В 2010 году в своем блоге о. Павел Адельгейм опубликовал письмо, отправленное за два года до того священником Владимиром Будилиным на имя митрополита Евсевия. В этом письме Владимир Будилин излагает «план свержения» Павла Адельгейма: «Ваше Высокопреосвященство! Вскоре после того, как была опубликована мерзкая книжонка «Догмат о Церкви», жена о. Павла проговорилась, что о. Павел приступил к написанию новой большой книги. Потом эта гнусная компания начала войну со мной. Понятно, секреты подобного рода я уже не мог узнавать. Антицерковная, клеветническая писательская деятельность о. Павла в любом случае будет продолжаться. В любом случае! Есть только один способ её ограничить и приостановить...»

Таких планов было много. Но всё случилось иначе. Павла Адельгейма убили ударом ножа в сердце. Это сделал человек, признанный невменяемым.

В доме Павла Адельгейма на Запсковье я был несколько раз – приходил брать интервью. Самым запоминающимся было первое посещение - в 2008 году. В тот раз мы разговаривали часа два. Сидели на его кухне друг напротив друга. На столе лежала толстая потрёпанная книга, которую Павел Адельгейм читал до моего прихода. Мне было ужасно интересно, что это была за книга. Когда о. Павел на минуту вышел, я попытался прочесть – кто автор? Оказалось, Карел Чапек. Минут через пятнадцать о. Павел вдруг раскрыл книгу Чапека и стал читать мне весёлый рассказ - про священнослужителей. И пока весь не прочёл – не остановился. Он мог быть весёлым. Даже озорным. Но это не было поверхностное озорство. В его юморе не было цинизма. Когда о. Павел заговорил о священнике, который использует алтарь действующей церкви как хранилище для своих хозяйственных пакетов, то начал сердиться. В таких случаях он шутить не мог.

Кто был на кухне Павла Адельгейма (там он и погиб), тот знает – кухня находится немного ниже, чем комнаты и коридор. Туда надо спускаться. У Павла Адельгейма не было ноги, но он – немолодой человек – и на одной ноге привычно легко мог оказаться внизу, почти перелететь. Он умел быть легким. Но и тяжёлым он тоже мог быть. Тяжёлым для тех, кто, по мнению о. Павла, разрушал соборность Русской православной церкви. И тогда о. Павла с места сдвинуть было невозможно. Он твёрдо стоял на своём. Особенно когда это касалось его прихода, школы регентов, приюта – в общем, того, что он создал или воссоздал. Того, что сознательно разрушали на его глазах.

Конфликт в псковском храме Святых Жён Мироносиц не утихал годами. Прихожане писали письма в адрес митрополита Псковского и Великолукского Евсевия, а копии отсылали митрополиту Клименту, который управлял делами Московской епархии. Люди всё ещё надеялись, что о. Павла Адельгейма вернут в храм Святых Жён Мироносиц в качестве настоятеля.

Гонения на Павла Адельгейма обрушились ещё на рубеже 60-70-х годов. В этом был замешан не только КГБ, но и представители православной церкви. К примеру, одной из причин ареста о. Павла послужил донос бывшего его друга и одноклассника Леонида Свистуна (позднее – митрополита Макария Винницкого и Могилёв-Подольского). Этот донос хранился в уголовном деле. 17 июля 1970 года о. Павел Адельгейм был осуждён на три года лагерей, а за десять дней до того, 7 июля, Макарий стал епископом. Каждому – своё.

…Ситуация в Псковской епархии  обострилась после того, как о. Павел Адельгейм опубликовал свою книгу «Догмат о Церкви в канонах и практике», после которой  владыка Евсевий назвал автора «слугой дьявола». О. Павлу было предложено публично покаяться. Ему был даже любезно предоставлен образец покаяния, под которым оставалось лишь подписаться. Там есть такие строки: «Я, проклятая гадина и мразь, оскорбил Вашу святыню, Высокопреосвященнейший Владыка! За совершённую подлость мне не место в человеческом обществе. Мне место в выгребной яме…». О. Павел подписывать такое покаяние отказался. Вскоре произошел несчастный случай, который чудом не закончился трагически. В 2003 году в старой «Волге» о. Павла неизвестный специально повредил рулевое управление. Это привело к аварии. Сам о. Павел связывал подстроенную аварию со своим противостоянием архиепископу Псковскому и Великолукскому Евсевию. Но убедительных доказательств тогда найдено не было. Некоторые до сих пор считают, что это было покушение.

С вопроса об этом деле и начался наш разговор с о. Павлом Адельгеймом. Во время нашей первой встречи в 2008 году я спросил его: «Отец Павел, чем закончилось расследование?» - « По этому поводу была проведена экспертиза. Дело передали в прокуратуру. Прокуратура передала в милицию. Милиция отказала. Мы написали письмо в прокуратуру. Прокуратура снова передала дело на расследование. Милиция вновь отказала. Мы написали заявление в прокуратуру. Она снова принесла протест. Милиция снова отказала. Так было десять раз. Наконец, мы поняли, что дальше этим заниматься бессмысленно».

Что же касается «хитроумного» плана священника Владимира Будилина, некоторое время служившего вместе с о. Павлом в храме Жён Мироносиц, то вот он, описанный в письме, опубликованном Павлом Адельгеймом: «Способ этот - отнять у него второго священника. По своей гордыне и тщеславию о. Павел будет ежедневно служить. И у него не будет ни времени, ни сил для написания своих трудов в прежнем объеме. Но официально лишить его второго священника нет возможности. Он включит механизмы своих огромных связей. Ему начнут помогать его высочайшие покровители. Чтобы ограничить его писанину, остаётся только одно - как можно дольше тянуть нынешнюю ситуацию. В настоящий момент лучшая форма моего служения в Мироносицком храме - это числиться в нём, и не служить. О. Павел должен выдохнуться. Ведь ему в августе исполниться 70. Сама ситуация призывает к этому. Нужно всеми силами продлевать нынешнюю ситуацию. Чем дольше он будет служить один, тем меньше он напишет своих гадостей, тем быстрее он выдохнется. В ближайшие дни я напишу и пришлю Вам письмо, где расскажу страшную историю, которая показывает какое о. Павел чудовище».

Виделись мы с о. Павлом нечасто. Однажды он подвёз нас на своей старенькой «Волге» от закладного камня репрессированным к Псковскому музею-заповеднику, где открывалась выставка, посвящённая репрессированным при Сталине. Чаще всего мы случайно встречались где-нибудь в филармонии или библиотеке. Он ценил слово. Знал музыку. Тем больнее было то, что его медленно убивали – словами и делами.

Последние годы прошли в судах. Павел Адельгейм не ожесточился, но и равнодушным не стал. Он до конца остался самим собой. Таким, каким, наверное, хотел видеть его отец, Анатолий Павлович, расстрелянный большевиками. Таким, каким хотела видеть его мама, Татьяна Никаноровна, тоже репрессированная при Сталине. Было бы удивительно, если бы те, кто ненавидел о. Павла при жизни, успокоились после его смерти хотя бы на неделю.

