. The idea of the New Covenant taking up where the Old left off is at the origin of the Judeo-Christian split with all of its consequences. In one of his great theological studies, significantly entitled The Covenant Never Abolished, Professor Norbert Lohfink, a Jesuit and professor of Biblical research at the Papal University of Rome, affirms peremptorily: "The popular Christian concept of the New Covenant promotes anti-Judaism."61 …
Alan Marchandour does not hesitate to write, on the occasion of a colloquium entitled "The Trial of Jesus: The Trial of the Jews?": For a long time, Christians only saw Israel as a sort of remnant of the past, representing a reality that had been essentially swallowed up by Christianity, the new Israel. Such a language is untenable: Israel exists independently, with its own history, its own institutions, and its own texts. Judaism did not disappear with the appearance of Christianity....It remains the people of the Covenant.63
Charles Perrot, of the Catholic Institute of Paris, expresses a similar way of thinking: If the Church substitutes itself for Israel–if she replaces Israel–is that not to say by the very fact that she eliminates it, by absorption or worse? Yet such language is dangerous. Can it still be admissible in our day?64
Obtaining the "Revision of History" by the Elite
The Church has to "revise" its history as much as its theology. To this end, the Vatican multiplies the various gatherings of experts. Thus in Rome or in other European cities there are numerous colloquies on the history of the Church concerning its attitude toward Judaism. One of them was recently held at Rome (October 30–November 1, 1997) on The Roots of Christian Anti-Judaism. Historians from around the world came to listen to experts on Judeo-Christian relations. Claude-Francois Jullian reported the object of these debates in The New Observer.
All of the experts reaffirmed the Jewish origins of Christianity and qualified as aberrant the theology of substitution, namely that the New Covenant in Christ would annul the Old Covenant. In opening the symposium, Cardinal Etchegaray (president of the Jubilee organizational committee)65 explained in his gravelly voice, straight from the gorges of the Pyrenees: "It is question of examining the relations between Christians and Jews, too often reversed." The same discourse was taken up by the animator of the encounter, the Swiss Dominican Georges Cottier, the Pope's private theologian (and the president of the Jubilee's theological-historical committee), who reminded his audience: "Our reflection bears on the divine plan of salvation and on the role of the Jewish people within it–the chosen people; the people of the Covenant and of the promises."
"That the theology of substitution is an aberration remains an essential point, admitted since Vatican II but difficult to spread among the people," remarked a participant.66
And the journalist of the daily poses the question: "Why would Rome call together experts from the five continents in order to verify something that would seem today to be a truth of the faith?"
Another colloquium was held at the University of Fribourg from March 16 to 20, 1998, under the theme of Judaism, Anti-Judaism and Christianity. Editions Saint Augustin published the acts of the colloquium in the year 2000. All the speeches delivered are of the greatest interest.
The European Encounters Between Jews and Catholics were held even more recently, organized by the European Jewish Congress, January 28-29, 2002, in Paris, on the theme: After Vatican II and Nostra Aetate: The Deepening of Relations Between Jews and Catholics in Europe under the Pontificate of John Paul II.67 Several European personalities engaged in the dialogue between Jews and Catholics received honorific awards.
An evening party organized in the conference rooms of the Paris city hall, Monday, January 28, reunited some 700 people, Catholics and Jews. At the speaker's table were seated Master Henri Hajdenberg, president of the gathering; Cardinal Lustiger; the chief rabbi of Moscow, Pinchas Goldschmidt; the chief rabbi Rene Samuel Sirat; Dr. Michel Friedman, vice-president of the European Jewish Congress; and Walter Cardinal Kasper, president of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with Judaism. In their discourses, all of the speakers underlined the importance of the progress made since Nostra Aetate:
Much was said that evening about the present relations between Jews and Catholics: a new spirit passed over us, truly translating into action the gestures and the words of Catholics, above all those of John Paul II. "A new page; a new step;" such is the sentiment, moreover, that would continue to be confirmed during the course of the next day. After the exposes of the different speakers, the projection of the film Pope John Paul II in the Holy Land imposed an impressive silence over the vast conference room. Over the course of the following day, January 29, before a more limited public, in the presence of several cardinals, bishops and Jewish personalities, as well as a few delegations of people from Germany, Austria, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, and Poland, in a frank and positive atmosphere, speakers discussed The Evolution of Judeo-Catholic Relations: From the Theory of Substitution to Mutual Respect, and The Necessary Transmission of the Memory of Shoah, in the context of today.
