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the universality of salvation in Jesus Christ and the affirmation that the covenant of God with Israel has never been revoked, and the Church’s mandate to evangelize in relation to Judaism.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]

Психоаналитик из Луганска Александр Зеленько считает, что агрессия России имеет психологические корни. Местами спорно, порой мрачно, но любопытно — он объясняет феномен советского рабства, психологию земляков, которые воюют за «Л-ДНР» и логику россиян, которые обожают Путина.

В 80-е Александр Зеленько работал в КГБ, до начала АТО преподавал в Луганском национальном университете, а сейчас Зеленько — доцент кафедры Киевского национального университета им. Шевченко.

В интервью «ОРД» Александр Зеленько рассказал, как россияне сеяли зерна «антифашизма» с помощью теории «мятежевойны», обрисовал психотип русского ордынца и насмешил «открытием» коллег из «ЛНР» — расовой теорией о «происхождении донбассян».

- Что вы думаете о гибридной войне?

- Изобретение чисто русское. Был такой начштаба корниловской дивизии — белогвардейский полковник Евгений Месснер. Большой умница, который создал теорию мятежевойны, в 20-е годы прошлого века уехал в Аргентину, в 1967 издал знаменитую книгу «Теория третьей мировой». Советский генштаб начал внедрять и разрабатывать эту концепцию в начале 80-х.

Есть понятие трех уровней сети. Мы накрываем территорию очень плотной сеткой вещания, внедряем историю (неважно – правда или неправда, но это должно повторяться). В первую очередь даем языковую матрицу. Люди должны учить русский язык – будь то Чехословакия или Йемен. Культурная, языковая, семантическая и историческая матрицы насаждаются. Должны создаваться очаги русской культуры и русского менталитета – это матрица 1 уровня.

- «Русская весна» могла произойти не только в Украине?

- В любой точке до Гибралтара. Волею судьбы я участвовал в создании этой многоуровневой системы.

- И в чем состояла ваша работа?

- Вести с человеком разговор таким образом, чтобы он стал абсолютно искренним нашим продвиженцем. Мы создаем очаги культуры, вкладывая деньги в балет, искусство — во что угодно. Чтобы человек начал искреннее интересоваться Улановой… Тютчевым… Мы даем самое лучшее, не жалеем для этого денег и сил, находим знаковые фигуры.

Предположим, мы сидим с вами в Португалии и разговариваем о Чехове (я был представитель подобной культурной миссии). Вам нравится Чехов? Мне тоже. Вот почва.

Находим представителей интеллигенции в маленьком городке-побратиме и создаем кружок любителей Чехова — ничего более. А потом на культурную основу накладываем организационные моменты. Это первый уровень.

Строительство матрицы 2 уровня – это люди, которые симпатизируют нам без вербовки. Находим тех, которые учились в России. Апологеты русского мира, те кто сам дошел, начитался Гумилева, и говорит: «Нифига себе, у них пласт культуры интересный» — они становятся информационными узлами. Сам того не ведая, такой человек уже ведет информационную разведку. Причем, все в открытом режиме, все законно.

Потом на ту территорию вставляется так называемая боевая платформа – от 1 человека до дивизии. Положим, вы закончили университет в Оренбурге, и заразились коммунистической идеей. Вам говорим о том, чтобы вы создали боевую ячейку людей, которая в случае форс-мажора, в случае Третьей мировой будет готова защитить свою страну.

Мы с вами в Португалии? С португальцами говорим о португальских фашистах: «У вас же была Салазар, из-за которого 40 лет страдал португальский народ?». В каждой стране когда-то был какой-то страшный тоталитарный период, и я апеллирую к нему. Прошу вас создать боевую группу, которая ни в коем случае не будет подвергать вашу страну угрозе. Она будет существовать на случай фашистского путча. В таком случае мы дадим вашей группе все, что вам будет нужно: офицеров оружие, деньги, информацию – все для того, чтобы вы защитили вашу страну. Так все общество становится контролируемым, и мы получаем многоуровневую структуру.

Как-то мы ездили в Англию с Пристюком (Владимир Пристюк – бывший губернатор Луганской области, который приложил руку к разжиганию сепаратизма весной 2014 на Луганщине – прим.ред) — он был смотрящий от комсомола, а я — участник группы по культурному обмену, так и познакомились.

- В оккупированном Донбассе основой тоже стала культурная пропитка?

- В Донбассе – донское казачество, шолоховский «Тихий Дон»…

- Такие сети работают и в Украине (кроме «Л-ДНР»)?

- Могу назвать примерные цифры по российским информационным узлам и боевым платформам в Киеве. Тут от 4 до 7 тысяч информаторов российских было на весну 2015-го года, а боевых платформ — до 5 тысяч. В среднем в Киеве около 18 тысяч боевиков готовы создавать «Киевскую республику».