После гибели Павла Адельгейма эти люди стали писать о том, что о. Павла убили свои, чтобы устроить революцию и свергнуть Путина и патриарха Кирилла. Ни больше, ни меньше. Вот где настоящее сумасшествие. И ведь человека, делающего такие заявления, невменяемым не признают. «Человек, «принесенный в жертву», является оптимальной фигурой - диссидирующий священник, заказчиком убийства которого можно будет выставить и «кровавый режим», и «кровавую Патриархию», – написал небезызвестный Кирилл Фролов в своём ЖЖ под названием «Воцерковлённые политики». – А без «кровавой жертвы» «кровагого режима» и «кровавой Патриархии» народ на баррикады не вытащищь. Не надо недооценивать цинизм богоборцев, готовящих «навальную революцию» 9 сентября». И так далее – про «сакральную жертву», штурм Кремля и Данилова монастыря «под иконами убиенного убиенного о. Павла Адельгейма». Такие высказывания можно было бы не заметить, если бы не о. Павел. Он ведь не любил отмалчиваться. Если бы любил, то был бы, наверное, сейчас жив, сыт, благополучен, как многие другие священники. Но у о. Павла было своё понимание благополучия.

«Священник должен быть пастырем, – говорил Павел Адельгейм. – Он должен заботиться о своей пастве, а сегодня у священника отнята всякая возможность что-нибудь делать. В девяностые годы такая возможность появилась – на очень небольшой срок. Тогда многие священники занялись активной деятельностью, создавали приюты, школы, библиотеки, пытались заниматься помощью заключённым, больным. Причём, это была очень широкая инициатива. Но что потом последовало?».

В моей первой беседе с о. Павлом участвовала и его супруга Вера Адельгейм. Она рассказала о том, что пережила, когда в советские времена арестовали её мужа. Угрозы, страх за детей… Нынешние времена напомнили ей те дни, хотя, на мой взгляд, ситуация сейчас несколько иная. Во всяком случае, в наше время свое собственное мнение пока ещё можно высказывать публично. Вера Адельгейм в 2008 году написала митрополиту Евсевию письмо (копию отправила в Москву митрополиту Клименту). В письме есть такие строки: «Мы были счастливы, пока не встретили Вас. Когда Вы пришли, стало страшно жить. К чему гадать о причине Вашей ненависти? У неё нет оснований. Она Вас жжёт геенной огненной изнутри. Свящ. Андрей Таскаев (в 2008 году – пресс-секретарь Псковской епархии) приписывает о. Павлу «манию преследования». Мания не у него, а у меня. Каждый раз, когда останавливается автомобиль, приходит письмо или звенит звонок, у меня падает сердце, как во времена арестов 1937 года. Память о Вас, память смертная, не покидает ни днем, ни ночью… Новый настоятель пришёл в мирный приход как завоеватель, уничтожая сложившиеся за 20 лет традиции и разжигая пожар сплетнями, кляузами и унижением старого настоятеля, создававшего этот храм. Кому это нужно? В Прощеный день новый настоятель сказал народу: «Владыка мне обещал: либо положишь крест на стол, либо награду получишь, если сделаешь все, как надо». По словам Иванова, выполнять архиерейские заказы ему приходилось не раз. В свои 28 лет он имеет богатый опыт Разрушителя. В прошлом году он разогнал И-Предтеченский приход: свящ. Андрей Давыдов ушёл из епархии, его община распалась и разбрелась по другим храмам. Со слов свящ. Сергия Иванова, Вы посылали его «навести порядок» в крепких приходах, где дух общины и настоятель не нравились. За пять лет священнослужения он совершил много «подвигов» и нет сомнений: «Отцу Павлу пора собираться в скорбный путь, конец недалек» Вас не упрекнёшь: творите зло чужими руками. Заказчика труднее обвинить в преступлении, чем исполнителя… Муж вернулся из тюрьмы без ноги, и его принял епископ. О. Павел пришел на берёзовой ноге в чужой рясе, и архиерей наградил его наперстным крестом, который Вы хотите отнять. Тогда преследовали атеисты. Теперь преследует митрополит РПЦ. Вы превратили Русскую Православную Церковь из Церкви мучеников в церковь-гонительницу… Простите! До встречи на Страшном Суде Божием».

Если надо было пообщаться, то обычно Павлу Адельгейму звонил я. Но однажды позвонил он – пригласил на приходское собрание. Я пришёл – не как прихожанин, а как журналист (к приходу я не имел никакого отношения – у меня совсем другие взгляды на религию). Мы расселись в классе. Павел Адельгейм стоял у классной доски, а другой священник – молодой Сергий Иванов, - возле учительского стола, и я впервые увидел, как всё это происходит – не с чужих слов, а воочию. Наиболее активен был священник Сергий Иванов (тот, кого Вера Адельгейм назвала в письме «Разрушителем»). Разговаривал грубо. Можно сказать, хамил. Слова адресовались Павлу Адельгейму и его сторонникам. В какой-то момент Павел Адельгейм не выдержал и увёл из класса своих сторонников, у которых я потом спрашивал – кто те люди, что остались в классе? «Многих мы видим впервые», - отвечали мне. Это были какие-то новые прихожане, мобилизованные, чтобы сторонники Павла Адельгейма оказались в меньшинстве. 

Это была одна из последних моих встреч с Павлом Адельгеймом. Таким расстроенным я его не видел никогда. Даже тогда, когда он свой день рождения – 1 августа 2012 года - принимал участие в «круглом столе», организованном обществом «Мемориал». В тот душный летний вечер он произнёс фразу, которую я никогда не забуду: «Я в Церкви никому не нужен. Не только не нужен, но очень там нежелателен. И в любой момент меня оттуда могут выкинуть. Я этого жду со спокойной совестью. Все-таки мне как-никак 75 лет, и это не катастрофа. Умру через пять лет, умру через два года, умру завтра – это срок очень небольшой. Это уже не очень важно. Но я жалею тех священников, которые сейчас молоды и у которых перспектив нет никаких. И прав у них нет никаких. Священник лишён возможности выполнять свои прямые обязанности».

Павла Адельгейма до последней минуты жизни так и не смогли лишить возможности выполнять свои прямые обязанности. Хотя очень старались. «Для того что это не повторилось, нужно меняться, - сказал Павел Адельгейм возле закладного камня, где когда-нибудь возведут памятник репрессированным.  - Меняться нам. И главный недостаток нашей жизни заключается в том, что мы – грешники. Этим словом охватывается всё злое, всё недоброе, что существует в нас… Во власть приходят люди, которые живут в этом обществе. В обществе, в котором слишком много лжи, принуждения и насилия».

«Нетерпимость - причина всех наших бед», - говорит о. Павел в фильме «Пастырь и его время».

Уже после того, как фильм был снят, в Пскове состоялся епархиальный суд. По сложившейся недоброй традиции, судили Павла Адельгейма. Приговор объявили, хотя в исполнение его приводить не спешили.  Епархиальный суд, состоявшийся в декабре 2011 года, приговорил священника Павла Адельгейма уволить за штат (это связано со спорами по поводу нового Устава храма Жен Мироносиц). Впрочем, о взаимоотношениях руководства Псковской епархии и о. Павла в том фильме говорится вскользь. Значительно больше времени уделяется не частностям, а самым важным вещам. Едва ли не ключевым оказывается проповедь о. Павла, посвященная любви. Точнее, речь о браке, который Павел Адельгейм от любви не отделяет. «Любовь проходит, если её не уберечь, - говорит о. Павел. - Каждая ценность может быть потеряна или разрушена. И разрушается она потому, что мы относимся к ней небрежно…»

Семейная жизнь самого Павла Адельгейма здесь может служить примером того, как любовь можно пронести через время и испытания. И у Павла Адельгейма имеется объяснение того, как именно это сделать. «Любовь – это постоянное принесение себя в жертву любимому, - говорит он и поясняет: - Ни один раз приносит себя человек в жертву тому, кого любит, а приносит ежеминутно, постоянно. Если он перестал это делать, то, конечно, любовь испаряется. То есть любовь – состояние жертвенности. Это переживание своей жертвенности».

