D'autres articles de cet numéro | En anglais | En français
From theory to praxis: Past Achievements and Future Tasks in Bringing New insights, Gained in the Jewish-Christian Encounter, to Bear on the Educational Process
Eugene Fisher
Dr. Fisher's excellent paper: From Theory to Praxis 1 is, unfortunately, too long to reproduce in its entirely. With his consent, we have been obliged to summarize the earlier part in order to present to you the full text of his valuable section dealing with a) the important role that the liturgy plays in the education of the faithful and, b) challenge that he issues to all of us in the outlining of the the future tasks that face the Church, committed as it is to the continuing development of Jewish-Christian Dialogue.
INTRODUCTION
Without going into the details of the unhappy history of the past two thousand years, our author nevertheless referred to it in order to explain how it has come about that neither the Jewish nor the Christian tradition has held, until now, a commonly understood theory of the other, even though the basis for such affirmations is certainly present in both religions. Our days have witnessed wonderful advances in the practice of dialogue side by side with the emergence of a theory of Jewish-Christian relations.
THEORY: THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHURCH DOCTRINE
As the "Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the Conciliar Declaration, Nostra Aetate, No. 4' (December 1974) express it:
"The question of Jewish-Christian relations concerns the Church as such, since it is when 'pondering her own mystery' that she comes up against the mystery of Israel. Therefore, even in areas where no Jewish communities exist, this remains an important problem. There is also an ecumenical aspect: the very return of Christians to the sources and origins of their faith, grafted onto the earlier covenant, helps the search for unity in Christ, the cornerstone."
The ecumenical aspect of our relations with Judaism is the reason why the Church's Commission for Religious Relations with Judaism is attached to the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity rather than to the Secretariat for Non-Christians.
Since Christianity, like Judaism, is a historical religion based on revelation, it must come to grips, both in its theological reflection and in the action which must proceed from it, with the two historical events of the holocaust and the founding of the State of Israel. These two facts of history have shattered so many of the false assumptions on which an earlier attitude was based.
In the last thirty years Christians have been trying to articulate their new understanding of Judaism. The Catholic Church, for example, issued its Declaration, Nostra Aetate, during the Second Vatican Council. Although this text is most well known for its negative statements, that is to say, its denouncing of antisemitism and denial of collective responsibility for the death of Jesus, it is even more important that we appreciate its positive elements, such as the manner in which it stresses the continuing validity of the Jewish covenant with God. This same present reality of God's eternal covenant with the Jewish people was stressed by Pope John Paul II during his recent visit to Germany.
PRAXIS: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THEORY
Catechesis
Dr. Fisher outlines the work that has been done to date on the revision of text books on the United States in order to eliminate offensive references to Jews and Judaism. While results have been good on the whole, he has noted that the question of how to present the Pharisees in their correct historical and religious context is still a problematic one with dangerous overtones.
Then too, further work is needed in the presentation of the responsibility for the death of Christ. Because old catechotical misconceptions have been taught for so long, a conscious strategy is needed in order to replace them. The key to this new approach is a proper understanding of the covenant relationship between the two peoples.
(With regard to catechesis, we refer our readers to what Dr. Fisher has written on the subject in this issue: Toward a Catholic High School Curriculum for Teaching about Jews and Judaism, as also: Christian Teaching and Judaism Today: A Study of Religion Texts in SIDIC Vol. XI, No. I, 1978, pp. 12-20.)
Education Through Liturgy
The liturgy is a medium of education at least as important as, if not more so than the classroom. In the selection of readings in the lectionary, their translation, introduction and interpretation, a theological statement is made not only concerning the nature of the community assembled for worship (the Church) but about its relationship to and with that "other community whom we know to be in covenant with God, and to whose covenant our Christian covenant inheres even as it extends it.
On one level, this problem is vividly seen in the selection of texts, in the very juxtaposition of readings from the Hebrew Scriptures with readings from the New Testament. The basis for that selection is as much a statement about that relationship as it is about the "content" of the message consciously proclaimed. Here are raised, in the most dramatic fashion, all of the ancient questions surrounding the relationship between the testaments. Pope John Paul II in his address in Germany pointed to the mutual interdependence between this classic biblical question and the question of Jewish-Christian relations:
"The first dimension of this dialogue, that is the meeting between the people of God of the old covenant never revoked by God (Rm 11:29), on the one hand, and the people of the new covenant on the other, is at the same time a dialogue within our own Church, so to speak, a dialogue between the first and second part of its Bible."