Over the course of the afternoon, various speakers exposed The Challenges of Assimilation and Secularization, and The Evolution of Judeo-Catholic Relations with the State of Israel and Jerusalem. A common declaration between Jews and Catholics brought the day to a close.68
We could multiply the accounts of the various reunions, congresses, colloquia, days of encounter, etc., that spring up every year.
Changing the Content of Predication and Catechesis
The Roman Notes from June 24, 1985, should be read and meditated in the light of what has just been said: Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church.69
Changing the Popular Mind-Set by Dramatic Gestures
The gesture of John Paul II at the synagogue of Rome, April 13, 1986, is an illustration of this method. His visit was highly symbolic: "The Church of Christ, in the person of John Paul II, comes forward to the synagogue and discovers its link with Judaism by contemplating its own mystery." John Paul II said on this occasion:
The Jewish religion is not "extrinsic" to us, but in a certain way is "intrinsic" to our own religion. With Judaism therefore we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearest brothers and, in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers.70
Christians Ought to Respect the Jewish Right to the Land of Israel, Physical Center of the Covenan
The most important event for Jews since the Holocaust has been the re-establishment of a Jewish state in the Promised Land. As members of a biblically-based religion, Christians appreciate that Israel was promised–and given–to Jews as the physical center of the covenant between them and God.71
Christians have no other choice than to be thrilled about the presence of the Jews in the Holy Land.
Paul Giniewski analyzes the teaching of the last 40 years in the light of Jewish thought.72 He distinguishes three phases:
● the "vidouy," that is to say, the sincere recognition of the fault committed and of one's errors;
● the "techouva," which signifies conversion to the contrary behavior;
● finally, and most importantly, the "tikkun" or the reparation.
The Jewish writer asks himself which phase we have reached. "The techouva" he replies, without hesitation. This phase will not be achieved until the day when the teaching of respect will be formulated in didactic texts and their propagation will have raised up numerous vocations of students and teachers of the new doctrine. The objective is ambitious: to cause a teaching to be heard and accepted that is contrary to the one that was previously taught....Thus the crucifixion of the Jews will come to an end.
Finally, the Church will have to make reparation. Certain authors have already described what the "tikkun" will be. Then the Jews will once again assume their role before the nations, a role that is clarified in a number of works including a brochure destined to popularize the theme, The Mission of Israel: A Priestly People,73 by Patrick Petit-Ohayon, which contains an excellent summary.
The Repentance of the Year 2000, or the Vidouy
March 12, 2000, at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, John Paul II, in the name of the Catholic Church, read a mea culpa74 for the faults of Christians over the course of history. This gesture can only be understood in the context of a new consciousness of the Church's persecution "by the Inquisition"75 (a system of violence and constraint) of the people of the Covenant, long despoiled and persecuted. Thus Christians have accomplished their "vidouy."
Furthermore, so that these actions would be sufficiently clear to both parties, namely to Christians as well as to Jews, the text of repentance was slipped by John Paul II himself into a crack in the Wailing Wall,76 part of the ruins of the Temple of the Old Covenant. A wall that awaits only to be reconstructed in the religious capital of the renewed Covenant: Jerusalem dethroning Rome, the usurper.77
Toward a Noahic Religion
If the Church is no longer the verus Israel, what does she become in the new theology of salvation?