- Надеюсь, это преувеличение.

- Я общаюсь с той стороной и склонен считать, что это осторожные данные. Эти боевые единицы — это те, кто в конце 80-90 уже почти взялся за ручку двери, ведущей в коммунистический рай для них и их семей, и вдруг для них все рухнуло. Чиновники, комсомольцы, профсоюзники, партийные. Представьте – я жду, что через 2 года буду 3 секретарем партии и жизнь моих внуков устроена, а тут распад СССР… Эти 18 тысяч — это те, кому сейчас 45-50. А еще – православные… И так далее.

- Если в Киеве все так плохо — почему Москва не попыталась сделать тут террористическую республику?

- Ресурс! Не хватает ресурса у России. Зерна брошены, у них есть люди, а дать команду они не готовы, так как после команды надо снабжать. Война — слишком дорогое удовольствие.

- Давайте вернемся в «ЛНР». Что произошло весной 2014-го?

- В первых числах мая 2014 года луганские милиционеры обратились к Киеву: мы, луганская милиция, защищаем Украину (11 райотделов были готовы с оружием защищать Украину), а вы прощаете нам экономические преступления, совершенные за время службы – контрафакт, контрабанду, теневые схемы… Они тогда имели страх перед Майданом – думали, что Майдан что-то будет менять, и они вышли с таким предложением к Киеву. Но Киев не стал обсуждать этот вопрос, и они все перешли на сторону «ЛНР». А 14 мая появилась «Луганская республика».

В каждом райотделе Луганщины был российский агент, задача которого – придумать вкусную, интересную схему заработка для 50 сотрудников с зарплатой в 1,5 тыс. грн., чтобы весь райотдел богател, и все противозаконные способы заработка целого райотдела агентом документировались.

- А потом, если что – «за яйца»?

- Как только кто-то скажет: «Мы за Украину», к нему подходят и говорят: «Эй, дружище, вот твоя папочка: я посылаю ее Киеву и твои майдановцы тебя с твоим желто-голубым флажком посадят на 10 лет. А здесь, если ты остаешься — мы строим вместе новую республику, и пенсии у тебя и у меня будут, как в России». Ответа из Киева не было для таких парнишек, и у них не оставалось выхода.

- Это не гипотетически вы сейчас говорите?

- Именно такие разговоры и шли. И вот еще пример. В городе Свердловске (Луганской области) на 8 марта 2014 года таможенники и пограничники заказали для своих жен и любовниц столько украшений, что их микроавтобусом пришлось отправлять. Откуда деньги? Через границу в феврале шла бронетехника — три тысячи долларов они получали за каждый российский танк. В маленьких селах Луганщины стояли «грады».

- А Киев куда смотрел?

- Киев знал все. Погранцы и таможня получали свой процент, и Литвин (глава Госпогранслужбы Украины Николай Литвин, который до 6 октября 2014 года отвечал за «контроль над границей» с РФ), получал свое с каждой установки «Град», с каждого танка и с каждого «Камаза» с вооружением.

- Как психоаналитик, объясните — почему русским не стыдно красть чужие земли?

- У них нет имущества, нет права собственности, и включается психологический механизм проекции: если я не имею собственности, то и вы не имеете. Поэтому не украл Крым у нас Путин, а взял. Они — ордынцы. Ордынец – это продукт эволюции особого типа. У нас часто путают легизм (верховенство закона) и гражданское общество (верховенство права). В чем отличие? Если мы говорим, что закон превыше всего, закон суров, но это закон, плох он или нет, но он основа государства – это легизм… Изобретено в Китае — в вершине получаем фантастически сильное государство и никчемного гражданина. Дорвавшийся до законотворчества доводит государство до ручки.

Западная же цивилизация пошла по другому пути – право на жизнь, право на свободу, право на собственность – это основные права, а закон — это инструмент, который им служит. И если бы у нас, в Украине, было правовое государство и правовое общество, то закон, ущемляющий права не был бы возможен.

Ордынец – продукт эволюции, для которого слово сильного, слово хозяина — превыше всего, а права значения не имеют.

Мы с вами (украинцы) — часть индоарийской расы, являемся европейцами. Секрет полишинеля состоит в том, что в генетическом плане нет понятия славяне. Никакого славянского общества нет. Есть индоарийцы, есть тюрки. Вот мы с вами являемся намного ближе к немцам генетически, чем к русским. В Киеве в Первую и Вторую мировую существовал украинско-немецкий суржик. В Нежине огурцы называют «гурок». На украинском – «огірок», а по-немецки «гурке» (Gurke). Наречия и диалекты украинские ближе к немецкому языку, чем к русскому.

- А что касается психотипа русских завоевателей и психотипа донбассцев?