Problems Posed by the Lectionary
In the liturgy, this internal/external dialogue comes to a head. Unfortunately, the present lectionary, I believe it can be safely said, has been developed almost entirely without conscious reference to either of these issues. Equally unfortunately, little work has been done by our scholars to analyze the impact which the present selections have on Christian attitudes toward the Hebrew Scriptures and the Jews. My own work in the field has barely scratched the surface, doing little more than attempting to raise the issues for serious study. 2
To what extent, I have asked, do the selections embody a sense of continuity between the Testaments, and to what extent a discontinuity? That is, do the selections juxtapose the one over against the other, to the detriment of the "old"? Or do the selections mutually reinforce and illumine each other as do the revelations which they represent? 3
Are 'old" and "new" categories of equal esteem, as they function to guide the selection process, or do they tend, in practice in the liturgy, to take on a "Marcionite" tinge in which the "old" is at best preparatory to and exhausted in the new?
A Catholic biblical scholar, Joseph Blenkinsopp, has raised the issue in a different context in a remarkable essay for the recent collection, Biblical Studies: Meeting Ground Between Jews and Christians (Paulist, Stimulus, 1980), edited by L. Boadt, H. Groner and L. Klenicki. In it, he notes that the question of the relationship between the testaments remains a major stumbling block in most Christian attempts to formulate an adequate "theology of the Old Testament'. The Hebrew Scriptures, viewed entirely through the prism of the New Testament (or, rather, what we discern of the New Testament message when viewing it in its turn through the prism of later, often anti-Judaic Christian thought), are not allowed to speak for themselves. Christian questions are posed on a text which often does not recognize the necessity for such questions. Christian categories and interests are used to organize its contents and message in a way its authors might well never have expected. One of the few attempts, Blenkinsopp concludes, to allow the Hebrew text to speak directly to us without undue filtering, is that done be the Catholic scholar, Fr. John L. McKenzie in A Theology of the Old Testament (Doubleday, Image, 1976).
Praxis can force re-evaluation of theory, and vice-versa. Is typology, which is so important an aspect of the liturgical approach to scripture, truly adequate as a criterion for choosing one text from the Hebrew Scripture over another? Will the spiritual riches of the Hebrew text in the long run be impoverished by overreliance on typology in establishing the liturgy of the Word? Again, I do not claim to have all the answers here, but the question remains a nagging one which I believe those competent in liturgical studies within the Church need very much to address from the point of view of the dialogue.
The Already versus the Not-Yet
An even more nagging question in my mind is that of the promise/fulfillment theme, which is so predominant in the choices made from the prophetic writings, especially during Advent and Lent. Do these selections, as included in the present lectionary, focus the congregation's hopes on the Kingdom which Jesus preached, which Jesus called us to prepare for and which is the primary underlying vision of the prophets themselves? Or do they exhaust the prophetic vision entirely in a set of "proof-texts" which would imply that the Kingdom is wholly "fulfilled" already here and now in Jesus? Here, of course, is a tension basic to the structure of the New Testament itself: the tension between the "already here" of the eschatological hope, and the "not yet" of the realization that we still must pray, as Jesus taught us, 'Thy Kingdom Come".
The Kingdom, God's Will being done "on earth as it is in heaven", has certainly not yet "come" in any normal sense of the term. Liturgy as educational praxis should reflect this tension that lies at the heart of Christianity. Both poles, the fulfillment-in-one-sense-inJesus and the Jesus-calls-us-to-be-part-of-the-fulfillment, I believe, need to be evoked in our congregation if liturgy is to do its proper task.
At 'his point it becomes clear that our theological terminology needs to be renewed to be adequate to the tasks before us. That is, the theory of Jewish-Christian relations is lagging somewhat behind the praxis of Jewish-Christian dialogue, with the result that the praxis of liturgy, which whould embody the insights of the dialogue, has difficulty formulating adequate criteria. The 1974 Vatican Guidelines raise this point quite carefully in their section on the liturgy, and in doing so illustrate, I believe, the need for fuller theological clarification:
"When commenting on Biblical texts, emphasis will be laid on the continuity of our faith with that of the earlier covenant, in the perspective of the promises, without minimizing those elements of Christianity which are original. We believe that those promises were fulfilled with the first coming of Christ. But it is nonetheless true that we still await their perfect fulfillment in His glorious return at the end of time."
"Fulfillment vs. perfect fulfillment i>, I would with all due deference submit, is a distinction that will need to be made more clearly if it is to be communicated to our people whether in our catechetical texts or from the pulpit. Yet it is one of the most significant advances of the dialogue to have taken us to the point where such a distinction can for the first time be discerned. Failure to make it turned many of the medieval "disputations" into classic examples of non-communications, leading to entirely unnecessary bitterness and even violence between our two religious communities.
In 1263, for example, the great Spanish thinker, Rabbi Nahmanides, was called by the King of Aragon to respond to a series of proof texts offered by Christian scholars. How could the Jews not see that all of these biblical prophecies were fulfilled in the person of Jesus?