This study is already lengthy, and is not the place to present all the aspects of the Noahic religion. This religion, introduced with Vatican II, is destined to supplant Catholicism.78 The subject is so vast that a colloquium could easily be consecrated to it. We will give a few historical markers and point out various aspects of this new "Catholicism."
After the French Revolution, which emancipated the Jews and permitted them to enter civil societies, the rabbis and Jewish thinkers considered the religious aspect of the world they were bringing into being. It would also be necessary to resolve the religious problem that would most certainly arise. What was at stake in these theological debates between the rabbis of the 19th century can be summarized as follows: "When we will have recovered our role as a people called to bring salvation to the Gentiles, what will be the religion of Christians, who imagined themselves to be the new Israel?"
Elijah Benamozegh, the rabbi of Livorno, the Plato of Italian Judaism and "one of the masters of contemporary Jewish thought,"79 proposed a solution that he published in 1884 in his master-work Israel and Humanity.80 The sub-title is evocative: A Study on the Problem of a Universal Religion, and Its Solution. Benamozegh's solution, around which would rally little by little the supporters of Judaism, can be summarized as follows:
The Catholic Church should reform her teaching on three points. She should:
● change her way of looking at the Jews, rehabilitating them as the elder people, a priestly people "who was able to maintain the primitive religion in its original purity." It is a people neither deicide nor rejected by God. No curse weighs upon it. On the contrary, it is destined to proposed happiness and unity to all of humanity. "To recognize its function," writes Gerard Haddad,81 citing Benamozegh, "which Paul82 thought he could eliminate."
● "Renounce the belief in the divinity of Jesus, the Son of Man, as He called Himself." Jesus was a simple rabbi, and so He remained. Preach Jesus Christ, but a human Jesus Christ, come to bring a certain moral code for the happiness of all men.
● Accept a reinterpretation–not a suppression–of the mystery of the Trinity.
On these three conditions, "the Catholic Church is the Church of true Catholicism," a true Catholicism that Benamozegh names Noachism, the religion for all those who belong to the "Christian sphere," as Lustiger calls it. This Noachism83 possesses a morality that the Church is called to reveal to the peoples of the earth. The American Judeo-Episcopal Declaration of August 12, 2002, refers to it explicitly:
Judaism assumes that all people are obligated to observe a universal law. That law, spoken of as the Seven Noahide Commandments, is applicable to all human beings. These laws are: 1) the establishment of a court of justice so that law will rule in society; and the prohibitions of 2) blasphemy, 3) idolatry, 4) incest, 5) bloodshed, 6) robbery, and 7) of eating the flesh of a living animal.
The new end of the Church will be the evangelization of the nations to this Noahic humanitarianism, as well as their unification.84 The primacy of Rome will be redefined to facilitate the unity of Christians. Noachism will be "the religion of natural morality"! For in no way must the non-Jew seek to convert to Judaism or Talmudic Mosaism, a religion that is reserved for the Chosen People. Benamozegh's solution, long neglected, is now being adopted by the authorities of the Jewish world. The chief rabbi Rene Samuel Sirat, for example alluded to the status of non-Jews at the funeral of a young Frenchman of 24, victim of a terrorist attack against the cafeteria of the Hebraic University of Jerusalem, July 31, 2002:
David, my dear David, you had chosen to draw near to our Jewish community spiritually and culturally, and to claim for yourself the beautiful title of guer toshav, denoting one who is at once stranger and citizen to Judaism, such as was praised in the Bible and marvelously rendered explicit in the last century by the rabbi Elijah Benamozegh, in his book Israel and Humanity. It is a question of a free decision to draw close to the tradition of Israel, and to observe the seven laws–called the Noaic laws–of natural morality revealed long ago to Noah, father of all the living....For is it necessary to repeat that one is not obliged to convert to Judaism in order to merit eternal salvation.85
Conclusion
The new religion that came from Vatican II ought to be understood in the light of the struggle–ancient, but always new–between Jesus (Mary) and Satan; the Church and the Synagogue. In the 20th century, Satan seems to have found his Trojan horse (Vatican II) full of Achaeans bent on subversive theology.