Как сказал один из священников над гробом о. Павла Адельгейма: «О мёртвых либо хорошо, либо ничего». Видимо, по этой причине большинство православных священников предпочли на похороны Павла Адельгейма вообще не приходить. Тем более что митрополит Псковский и Великолукский был бы недоволен.

Павла Адельгейма убили вечером 5 августа 2013 года.

О. Павел пережил несколько покушений за свою жизнь. После одного из них – потерял ногу. Но не отступился. А ещё раньше, при Сталине, он, ребёнком, был репрессирован как сын «врага народа». Второй раз его посадили на три года за «антисоветскую агитацию» уже при Брежневе. В том уголовном деле фигурировали стихи русских поэтов, в том числе Анны Ахматовой. Следователи предполагали, что на самом деле ахматовский «Реквием» написал православный священник, исходя из того, что обнаружили текст поэмы, переписанный рукой Павла Адельгейма

Когда-то в своей книге «Догмат о Церкви…» о. Павел задался вопросом: «Что делать, если видишь несправедливость, но разоблачение этой несправедливости может привести к конфликту с влиятельными людьми? «Какая альтернатива? – спрашивал сам себя автор. – Молчать?.. Страх рождает притворство. Не только перед другими. Возникает сложный психологический феномен: человек притворяется перед собой. Несвободный человек вынужден идеализировать свою неволю. Стремясь сохранить уважение к себе в глубине искалеченной души, он с легкостью принимает доводы, оправдывающие его беспринципную покорность».

Деда расстреляли в 1938 году, отца – в 1942 году… Маму арестовали и осудили, а Павла отправили в детдом. Позднее он вместе с мамой жил в ссылке в Казахстане.

Рассказывая о судьбе своих родных, на одной из встреч с читателями его книги о. Павел негромко произнес: «Власти понадобилось расстрелять…». В менее кровожадные брежневские времена властям понадобилось посадить о. Павла Адельгейма в лагерь. Православный храм, который он вместе с прихожанами построил в узбекском городе Каган, явно не входил в планы КПСС. Трагикомическое обвинение в авторстве «Реквиема» обернулось настоящей трагедией, когда о. Павла приговорили к трем годам заключения (ст. 190 ч. 1 УК РСФСР «Распространение заведомо ложных измышлений, порочащих советский государственный и общественный строй»). В лагере его пытались раздавить мостовым краном. Он выжил, но ногу потерял.

Позднее о. Павел любил с улыбкой рассказывать эту историю про якобы авторство «Реквиема». У него была светлая улыбка. 

Хотя Павел Адельгейм стихи всё-таки писал. Например, такие: «А сплетни ниткою незримой // Петлю на шею мне плетут: // «Калека, контра, поп, судимый…  // И до сих пор ещё он тут?». Написано 20 сентября 1972 года.

В Пскове к Павлу Адельгейму и вправду многие относились как к «калеке, контре, попу, судимому…». Особенно в последнее время, когда Павел Адельгейм открыто высказался по поводу «панк-молебна», пыли в квартире патриарха, роли Алексея Навального и прочих вещах, о которых открыто среди русских священников говорить не принято. Не всем это нравилось. И тогда его называли так, как хотели, чтобы он сам себя назвал во время несостоявшихся извинений перед Евсевием.

В одном из документальных фильмов о Павле Адельгейме («Пастырь и его время») звучат его стихи: «Время тоже потеряло ногу, // Ковыляют дни на костылях». Иногда дни не то, что ковыляют – они ползут или застывают. А в определённые моменты создается ощущение, что время вообще поворачивает вспять. Во всяком случае, такой вывод можно сделать из слов Павла Адельгейма. Его книга, которую издали в Москве за несколько лет до гибели о. Павла, написана лет сорок назад. Она посвящена взаимоотношениям церковной общины и власти. Долгое время автору казалось, что эта тема уже не очень актуальна. Новые времена, новые веяния… Однако испытание свободой для власти и церкви оказалось очень тяжелым. Не все смогли его достойно пройти. И было принято решение книгу издать.

Павел Адельгейм когда-то написал: «Ухожу домой, прощайте, вышки, // Что меня три года стерегли, // Вы мне лучше, чем любые книжки, // Разобраться в жизни помогли…». Помню, на одной из встреч в Псковской областной библиотеке для детей и юношества его спросили: «Почему так часто получается, что над чистотой глумится ложь? Почему так должно быть?» - «Потому что в человеке есть добро и зло, - ответил о. Павел. – Христу совсем не хотелось всходить на крест, но это было неизбежно. В согласии принять скорбь оказывается Победа». Разговор всё время шёл о вещах тяжёлых. Но уныния не чувствовалось. Наоборот, было воодушевление. «Время сейчас лукавое, - пояснил о. Павел. - Но и хорошего - много. Можно приходить в храм… Мы застали времена, когда вокруг храмов стояли милицейские кордоны. Количество действующих храмов в Пскове увеличилось, но это не значит, что значительно возросло число прихожан. В Пскове их 0,5-1,5% от общего количества жителей города, в исключительных случаях в храмы приходят примерно 2,5%» В зале раздалось недовольное: «Кто их считал?»

Кто-то, наверное, считал, но дело не в этом. Когда в Пскове тысячу лет назад строили первый храм Святой Троицы, христиан в городе было еще меньше.

В фильме «Пастырь и его время» звучит много стихов. Некоторые из них написал сам Павел Адельгейм. Ему в конце шестидесятых годов прошлого века коммунистические власти пытались приписать сочинение антисоветских стихов. Но действительно, душа Павла Адельгейма явно больше лежала к стихам, чем к заявлениям, адресованным официальным лицам. Однако иногда всё-таки приходилось делать заявления, разбираясь в юридических хитросплетениях.

В фильме звучат и стихи других авторов. Мистическое рождение Церкви в таинстве любви описано у Вячеслава Иванова. Его стихи в фильме тоже цитирует о. Павел: «Совершается Церковь, когда  // В глаза мы друг другу глядим, // И светится внутренний день // Из наших немеющих глаз…». Эти стихи я слышал от него несколько раз.

«По-божески жить не получалось. Да не очень-то и хотелось», - как сказал один из участников презентации фильма «Пастырь и его время», вспоминая о своей прежней жизни.

Почему не получалось? Возможно, потому что до определённой  поры не было желания открыто посмотреть друг другу в глаза. Вместо этого многие предпочитают другую церковь – церковь для отвода глаз. Такая церковь Павлу Адельгейму была не по душе.