Nahmanides responded on an entirely different level than his questioners anticipated. Referring to the biblical prophecies that the coming of the messianic age would be marked by universal peace and justice in the world (e.g. Is. 2:4; Micah 4:3, etc.), Nahmanides pointed out the wars, plagues, oppressions and other evils rampant in the world he knew. The Christians, in short were focussing on the person of the Messiah; the Jews on the messianic age that the Messiah would inaugurate. Each was a non sequitur so far as the other was concerned.
Yet to focus on the Kingdom (the Messianic Age) not only allows theological space for the acknowledgment of the validity of the Jewish response, it can also add a sense of realism, and deeper spiritual hope and longing to the Christian liturgy that is quite authentic on Christian terms. Indeed, it can help to restore the sense of eschatological tension spoken of earlier that is all too easily lost when focussing solely on the Jesus we "have" and failing to respond to the Jesus who calls us to surpass our best efforts in building up God's Kingdom. True dialogue thus enables us not only to know the "other" better, but also to know ourselves better, to see in our tradition spiritual depths we might otherwise have missed.
Two other issues, which are perhaps already better known, need also to be briefly mentioned to conclude this section on education through liturgy. The first is a negative, a sign of the distance we have to travel, to work our way out of the tragedies of the past. The second is essentially positive, a movement now going on which, if carefully nurtured, will enable us to learn much about each other.
The Place of Passion Narratives in the Liturgy
The first issue is of course the dynamic of the reading of the passion narratives during Holy week. This, it can be said, is an old problem seeking a new solution. Overwhelming historical evidence has taught us beyond a shadow of doubt that these readings, coming as they do at the high point of the annual liturgical cycle and proclaimed in the most intense emotional setting of which the liturgy is capable, instill not only reverence for Jesus' sacrifice in the hearts of Christians, but various measure of negative attitudes towards Jews and Judaism as well. John's Gospel, for example, consistently uses the phrase hoi 'loud aioi, normally (but not necessarily validly) translated as 'the Jews", to describe the small number of Jewish individuals historically involved. A sense, even if only an unconscious one, of collective guilt will thus almostinevitably be inculcated in our faithful by the recitation of this gospel.
Matthew's gospel, like John's written late in the first century, inserts phrases in the earlier narratives with which it works, which intensify a Jewish role and diminish the obvious Roman involvement as both judge and executioner. 'His blood be upon us and on our children", for example, is attested to only in Matthew.
The problem here is two-fold. Not only are negative (in the past often violent) sentiments instilled through a liturgy that aims to elevate heart and soul to respond to God's ultimate gift of love, but the lesson of the Catechism of Trent, the lesson of the guilt we as Christians must assume by reason of our sins, is misplaced. Our guilt as sinners is projected onto the Jews, diffusing and scattering the purity of contrition to which the liturgy at this point calls us. Yet we cannot not read these passages, for they are central to the faith.
Suggestions for resolving the dilemma have been varied and diverse. Perhaps only a combination of all of them will suffice. Better translations, based on the latest biblical scholarship, will help here as in other problematic lectionary passages, as has been urged in the 1974 Vatican Guidelines. Another option, which also has merit, lies in a more careful selection of passages. Catholic tradition frequently selects some verses and ants others from a given Scriptural passage, "editing" the pericope to fit best the mood and intent of the liturgy of the day. Religious education programming during Lent, for both the young and in adult education programs," should be designed more carefully to give the necessary historical and theological background for the texts so that the faithful, when hearing them proclaimed, will be adequately prepared to receive the proclamation without harboring ill will, or even hatred of Jews.
Perhaps most significantly, preachers of the gospel must be better trained' They must understand such passages and learn to gear their homilies toward bringing out the central message of the text, the message of the Christ-event, and thus guide their people away from the misunderstandings of Jews and Judaism that will occur without such conscious effort. It must be remembered again, that we deal not with a "neutral" tradition but one which for two millenia has been sadly skewed toward the negative in its approach to all such questions involving Jews. Truth, and the integrity of the liturgy itself, demand no less than what the 1974 Vatican Guidelines called an "overriding preoccupation" to ensure that negative attitudes are not fostered in this holiest time of the year.
Jewish Feasts: Their Celebration by Christians
Finally, a brief mention should be made of the phenomenon of Christian celebration of Jewish feasts. This practice is growing, and should be encouraged for its educational value, particularly regarding the two feasts of Pesach (Passover) and Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Memorial Day). In both instances, Christian spiritual life can be enriched by exposure to these moving religious events.