At the heart of this movement [of conversion]–and this has been taught explicitly by Christian theologians such as Louis Bouyer, Yves Congar and Henri de Lubac...86–lies the rediscovery of faith....This is the task which the Catholic Church and many Christians want to carry out today.
Such is the conclusion drawn by Cardinal Lustiger in his second speech at the New York synagogue.87
No, your Eminence. We are Roman Catholics, and our faith is in Jesus Christ, true God and true man, born of the most pure womb of the Virgin Mary through the operation of the Holy Spirit; our faith is in Jesus Christ, Savior of man, crucified under Pontius Pilate and raised from the dead, come to fulfill the Law and the Prophets in founding the Church of Rome–Catholic and Apostolic–the new and eternal Covenant. This is not the Covenant that you are preaching. With the help of God, and with the help of the magisterium of the Church and her Tradition of 2000 years, we will not die Noaic.
This fidelity may obtain for the Jews to accept the precious graces of the Redemption–graces that the Virgin Mary is able to bestow in abundance–just as Drach, Libermann, Ratisbonne, Lemann, Zolli, and so many others have already accepted them: true converts, true sons of the Roman Church, and true sons of Mary…
1. Noahic (or Noahide) Law: The law given by Noah after the Flood. The plan in question, revealed by Elijah Benamozegh in his work Israel and Humanity (1884), will be elaborated in the present article. Allow us simply to cite here what Jacob Kaplan, the great Parisian rabbi, declared on the subject in 1966: "According to our doctrine, the Jewish religion is not the only one that assures salvation. Non-Jews are also saved if they believe in a supreme God and have a moral code, thus obeying the so-called Noahic Laws, those that the Creator handed down to Noah....Consequently, our rabbis teach that the just of every nation have the right to eternal salvation. It is uniquely for the Jews that, in addition to the Noahic Laws, there exist the precepts of the Torah and the Law of Moses, which have their reason for being in the divine project of forming a people destined for religious action in the world. The hope of Israel is not therefore the conversion of the human race to Judaism but to monotheism. As for Biblical religions, they are, according to our greatest theologians, creeds whose role is to prepare alongside Israel the coming of the Messianic Age announced by the prophets. Thus we desire most ardently to work in common with them toward the realization of this essentially Biblical ideal... .In this way we may hasten the coming of the Messianic Era, which will be one of love, justice and peace." Jacob Kaplan, Dialogue avec le père Danielou, S.J., le 10 fevrier 1966 au theatre des ambassadeurs à Paris [Conversation with Fr. Danielou, S.J., Feb. 10, 1966, at the Ambassador Theater in Paris] (Paris: 1966). Translator's note: Information on Jacob Kaplan as well as photographs are available at: SdV : Solutions Digitales, Hébergement Cloud, Infogérance, CMS, DevOps rabbins/kaplan/index.htm.
2) From the Jewish perspective - article on Noahidism (source at the end)
“… we can find this in the writings of 19th century Rabbi Eliyahu Benamozegh, known as “the Plato of Italian Judaism.” Rabbi Benamozegh (1822 – 1900) was born in Fez, Morocco and became rabbi of Livorno, Italy. He studied the major religions, Kabbalah, the Greek philosophers, biblical criticism, Darwinism, and historians both ancient and contemporary, finding affinities among various systems of thought, all of which, he declared, ultimately arise from divine precepts. His magnum opus, Israel and Humanity, is a treatise on the role of the Jewish people and its relations to the nations of the world. It was published posthumously by his disciple, Aime Palliere, whom he instructed in the seven laws of Noaḥ.Palliere and others, including Guglielmo Lattes, in his Vita e opere di Elia Benamozegh, have credited the broadness of Rabbi Benamozegh’s education and his willingness to tackle such a wide variety of issues to his Sephardic roots. “It is certain that although he assimilated exceptionally well, all European culture, he always kept, either in his working methods, or in the turn of his mind, the oriental imprint.”…
Conciliation Among the Abrahamic Faiths
Palliere was considering conversion to Judaism. He sought out rabbi Benamozegh, who offered a novel concept – embrace the seven laws of Noaḥ, and help reintroduce Noaḥide teachings to the church. Benamozegh declared that centuries of strife could have been averted if the founders of Christianity had understood the necessary dichotomy of the Noaḥide covenant for the nations of the world and the Mosaic covenant for the Jewish people. He describes the crisis of the early church: “They initially hesitated for some time between the two extreme parties, that of imposing Mosaism on everyone and that of abolishing it even for Israel. But the first attempt was bound to fail, … Christians had no other alternative but to proclaim the abolition of Judaism and to erase it … from history to bring all men back to pure Noaḥism” (pg 590, chapter one of book three).