После убийства Павла Адельгейма разгорелась странная дискуссия на тему: зачем нужна смерть и кому она, прежде всего, необходима? Подходящих цитат из Библии, разумеется, тут же нашлось немало. «И не бойтесь убивающих тело, души же не могущих убить; а бойтесь более Того, Кто может и душу и тело погубить в геенне». Мф 10.28. Люди принялись вспоминать, как вообще в православной традиции относятся к смерти и как её приближают. Вспомнили и о святом Иоанне Кронштадтском, который истово молился за то, что бы Господь поскорее устранил Льва Толстого, и не просто устранил, а в конкретный срок, чтобы Толстой «не дожил до праз

2015-12-10 Vatican Radio

(Vatican Radio) The Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations with Jews has released a new document exploring the unresolved theological questions at the heart of Christian-Jewish dialogue.

The new document, entitled ‘The Gifts and Calling of God are irrevocable’, marks the 50th anniversary of the ground-breaking declaration ‘Nostra Aetate’. It was presented at a press conference in the Vatican on Thursday, by Cardinal Kurt Koch, Fr Norbert Hofmann of the Vatican Commission, together with two Jewish representatives, Rabbi David Rosen, International Director of Interreligious Affairs for the American Jewish Committee, and Dr Ed Kessler, founding director of the Cambridge Woolf Institute.

Please find below the full text of the document "The Gifts and Calling of God are irrevocable"

COMMISSION FOR RELIGIOUS RELATIONS WITH THE JEWS

“THE GIFTS AND THE CALLING OF GOD ARE IRREVOCABLE” (Rom 11:29)

A REFLECTION ON THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO CATHOLIC-JEWISH RELATIONS ON THE OCCASION OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF “NOSTRA AETATE” (NO.4)

INDEX

A brief history of the impact of “Nostra aetate” (No.4) over the last 50 years
The special theological status of Jewish-Catholic dialogue Revelation in history as ‘Word of God’ in Judaism and Christianity
The relationship between the Old and New Testament and the Old and New Covenant

5.                 The universality of salvation in Jesus Christ and God’s unrevoked covenant with Israel

The Church’s mandate to evangelize in relation to Judaism
The goals of dialogue with Judaism

PREFACE

Fifty years ago, the declaration “Nostra aetate ” of the Second Vatican Council was promulgated. Its fourth article presents the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people in a new theological framework. The following reflections aim at looking back with gratitude on all that has been achieved over the last decades in the Jewish-Catholic relationship, providing at the same time a new stimulus for the future. Stressing once again the unique status of this relationship within the wider ambit of interreligious dialogue, theological questions are further discussed, such as the relevance of revelation, the relationship between the Old and the New Covenant, the relationship between the universality of salvation in Jesus Christ and the affirmation that the covenant of God with Israel has never been revoked, and the Church’s mandate to evangelize in relation to Judaism. This document presents Catholic reflections on these questions, placing them in a theological context, in order that their significance may be deepened for members of both faith traditions. The text is not a magisterial document or doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church, but is a reflection prepared by the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews on current theological questions that have developed since the Second Vatican Council. It is intended to be a starting point for further theological thought with a view to enriching and intensifying the theological dimension of Jewish-Catholic dialogue.