- Психотип ордынца и психотип донбассянина близки. Социопатическая установка ордынца гласит: я уважаю сильного, сильный берет свое, а кто начинает разбираться, галдеть о справедливости — тот слаб, слабость не заслуживает уважения. И этот экспансивный тип изменить невозможно.

Они получают удовольствие от расширения земель, но не от возделывания. Сосед для ордынцев может быть или врагом, который еще не подчинен, или рабом — так русские смотрят на соседей.

Паритет для них невозможен, равноправие для ордынца означает неопределенность. Так, что бы никто никого не угнетал — не получится. Ведь иначе – как определить, кто из нас старше, кого слушаться? Состояние агрессии – нормальное состояние ордынца. Они говорят: бьет – значит любит. Любовь – это сопли и слабость, а сильный – завоевывает.

Самый лучший царь с точки зрения россиян – тот, который их угнетет: Иван Грозный, Сталин. А что такое для русских Ельцин или Николай Кровавый? Они ничтожные.

- Но Николая II в России сделали святым!

- Блаженным, дурачком… А настоящий лидер в их представлении – это Путин.

Идущие против Путина в России, как и украинцы, восставшие против Януковича – это, в представлении россиян, сумасшедшие. Человеку нужен царь – они в этом уверены. И потому Майдан для них был проявлением безумия. Они искренне шли нас спасать — увидели взбесившийся народ, который нужно вернуть в нормальное состояние, иначе они свой дом сожгут – вот так россияне восприняли украинцев, поддержавших Майдан.

Американец выбирает указатели, для него Обама – директор большого универмага, а не «мой господин». Поэтому Обама должен прислушиваться к избирателям. А у гопников все по-другому. Гопник слушается десятника или тысячника, гопником может быть и профессор Луганского университета — он слушается господина. А американец чувствует себя нанимателем Обамы.

- А что это за расовая теория – об особом происхождении донбассян, которую выдумали в «ЛНР» ваши бывшие коллеги?

- Луганский национальный университет, который остался в «ЛНР», предложил расовую теорию происхождения донбассянина (автор — доцент Красильников). Она гласит, что жители Донбасса произошли от суровых наследников неандертальцев, и потому это жесткие люди, простые, честные с сильными чертами характера, их боятся. В Луганском университете была сильная археологическая школа, они вели раскопки. И, кстати, почти весь истфак там остался, оттуда вышло большинство «элиты ЛНР». Так вот весной нынешнего года они заявили, что предки луганчан питались жесткой пищей, которая формировала сильный характер. А мы, «укры» — остальная Украина – произошли от трипольцев, которые ели мягкую пищу и выросли мягкотелые, приспосабливающиеся, подлые, хитрые и лицемерные слабаки. Тогда как они, «ЛНРовцы» — это настоящие былинные богатыри. И вот это «научное открытие» сейчас уже входит в программу школ «ЛНР», его одобрила российская Академия наук.

Буквально перед самой войной был такой крик души — фраза вырвалась из уст доцента кафедры психологии Луганского национального университета: «Нам не нужна ваша цивилизация, нам нужна православная культура!». И такие речи вел люди, которых обласкала киевская власть, давая степени и звания. Это их социальная установка.

- Вы за то, чтобы не присоединять к Украине временно оккупированный Донбасс?

- Выборы в ВР 2014 были необходимы и, благодаря тому, что их провели без территорий, захваченных «Л-ДНР», в парламенте нет клинических коммунистов. А если бы Крым и «Л-ДНР» оставались в составе Украины, ВР у нас была бы еще более левой и коммунистической, чем та Верховная Рада, которую имели до Майдана. Нужно на время отсечь население, которое еще десятилетие будет ностальгировать по совку: Крым (где живут отставники армейцы, моряки российские) — в первую очередь, Донбасс во вторую.

В чем опасность аншлюса Донбасса? Мы берем носителей чужой ментальной матрицы и чужого психотипа. Но всякая группа опускается до уровня меньшего представителя — это азы социальной психологии. Если мы принимаем себе в группу Гиви, и ищем общий язык с ним, то через год-полтора вся группа опускается до уровня Гиви (малограмотного командира боевиков «ДНР» — прим.ред). Как мамочки, которые, общаясь с 2-хлетним ребенком говорят: «Собачка – ав-ав». Мы будем думать, как они.

- Разве нет примеров, когда люди напротив — поднимаются в развитии, подтягиваясь до уровня других членов группы?

- Это в случае, если им становится их состояние некомфортным. А донбассянин Гиви хочет быть похож не на «слабого укра», а на русского «воина-освободителя». Таков неизбежный и прогнозируемый результат совковой психологии и системы образования.