And it is this prime mistake of replacement theology that could be rectified by reintroducing the Seven Laws of Noaḥ for the nations of the world, while preserving the Mosaic covenant for the children of Israel. This dichotomy would heal the rift both between Christians and Jews, and between Muslims and Jews…
The Talmud’s Universalism
On the very first page of Israel and Humanity, Rabbi Benamozegh begins with the unexpected – he makes a case for the universal teachings of the Talmud. One may expect such a work to begin with the obviously universal – say, the Bible, but the rabbi jumps in with a defense of Rabbinic Judaism:
“Was Rabbinic Judaism, like all other religions of antiquity, addressed only to the people who professed it, or,… did it embrace in its religious conception the whole human race?” Rabbi Benamozegh holds that Rabbinic Judaism embraces the most vigorous concepts of universalist thought and respect for human rights and is the lofty source of all true religion. Once people understand the ancient, universalist teachings of the Talmud, they will be doing a disservice to that message if they insist on declaring it to be particularistic to Judaism…
He goes on to cite the Talmud’s discussion of the the ger toshav, the ger hash’ạr, rights of non-Jews in the land of Israel regarding land ownership, and the various definitions of how a non-Jew can be regarded as a ger toshav; some held that it is enough to renounce idolatry to be considered ger toshav, some declared that one must actively embrace all Seven Noaḥide laws, and some rabbis held that the non-Jew must recognize the sovereignty of the Jewish commonwealth to be considered ger toshav. That such discussions took place regarding the rights of the non-Jew in the land of Israel surely reflects the universalist nature of the Talmud…
Israel: Mosaism, Humanity: Noaḥism – a Necessary Dichotomy
Benamozegh held that although Mosaic Law is exclusive to the children of Israel, God is not exclusive to Israel. Mosaic law makes the children of Israel a priest-people for gentiles, thus Mosaism is actually a conduit for universal religion. In order to perform this unique role, Benamozegh strongly emphasizes the mandate of the Jewish people to maintain their uniqueness and separateness.
His belief in the uniqueness of the Jewish people did not cloud his love of humanity, quite the opposite, he held that the mandate to teach Noaḥism should in fact create positive feelings upon recognizing one’s duty to another… The seven laws of Noaḥ are the missing link in fostering conciliation between Abrahamic religions.
Kabbalah – a Branch of Thought, or a Synthesis of Many Systems of Thought?
Benamozegh made use of of Kabbalah, Jewish mysticism, which he regarded not as a branch of knowledge, but the result of all branches of knowledge… The Greek concept of emanation, that the world always existed and never had a starting point, can likewise be put in its proper context with the use of Kabbalistic imagery without contradicting the concept of creation from nothing, or yesh me’ayin...
Benamozegh was congruent with other prominent Sephardic rabbis who conditionally supported Zionism, as long as it helps rectify the world, and who were not opposed to Kabbala, in his universalism, but what marked him as unique among the other Sephardic Rabbis was that he used intellectual tools from 19th century European rationalism…”
Source:
timesofisrael.com/…-has-come-eliyahu-benamozeghs-israel-and-humanity/