1. A brief history of the impact of “Nostra aetate” (No.4) over the last 50 years

“Nostra aetate” (No.4) is rightly counted among those documents of the Second Vatican Council which have been able to effect, in a particularly striking manner, a new direction of the Catholic Church since then. This shift in the relations of the Church with the Jewish people and Judaism becomes apparent only when we recall that there were previously great reservations on both sides, in part because the history of Christianity has been seen to be discriminatory against Jews, even including attempts at forced conversion (cf. “Evangelii gaudium”, 248). The background of this complex connection consists inter alia in an asymmetrical relationship: as a minority the Jews were often confronted by and dependent upon a Christian majority. The dark and terrible shadow of the Shoah over Europe during the Nazi period led the Church to reflect anew on her bond with the Jewish people.
The fundamental esteem for Judaism expressed in “Nostra aetate” (No.4) however has enabled communities that once faced one another with scepticism to become - step by step over the years - reliable partners and even good friends, capable of weathering crises together and negotiating conflicts positively. Therefore, the fourth article of “Nostra aetate” is recognised as the solid foundation for improving the relationship between Catholics and Jews. For the practical implementation of “Nostra aetate” (No.4), Blessed Pope Paul VI on 22 October 1974 established the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews which, although organisationally attached to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, is operationally independent and entrusted with the task of accompanying and fostering religious dialogue with Judaism. From a theological perspective it also makes good sense to link this Commission with the Council for Promoting Christian Unity, since the separation between Synagogue and Church may be viewed as the first and most far-reaching breach among the chosen people.
Within a year of its foundation, the Holy See’s Commission published its first official document on 1 December 1974, with the title “Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate (No.4)”. The crucial and new concern of this document consists in becoming acquainted with Judaism as it defines itself, giving expression to the high esteem in which Christianity holds Judaism and stressing the great significance for the Catholic Church of dialogue with the Jews, as stated in the words of the document: “On the practical level in particular, Christians must therefore strive to acquire a better knowledge of the basic components of the religious tradition of Judaism: they must strive to learn by what essential traits the Jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience” (Preamble). On the basis of the Church’s witness of faith in Jesus Christ, the document reflects upon the specific nature of the Church’s dialogue with Judaism. Reference is made in the text to the roots of Christian liturgy in its Jewish matrix, new possibilities are outlined for rapprochement in the spheres of teaching, education and training, and finally suggestions are made for joint social action. Eleven years later on 24 June 1985, the Holy See’s Commission issued a second document entitled “Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church”. This document has a stronger theolo gical- exegetical orientation insofar as it reflects on the relationship of the Old and New Testaments, delineates the Jewish roots of the Christian faith, explicates the manner in which ‘the Jews’ are represented in the New Testament, points out commonalities in liturgy, above all in the great festivals of the church year, and briefly focuses on the relationship of Judaism and Christianity in history. With regard to the “land of the forefathers” the document emphasizes: “Christians are invited to understand this religious attachment which finds its roots in Biblical tradition, without however making their own any particular religious interpretation of this relationship. ... The existence of the State of Israel and its political options should be envisaged not in a perspective which is in itself religious, but in their reference to the common principles of international law.” The permanence of Israel is however to be perceived as an “historic fact and a sign to be interpreted within God’s design” (VI, 1).
A third document of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews was presented to the public on 16 March 1998. It deals with the Shoah under the title “We remember. A reflection on the Shoah”. This text delivers the harsh but accurate judgement that the balance of the 2000-year relationship between Jews and Christians is regrettably negative. It recalls the attitude of Christians towards the anti-Semitism of the National Socialists and focuses on the duty of Christians to remember the human catastrophe of the Shoah. In a letter at the beginning of this declaration Saint Pope John Paul II expresses his hope that this document will truly “help to heal the wounds of past misunderstandings and injustices. May it enable memory to play its necessary part in the process of shaping a future in which the unspeakable iniquity of the Shoah will never again be possible.” In the series of documents issued by the Holy See, reference must be made to the text published by the Pontifical Biblical Commission on 24 May 2001, which deals explicitly with Jewish-Catholic dialogue: “The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible”. This represents the most significant exegetical and theological document of the Jewish-Catholic dialogue and is a treasure-trove of common issues which have their basis in the Scriptures of Judaism and Christianity. The Sacred Scriptures of the Jewish people are considered a “fundamental component of the Christian Bible”, the fundamental themes of the Holy Scripture of the Jewish people and their adoption into the faith in Christ are discussed, and the manner in which Jews are represented in the New Testament is illustrated in detail.
Texts and documents, as important as they are, cannot replace personal encounters and face-to-face dialogues. While under Blessed Pope Paul VI the first steps in Jewish- Catholic dialogue were undertaken, Saint Pope John Paul II succeeded in fostering and deepening this dialogue through compelling gestures towards the Jewish people. He was the first pope to visit the former concentration camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau to pray for the victims of the Shoah, and he visited the Roman Synagogue to express his solidarity with the Jewish community. In the context of an historical pilgrimage to the Holy Land, he was also a guest of the state of Israel where he participated in interreligious encounters, paid a visit to both Chief Rabbis and prayed at the Western Wall. Again and again he met with Jewish groups, whether in the Vatican or during his numerous apostolic journeys. So too Benedict XVI, even before his election to the papacy, engaged in Jewish-Catholic dialogue by offering in a series of lectures important theological reflections on the relationship between the Old and the New Covenant, and the Synagogue and the Church. Following his election and in the footsteps of Saint Pope John Paul II he fostered this dialogue in his own way by reinforcing the same gestures and giving expression to his esteem for Judaism through the power of his words. As Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was greatly committed to fostering Jewish-Catholic dialogue and had many friends among the Jews of Argentina. Now as Pope he continues, at the international level, to intensify dialogue with Judaism through many friendly encounters. One of his first such encounters was in May 2014 in Israel, where he met with the two Chief Rabbis, visited the Western Wall, and prayed for the victims of the Shoah in Yad Vashem. Even before the establishment of the Holy See’s Commission, there were contacts and links with various Jewish organisations through the then Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. Since Judaism is multi-facetted and not constituted as an organisational unity, the Catholic Church was faced with the challenge of determining with whom to engage, because it was not possible to conduct individual and independent bilateral dialogues with all Jewish groupings and organisations which had declared their readiness to dialogue. To resolve this problem the Jewish organisations took up the suggestion of the Catholic Church to establish a single organisation for this dialogue. The International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations (IJCIC) is the official Jewish representative to the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews.
The IJCIC began its work in 1970, and a year later the first joint conference was organized in Paris. The conferences which have been conducted regularly since are the responsibility of the entity known as the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee (ILC), and they shape the collaboration between the IJCIC and the Holy See’s Commission. In February 2011, once more in Paris, the ILC was able to look back with gratitude on 40 years of institutional dialogue. Much has developed over the past 40 years; the former confrontation has turned into successful cooperation, the previous potential for conflict has become positive conflict management, and the past co-existence marked by tension has been replaced by resilient and fruitful mutuality. The bonds of friendship forged in the meantime have proved to be stable, so that it has become possible to address even controversial subjects together without the danger of permanent damage being done to the dialogue. This was all the more necessary because over the past decades the dialogue had not always been free of tensions. In general, however, one can observe with appreciation that in Jewish-Catholic dialogue since the new millennium above all, intensive efforts have been made to deal openly and positively with any arising differences of opinion and conflicts, in such a way that mutual relations have become stronger. Beside the dialogue with the IJCIC we should also mention the institutional conversation with the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, which is clearly to be seen as a fruit of the encounter of Saint Pope John Paul II with both Chief Rabbis in Jerusalem during his visit to Israel in March 2000. The first meeting was organised in June 2002 in Jerusalem, and since then such meetings have been conducted annually, taking place in Rome and Jerusalem alternately. The two delegations are relatively small so that a very personal and intensive discussion on various subjects is possible, such as on the sanctity of life, the status of the family, the significance of the Sacred Scriptures for life in society, religious freedom, the ethical foundations of human behaviour, the ecological challenge, the relationship of secular and religious authority and the essential qualities of religious leadership in secular society. The fact that the Catholic representatives taking part in the meetings are bishops and priests and the Jewish representatives almost exclusively rabbis permits individual topics to be examined from a religious perspective as well. The dialogue with the Chief Rabbinate of Israel has to that extent enabled more open relations between Orthodox Judaism and the Catholic Church at a global level. After each meeting a joint declaration is published which in each instance has testified to the richness of the common spiritual heritage of Judaism and Christianity and to what valuable treasures are still to be unearthed. In reviewing over more than ten years of dialogue we can gratefully affirm that a strong friendship has resulted which represents a firm foundation for the future.
The efforts of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews cannot of course be restricted to these two institutional dialogues. The Commission aims in fact at being open to all streams within Judaism and at maintaining contact with all Jewish groupings and organisations that wish to establish links with the Holy See. The Jewish side shows a particular interest in audiences with the Pope, which are in every instance prepared by the Commission. Besides direct contacts with Judaism the Holy See’s Commission also strives to provide opportunities within the Catholic Church for dialogue with Judaism and to work together with individual Bishops’ Conferences to support them locally in promoting Jewish-Catholic dialogue. The introduction of the ‘Day of Judaism’ in some European countries is a good example of this. Over the past decades both the ‘dialogue ad extra’ and the ‘dialogue ad intra’ have led with increasing clarity to the awareness that Christians and Jews are irrevocably inter­dependent, and that the dialogue between the two is not a matter of choice but of duty as far as theology is concerned. Jews and Christians can enrich one another in mutual friendship. Without her Jewish roots the Church would be in danger of losing its soteriological anchoring in salvation history and would slide into an ultimately unhistorical Gnosis. Pope Francis states that “while it is true that certain Christian beliefs are unacceptable to Judaism, and that the Church cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah, there exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of God’s word. We can also share many ethical convictions and a common concern for justice and the development of peoples” (“Evangelii gaudium”, 249).