But a note of caution is also in order. With reference to the Passover Seder, it needs to be noted that syncretism is to be avoided. Some Christians tend to use the Seder as a starting point for the liturgy of the Eucharist, eliding our two traditions into one in a way that does justice to the uniqueness of neither. While spiritually and historically linked, the Seder and the Mass celebrate two separate events and embody the collective faith of two unique peoples, the rites of the Triduum are the Church's annual memorial of the events of Jesus passion, dying and rising. The Seder should he celebrated for what it is: a Jewish feast, with sensitivity to those to whom it truly belongs. Indeed, it is preferable to go to Jewish homes, or at least to invite Jewish neighbors to conduct the ritual so that the point is clearly understood by all.6
Yom HaShoah memorial services for the victims of the Holocaust are also increasingly taking place in Catholic and Protestant parishes in the U.S. Again, these are most effectively done on an interreligious basis. The reasons Christians join with the Jewish community in remembering the victims of Hitler's genocidal mania include a sense of solidarity with all the victims of the death camps, and as a means of stating publically that we still stand with all those forces today which work toward the elimination of the causes of such monstrous events. "Never again!" should be a Christian as well as a Jewish cry — for Christians were involved, both as victims and as persecutors in the massacres which made it up.
FUTURE TASKS
I believe I have indicated in the body of this paper more than enough to keep us all quite busy in the dialogue for some time to come. Let me just make three short observations for future action by way of conclusion:
1. Theory
Desperately needed for the progress made thus far to be consolidated and proved a basis for further renewal will be the involvement of our major Christian thinkers in all the traditional fields of theological pursuit. We have seen how the issues reach to the core of scriptural studies as well as systematics, liturgy as well as catechesis. Implicit also are major renewals of thought in ecclesiology (how can we be the "people of God" if they are?), esdatology (the tension between fulfillment and not-yet fulfilled), Church history (both the story of antisemitism in the Church — largely untold even at the highest levels of our studies — and the story of the development of Judaism alongside of Christianity through the centuries — largely unstudied by either side), and even missiology (does the universal proclamation of the Church's message of salvation necessarily include a people already in covenant with God?)
These are questions in the main unraised in most of our theological treatises. Yet those will continue to be inadequate to the Church's central questions today until the dialogue is taken seriously into account and integrated into the basic structure of our doctrinal renewal.
2. Praxis
Urgent is the task of bringing the question of the dialogue to bear throughout the seminary curriculum. This is not only by way of preparing candidates for the priesthood in a way that will enable them to overcome the misunderstandings of the past for themselves and their congregations but also because exposure to Jewish thought and tradition will greatly enrich their spiritual lives in a way quite appropriate and, indeed, necessary today.
3. The Dialogue
A major lesson to be learned both by Christians and by Jews dealing with Christians is the lesson of patience. The Church has moved with seemingly miraculous speed and efficiency in rooting out the sources of antisemitismfrom our teaching and replacing them with positive understandings and true religious respect. Yet it took us, as I have said before, two millenia to work our way into the mess we Christians were in, both in theory and praxis, by the middle of this century. Even with the Spirit aiding our efforts in this direction, as I deeply believe to be the case, it may take some time to work Out way out of it. The only way to do that will be by the way of dialogue, of sensitive caring, always keeping our vision high on the ultimate reality of the One who calls to us across the ages to proclaim His Name, and His alone.
Dr. Fisher is the Executive Director of the Secretariat for Catholic-Jewish Relations, U.S. National Conference of Catholic Bishops. He obtained his Doctorate in Hebrew Culture from the University of New York, his thesis being "The Treatment of Jews and Judaism in Current Roman Catholic Teaching Materials".
1. The full text of From Theory to Praxis was published in Origins, Documentary Service of NC News in the U.SA., August 27, 1981, Vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 167-176.
2. See Eugene J. Fisher, "Continuity and Discontinuity in the Scriptural Readings", Liturgy (May, 1978) 30-37.
3. Cf. Del Verbum 14-16, and the 1974 Vatican Guidelines, Section II, 'Liturgy".
4. The Diocese of Memphis, for example, initiated in 1978 an adult education program implemented in nearly every parish of the diocese. The "Commentary on Matthew" used in the program has since been published by Paulist Press. The Diocese of Los Angeles bas developed booklets for Cycles A, B and C of all the lenten Sunday readings, designed for use by homilists or as inserts in the Sunday bulletin to give a proper understanding of the readings. The Archdiocese of Cincinnati sent out to all priests and deacons a succinct but powerful background piece for all homilies dealing with the Passion. Copies are available from the U.S. Secretariat for Catholic-Jewish Relations.
5. My own "Suggested Guidelines for Homilists" hay; been published in Liturgy (May, 1978) and reprinted subsequently in English and French in SIDIC, Vol. XI, No. 1, 1978, pp. 23 f. Sens, and Encounter Today.
6. Rabbi Leon Klenicki of the Anti-Defamation League of 1Thai B'ri.h and Gabe Huck of the Liturgy Training Program of the archdiocese of Chicago have recently published a joint Seder for use in the Jewish-Christian, dialogical context, which as the proper context for such a celebration.