И когда говорят, что жителей Донбасса зомбировали, это не совсем так. Люди не включали украинские каналы в Донбассе, когда они были на той территории. Не включали те, у кого оборвана языковая и ментальная связь с прадедами. А вот те, чьи предки помнили Голодмор — они устояли, и они смотрели украинские каналы, как близкие им, какими бы примитивными эти каналы не были. Не потому не смотрели, что украинские каналы отставали от российских по качеству. И не станут смотреть украинские каналы на той территории, когда мы их там снова включим.

- А что, по-вашему, нужно делать в ситуации «развода с Донбассом»?

- Они уважают силу. Когда мы на своей территории перестанем сомневаться в своей правоте, когда у нас появится национальная идея, которая цементирует нацию, и которой не нужно бояться… Когда мы будем иметь стержень, тогда слабый потянется к сильному. Мы должны создать идею нашего национального государства, и это должно стать платформой. А на болоте построить что-то невозможно, надо создать фундамент. Присоединять неосвоенные территории, пока нет фундамента — это безумие.

Сейчас у них (в их представлении) происходит победа: Украина первая отводит войска, Украина первая запросила мира и ведет себя, как проигравшая сторона. Их поставили в позицию победителей. Поэтому — пусть будет автономия, но мы должны четко показать, что у нас не так… Ребята, смотрите туда – там ваша Россия. А мы сможем разломать этот патологический союз с Россией, сцементировав остальную Украину. Ребята, давайте определяться — кто с кем. Потому что любить и тех, и этих нельзя, беспорядочные половые связи – не лучшая форма отношений. Мало того – мы должны соблазнить жителей Донбасса одиночеством, ведь засватанная невеста — она же начинает гордиться. А когда донбасские ребята поймут, что они не нужны ни России, ни Украине — им будет ясно, что надо еще заслужить быть с нами.

Россия все сделала так, чтобы в глазах мирового сообщества конфликт на востоке выглядел, как внутренний бунт, который они поддержали извне. А вот когда будет заметно, что изнутри «Л-ДНР» нарастает бунт против существующего положения вещей, тогда можно будет и нам помогать населению Донбасса вернуть Украину.

- А остальная Украина почему после Майдана не приблизилась к Европе, если этнически и психотипически мы к европейцам ближе, чем к РФ?

- Пока еще у нас феодальное государство, а нации (как и политические партии) возникают там, где капитализм. Пока что у нас союзерены во главе политических группировок. Нет национальной идеи, и потому в ближайшее время европейцами мы не станем.

- И в чем же тогда черпать оптимизм?

- В нашем прошлом — в 17 веке! Мы тогда потеряли то, что имели. Мы были европейцами, но забыли свою этничность – ту особенность, которая нас связывала с цивилизованным обществом. Когда вспомним, тогда сможем вернуться. Мы же до 1654 года, до Переяславской Рады, были цивилизованным обществом, а потом нас поработили и мы начали растворяться… Отсюда и сегодняшняя позиция Европы: вы классные, ребята, но вы накосячили — станьте такими, какими вы были в 17 веке. Ребята – говорит нам Запад – вы для начала верните Магдебургское право маленьким городам, а потом вернетесь в европейски дом. Вот для чего идет вся эта возня с децентрализацией.

Недавно была научная конференция по случаю 210-летия Нежинского университета, шел разговор о Гоголе (Гоголь их фронтмен, можно сказать). Выступает главный гоголевед — профессор из Киева – и говорит, что Гоголь развенчал миф украинского вольного казачества и миф Украины, поэтому сошел с ума. На это наши промолчали. Но вдруг буквально взбесилась немецкая профессорша. Говорит: «Подождите, а спасение Европы от османов под Веной — это миф? А фигуры украинских казаческих полковников, которые стоят в Риме, на Мальте, в Париже? А то, что казаков украинских все немецкие княжества нанимали, как лучшую армию Европы — тоже миф?».

Украинцы привыкли к комплексу неполноценности. Из-за штампа «за землю русскую». Из-за дебильного фильма Богдана Ступки (российского фильма с Богданом Ступкой в главной роли «Тарас Бульба» — прим.ред) – где говорят, что украинские казаки – алкашня, босяки. А ведь русская земля и Россия не имеют ничего общего. Слово «Россия» возникло в 1721 году. А до этого Россия не была самостоятельным государством — была Поклонная гора и московский царь пешком под узцы вел коня с татарским посланцем! Русские, которые нам обязаны своим именем («русские») — украли нашу историю и девальвировали, предав осмеянию, нашу ментальность. А мы это приняли – да, мол, мы салоеды, мы дурачки.

- Но есть же, в конце концов, и позитивная тенденция – на Майдане, на фронте (добровольчество, волонтерство) – гражданское общество ведь начало наконец формироваться?

- Тенденция – это не результат. Еще нет никаких результатов. Результат – это то, что показали местные выборы.

Беседовала Татьяна Заровная, «ОРД».