The special theological status of Jewish-Catholic dialogue

The dialogue with Judaism is for Christians something quite special, since Christianity possesses Jewish roots which determine relations between the two in a unique way (cf. “Evangelii gaudium”, 247). In spite of the historical breach and the painful conflicts arising from it, the Church remains conscious of its enduring continuity with Israel. Judaism is not to be considered simply as another religion; the Jews are instead our “elder brothers” (Saint Pope John Paul II), our “fathers in faith” (Benedict XVI). Jesus was a Jew, was at home in the Jewish tradition of his time, and was decisively shaped by this religious milieu (cf. “Ecclesia in Medio Oriente”, 20). His first disciples gathered around him had the same heritage and were defined by the same Jewish tradition in their everyday life. In his unique relationship with his heavenly Father, Jesus was intent above all on proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom of God. “The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe in the gospel” (Mk 1:15). Within Judaism there were many very different kinds of ideas regarding how the kingdom of God would be realised, and yet Jesus’ central message on the Kingdom of God is in accordance with some Jewish thinking of his day. One cannot understand Jesus’ teaching or that of his disciples without situating it within the Jewish horizon in the context of the living tradition of Israel; one would understand his teachings even less so if they were seen in opposition to this tradition. In Jesus not a few Jews of his time saw the coming of a ‘new Moses’, the promised Christ (Messiah). But his coming nevertheless provoked a drama with consequences still felt today. Fully and completely human, a Jew of his time, descendant of Abraham, son of David, shaped by the whole tradition of Israel, heir of the prophets, Jesus stands in continuity with his people and its history. On the other hand he is, in the light of the Christian faith, himself God - the Son - and he transcends time, history, and every earthly reality. The community of those who believe in him confesses his divinity (cf. Phil 2:6-11). In this sense he is perceived to be in discontinuity with the history that prepared his coming. From the perspective of the Christian faith, he fulfils the mission and expectation of Israel in a perfect way. At the same time, however, he overcomes and transcends them in an eschatological manner. Herein consists the fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity, that is, how the figure of Jesus is to be evaluated. Jews are able to see Jesus as belonging to their people, a Jewish teacher who felt himself called in a particular way to preach the Kingdom of God. That this Kingdom of God has come with himself as God’s representative is beyond the horizon of Jewish expectation. The conflict between Jesus and the Jewish authorities of his time is ultimately not a matter of an individual transgression of the law, but of Jesus’ claim to be acting with divine authority. The figure of Jesus thus is and remains for Jews the ‘stumbling block’, the central and neuralgic point in Jewish-Catholic dialogue. From a theological perspective, Christians need to refer to the Judaism of Jesus’ time and to a degree also the Judaism that developed from it over the ages for their own self-understanding. Given Jesus’ Jewish origins, coming to terms with Judaism in one way or another is indispensable for Christians. Yet, the history of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity has also been mutually influenced over time.
Dialogue between Jews and Christians then can only be termed ‘interreligious dialogue’ by analogy, that is, dialogue between two intrinsically separate and different religions. It is not the case that two fundamentally diverse religions confront one another after having developed independently of one another or without mutual influence. The soil that nurtured both Jews and Christians is the Judaism of Jesus’ time, which not only brought forth Christianity but also, after the destruction of the temple in the year 70, post-biblical rabbinical Judaism which then had to do without the sacrificial cult and, in its further development, had to depend exclusively on prayer and the interpretation of both written and oral divine revelation. Thus Jews and Christians have the same mother and can be seen, as it were, as two siblings who - as is the normal course of events for siblings - have developed in different directions. The Scriptures of ancient Israel constitute an integral part of the Scriptures of both Judaism and Christianity, understood by both as the word of God, revelation, and salvation history. The first Christians were Jews; as a matter of course they gathered as part of the community in the Synagogue, they observed the dietary laws, the Sabbath and the requirement of circumcision, while at the same time confessing Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah sent by God for the salvation of Israel and the entire human race. With Paul the ‘Jewish Jesus movement’ definitively opens up other horizons and transcends its purely Jewish origins. Gradually his concept came to prevail, that is, that a non-Jew did not have to become first a Jew in order to confess Christ. In the early years of the Church, therefore, there were the so-called Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians, the ecclesia ex circumcisione and the ecclesia ex gentibus, one Church originating from Judaism, the other from the Gentiles, who however together constituted the one and only Church of Jesus Christ. The separation of the Church from the Synagogue does not take place abruptly however and, according to some recent insights, may not have been complete until well into the third or fourth centuries. This means that many Jewish Christians of the first period did not perceive any contradiction between living in accordance with some aspects of the Jewish tradition and yet confessing Jesus as the Christ. Only when the number of Gentile Christians represented the majority, and within the Jewish community the polemics regarding the figure of Jesus took on sharper contours, did a definitive separation appear to be no longer avoidable. Over time the siblings Christianity and Judaism increasingly grew apart, becoming hostile and even defaming one another. For Christians, Jews were often represented as damned by God and blind since they were unable to recognise in Jesus the Messiah and bearer of salvation. For Jews, Christians were often seen as heretics who no longer followed the path originally laid down by God but who went their own way. It is not without reason that in the Acts of the Apostles Christianity is called ‘the way’ (cf. Acts 9:2; 19:9,23; 24:14,22) in contrast to the Jewish Halacha which determined the interpretation of the law for practical conduct. Over time Judaism and Christianity became increasingly alienated from one another, even becoming involved in ruthless conflicts and accusing one another of abandoning the path prescribed by God.
On the part of many of the Church Fathers the so-called replacement theory or supersessionism steadily gained favour until in the Middle Ages it represented the standard theological foundation of the relationship with Judaism: the promises and commitments of God would no longer apply to Israel because it had not recognised Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God, but had been transferred to the Church of Jesus Christ which was now the true ‘new Israel’, the new chosen people of God. Arising from the same soil, Judaism and Christianity in the centuries after their separation became involved in a theological antagonism which was only to be defused at the Second Vatican Council. With its Declaration “Nostra aetate” (No.4) the Church unequivocally professes, within a new theological framework, the Jewish roots of Christianity. While affirming salvation through an explicit or even implicit faith in Christ, the Church does not question the continued love of God for the chosen people of Israel. A replacement or supersession theology which sets against one another two separate entities, a Church of the Gentiles and the rejected Synagogue whose place it takes, is deprived of its foundations. From an originally close relationship between Judaism and Christianity a long-term state of tension had developed, which has been gradually transformed after the Second Vatican Council into a constructive dialogue relationship. There have often been attempts to identify this replacement theory in the Epistle to the Hebrews. This Epistle, however, is not directed to the Jews but rather to the Christians of Jewish background who have become weary and uncertain. Its purpose is to strengthen their faith and to encourage them to persevere, by pointing to Christ Jesus as the true and ultimate high priest, the mediator of the new covenant. This context is necessary to understand the Epistle’s contrast between the first purely earthly covenant and a second better (cf. Heb 8:7) and new covenant (cf. 9:15, 12:24). The first covenant is defined as outdated, in decline and doomed to obsolescence (cf. 8:13), while the second covenant is defined as everlasting (cf. 13:20). To establish the foundations of this contrast the Epistle refers to the promise of a new covenant in the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah 31:31-34 (cf. Heb 8:8-12). This demonstrates that the Epistle to the Hebrews has no intention of proving the promises of the Old Covenant to be false, but on the contrary treats them as valid. The reference to the Old Testament promises is intended to help Christians to be sure of their salvation in Christ. At issue in the Epistle to the Hebrews is not the contrast of the Old and New Covenants as we understand them today, nor a contrast between the church and Judaism. Rather, the contrast is between the eternal heavenly priesthood of Christ and the transitory earthly priesthood. The fundamental issue in the Epistle to the Hebrews in the new situation is a Christological interpretation of the New Covenant. For exactly this reason, “Nostra aetate” (No.4) did not refer to the Epistle to the Hebrews, but rather to Saint Paul’s reflections in his letter to the Romans 9-11.
For an outside observer, the Conciliar Declaration “Nostra aetate” could give the impression that the text deals with the relations of the Catholic Church with all world religions in a relationship based on parity, but the history of its development and the text itself point in a different direction. Originally Saint Pope John XXIII proposed that the Council should promulgate a Tractatus de Iudaeis, but in the end the decision was made to give consideration to all world religions in “Nostra aetate”. However, the fourth article of this Conciliar Declaration, which deals with a new theological relationship with Judaism, represents almost the heart of the document, in which a place is also made for the Catholic

Church’s relationship with other religions. The relationship with Judaism can in that sense be seen as the catalyst for the determination of the relationship with the other world religions.

Nevertheless, from the theological perspective the dialogue with Judaism has a completely different character and is on a different level in comparison with the other world religions. The faith of the Jews testified to in the Bible, found in the Old Testament, is not for Christians another religion but the foundation of their own faith, although clearly the figure of Jesus is the sole key for the Christian interpretation of the Scriptures of the Old Testament. The cornerstone of the Christian faith is Jesus (cf. Acts 4:11; 1 Pt 2:4-8). However, the dialogue with Judaism occupies a unique position for Christians; Christianity is by its roots connected with Judaism as with no other religion. Therefore the Jewish-Christian dialogue can only with reservations be termed ‘interreligious dialogue’ in the true sense of the expression; one could however speak of a kind of ‘intra-religious’ or ‘intra-familial’ dialogue sui generis. In his address in the Roman Synagogue on 13 April 1986 Saint Pope John Paul II expressed this situation in these words: “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 dearly beloved brothers and, in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers.”

Revelation in history as ‘Word of God’ in Judaism and Christianity

We find in the Old Testament God’s plan of salvation presented for his people (cf. “Dei verbum”, 14). This plan of salvation is expressed in an enlightening way at the beginning of biblical history in the call to Abraham (Gen 12ff). In order to reveal himself and speak to humankind, redeeming it from sin and gathering it together as one people, God began by choosing the people of Israel through Abraham and setting them apart. To them God revealed himself gradually through his emissaries, his prophets, as the true God, the only God, the living God, the redeeming God. This divine election was constitutive of the people of Israel. Only after the first great intervention of the redeeming God, the liberation from slavery in Egypt (cf. Ex 13:17ff) and the establishment of the covenant at Sinai (Ex 19ff), did the twelve tribes truly become a nation and become conscious of being the people of God, the bearers of his message and his promises, witnesses of his merciful favour in the midst of the nations and also for the nations (cf. Is 26:1-9; 54; 60; 62). In order to instruct his people on how to fulfil their mission and how to pass on the revelation entrusted to them, God gave Israel the law which defines how they are to live (cf. Ex 20; Deut 5), and which distinguishes them from other peoples.
Like the Church itself even in our own day, Israel bears the treasure of its election in fragile vessels. The relationship of Israel with its Lord is the story of its faithfulness and its unfaithfulness. In order to fulfil his work of salvation despite the smallness and weakness of the instruments he chose, God manifested his mercy and the graciousness of his gifts, as well as his faithfulness to his promises which no human infidelity can nullify (cf. Rom 3:3; 2 Tim 2:13). At every step of his people along the way God set apart at least a ‘small number’ (cf. Deut 4:27), a ‘remnant’ (cf. Is 1:9; Zeph 3:12; cf. also Is 6:13; 17:5-6), a handful of the faithful who ‘have not bowed the knee to Baal’ (cf. 1 Kings 19:18). Through this remnant, God realized his plan of salvation. Constantly the object of his election and love remained the chosen people as through them - as the ultimate goal - the whole of humanity is gathered together and led to him. The Church is called the new people of God (cf. “Nostra aetate”, No.4) but not in the sense that the people of God of Israel has ceased to exist. The Church “was prepared in a remarkable way throughout the history of the people of Israel and by means of the Old Covenant” (“Lumen gentium”, 2). The Church does not replace the people of God of Israel, since as the community founded on Christ it represents in him the fulfilment of the promises made to Israel. This does not mean that Israel, not having achieved such a fulfilment, can no longer be considered to be the people of God. “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” (“Nostra aetate”, No.4).
God revealed himself in his Word, so that it may be understood by humanity in actual historical situations. This Word invites all people to respond. If their responses are in accord with the Word of God they stand in right relationship with him. For Jews this Word can be learned through the Torah and the traditions based on it. The Torah is the instruction for a successful life in right relationship with God. Whoever observes the Torah has life in its fullness (cf. Pirqe Avot II, 7). By observing the Torah the Jew receives a share in communion with God. In this regard, Pope Francis has stated: “The Christian confessions find their unity in Christ; Judaism finds its unity in the Torah. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Word of God made flesh in the world; for Jews the Word of God is present above all in the Torah. Both faith traditions find their foundation in the One God, the God of the Covenant, who reveals himself through his Word. In seeking a right attitude towards God, Christians turn to Christ as the fount of new life, and Jews to the teaching of the Torah.” (Address to me mbers of the International Council of Christians and Jews, 30 June 2015). Judaism and the Christian faith as seen in the New Testament are two ways by which God’s people can make the Sacred Scriptures of Israel their own. The Scriptures which Christians call the Old Testament is open therefore to both ways. A response to God’s word of salvation that accords with one or the other tradition can thus open up access to God, even if it is left up to his counsel of salvation to determine in what way he may intend to save mankind in each instance. That his will for salvation is universally directed is testified by the Scriptures (cf. eg. Gen 12:1-3; Is 2:2-5; 1 Tim 2:4). Therefore there are not two paths to salvation according to the expression “Jews hold to the Torah, Christians hold to Christ”. Christian faith proclaims that Christ’s work of salvation is universal and involves all mankind. God’s word is one single and undivided reality which takes concrete form in each respective historical context.
In this sense, Christians affirm that Jesus Christ can be considered as ‘the living Torah of God’. Torah and Christ are the Word of God, his revelation for us human beings as testimony of his boundless love. For Christians, the pre-existence of Christ as the Word and Son of the Father is a fundamental doctrine, and according to rabbinical tradition the Torah and the name of the Messiah exist already before creation (cf. Genesis Rabbah 1,1). Further, according to Jewish understanding God himself interprets the Torah in the Eschaton, while in Christian understanding everything is recapitulated in Christ in the end (cf. Eph 1:10; Col 1:20). In the gospel of Matthew Christ is seen as it were as the ‘new Moses’. Matthew 5:17-19 presents Jesus as the authoritative and authentic interpreter of the Torah (cf. Lk 24:27, 45-47). In the rabbinical literature, however, we find the identification of the Torah with Moses. Against this background, Christ as the ‘new Moses’ can be connected with the Torah. Torah and Christ are the locus of the presence of God in the world as this presence is experienced in the respective worship communities. The Hebrew dabar means word and event at the same time - and thus one may reach the conclusion that the word of the Torah may be open for the Christ event.

4.                  The relationship between the Old and New Testament and the Old and New Covenant

The covenant that God has offered Israel is irrevocable. “God is not man, that he should lie” (Num 23:19; cf. 2 Tim 2:13). The permanent elective fidelity of God expressed in earlier covenants is never repudiated (cf. Rom 9:4; 11:1-2). The New Covenant does not revoke the earlier covenants, but it brings them to fulfilment. Through the Christ event Christians have understood that all that had gone before was to be interpreted anew. For Christians the New Covenant has acquired a quality of its own, even though the orientation for both consists in a unique relationship with God (cf. for example, the covenant formula in Lev 26:12, “I will be your God and you will be my people”). For Christians, the New Covenant in Christ is the culminating point of the promises of salvation of the Old Covenant, and is to that extent never independent of it. The New Covenant is grounded in and based on the Old, because it is ultimately the God of Israel who concludes the Old Covenant with his people Israel and enables the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. Jesus lives during the period of the Old Covenant, but in his work of salvation in the New Covenant confirms and perfects the dimensions of the Old. The term covenant, therefore, means a relationship with God that takes effect in different ways for Jews and Christians. The New Covenant can never replace the Old but presupposes it and gives it a new dimension of meaning, by reinforcing the personal nature of God as revealed in the Old Covenant and establishing it as openness for all who respond faithfully from all the nations (cf. Zech 8:20-23; Psalm 87).
Unity and difference between Judaism and Christianity come to the fore in the first instance with the testimonies of divine revelation. With the existence of the Old Testament as an integral part of the one Christian Bible, there is a deeply rooted sense of intrinsic kinship between Judaism and Christianity. The roots of Christianity lie in the Old Testament, and Christianity constantly draws nourishment from these roots. However, Christianity is grounded in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, who is recognised as the Messiah promised to the Jewish people, and as the only begotten Son of God who has communicated himself through the Holy Spirit following his death on the cross and his resurrection. With the existence of the New Testament, the question naturally arose quite soon of how the two testaments are related to one another, whether for example the New Testament writings have not superseded the older writings and nullified them. This position was represented by Marcion, who in the second century held that the New Testament had made the Old Testament book of promises obsolete, destined to fade away in the glow of the new, just as one no longer needs the light of the moon as soon as the sun has risen. This stark antithesis between the Hebrew and the Christian Bible never became an official doctrine of the Christian Church. By excluding Marcion from the Christian community in 144, the Church rejected his concept of a purely “Christian” Bible purged of all Old Testament elements, bore witness to its faith in the one and only God who is the author of both testaments, and thus held fast to the unity of both testaments, the “concordia testamentorum”. This is of course only one side of the relationship between the two testaments. The common patrimony of the Old Testament not only formed the fundamental basis of a spiritual kinship between Jews and Christians but also brought with it a basic tension in the relationship of the two faith communities. This is demonstrated by the fact that Christians read the Old Testament in the light of the New, in the conviction expressed by Augustine in the indelible formula: “In the Old Testament the New is concealed and in the New the Old is revealed” (Quaestiones in Heptateuchum 2, 73). Pope Gregory the Great also spoke in the same sense when he defined the Old Testament as “the prophecy of the New” and the latter as the “best exposition of the Old” (Homiliae in Ezechielem I, VI, 15; cf. “Dei verbum”, 16).
This Christological exegesis can easily give rise to the impression that Christians consider the New Testament not only as the fulfilment of the Old but at the same time as a replacement for it. That this impression cannot be correct is evident already from the fact that Judaism too found itself compelled to adopt a new reading of Scripture after the catastrophe of the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70. Since the Sadducees who were bound to the temple did not survive this catastrophe, the rabbis, following in the footsteps of the Pharisees, who had already developed their particular mode of reading and interpreting Scripture, now did so without the temple as the centre of Jewish religious devotion. As a consequence there were two responses to this situation, or more precisely, two new ways of reading Scripture, namely the Christological exegesis of the Christians and the rabbinical exegesis of that form of Judaism that developed historically. Since each mode involved a new interpretation of Scripture, the crucial new question must be precisely how these two modes are related to each other. But since the Christian Church and post-biblical rabbinical Judaism developed in parallel, but also in opposition and mutual ignorance, this question cannot be answered from the New Testament alone. After centuries of opposing positions it has been the duty of Jewish-Catholic dialogue to bring these two new ways of reading the Biblical writings into dialogue with one another in order to perceive the “rich complementarity” where it exists and “to help one another to mine the riches of God’s word” (“Evangelii gaudium”, 249). The document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission “The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible” in 2001 therefore stated that Christians can and must admit “that the Jewish reading of the Bib le is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Scriptures from the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading which developed in parallel fashion”. It then draws the conclusion: “Both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings are the result and expression. Consequently, both are irreducible” (No.22).
Since each of the two readings serves the purpose of rightly understanding God’s will and word, it becomes evident how important is the awareness that the Christian faith is rooted in the faith of Abraham. That raises the further question of how the Old and the New Covenant stand in relation to one another. For the Christian faith it is axiomatic that there can only be one single covenant history of God with humanity. The covenant with Abraham, with circumcision as its sign (cf. Gen 17), and the covenant with Moses restricted to Israel regarding obedience to the law (cf. Ex 19:5; 24:7-8) and in particular the observance of the Sabbath (cf. Ex 31:16-17) had been extended in the covenant with Noah, with the rainbow as its sign (cf. “Verbum Domini”, 117), to the whole of creation (cf. Gen 9:9 ff). Through the prophets God in turn promises a new and eternal covenant (cf. Is 55:3; 61:8; Jer 31:31-34; Ez 36:22-28). Each of these covenants incorporates the previous covenant and interprets it in a new way. That is also true for the New Covenant which for Christians is the final eternal covenant and therefore the definitive interpretation of what was promised by the prophets of the Old Covenant, or as Paul expresses it, the “Yes” and “Amen” to “all that God has promised” (2 Cor 1:20). The Church as the renewed people of God has been elected by God without conditions. The Church is the definitive and unsurpassable locus of the salvific action of God. This however does not mean that Israel as the people of God has been repudiated or has lost its mission (cf. “Nostra aetate”, No.4). The New Covenant for Christians is therefore neither the annulment nor the replacement, but the fulfilment of the promises of the Old Covenant. For Jewish-Christian dialogue in the first instance God’s covenant with Abraham proves to be constitutive, as he is not only the father of Israel but also the father of the faith of Christians. In this covenant community it should be evident for Christians that the covenant that God concluded with Israel has never been revoked but remains valid on the basis of God’s unfailing faithfulness to his people, and consequently the New Covenant which Christians believe in can only be understood as the affirmation and fulfilment of the Old. Christians are therefore also convinced that through the New Covenant the Abrahamic covenant has obtained that universality for all peoples which was originally intended in the call of Abram (cf. Gen 12:1-3). This recourse to the Abrahamic covenant is so essentially constitutive of the Christian faith that the Church without Israel would be in danger of losing its locus in the history of salvation. By the same token, Jews could with regard to the Abrahamic covenant arrive at the insight that Israel without the Church would be in danger of remaining too particularist and of failing to grasp the universality of its experience of God. In this fundamental sense Israel and the Church remain bound to each other according to the covenant and are interdependent.
That there can only be one history of God’s covenant with mankind, and that consequently Israel is God’s chosen and beloved people of the covenant which has never been repealed or revoked (cf. Rom 9:4; 11:29), is the conviction behind the Apostle Paul’s passionate struggle with the dual fact that while the Old Covenant from God continues to be in force, Israel has not adopted the New Covenant. In order to do justice to both facts Paul coined the expressive image of the root of Israel into which the wild branches of the Gentiles have been grafted (cf. Rom 11:16-21). One could say that Jesus Christ bears in himself the living root of the “green olive tree”, and yet in a deeper meaning that the whole promise has its root in him (cf. Jn 8:58). This image represents for Paul the decisive key to thinking of the relationship between Israel and the Church in the light of faith. With this image Paul gives expression to the duality of the unity and divergence of Israel and the Church. On the one hand the image is to be taken seriously in the sense that the grafted wild branches have not their origin as branches in the plant onto which they are grafted and their new situation represents a new reality and a new dimension of God’s work of salvation, so that the Christian Church cannot merely be understood as a branch or a fruit of Israel (cf. Mt 8:10­13). On the other hand, the image is also to be taken seriously in the sense that the Church draws nourishment and strength from the root of Israel, and that the grafted branches would wither or even die if they were cut off from the root of Israel (cf. “Ecclesia in Medio Oriente”, 21).

(Be continued ) +++  End of text - Part 2

[url]http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/paul_v_lashkevich/post385172451/[/url]