The Popes Against the Jews, Part 2: Roman Catholic Defenses and the Evasion of Responsibility

In the first installment of this series, I noted that William Rubinstein had defended Roman Catholicism by saying, “Nevertheless, the author never actually discusses what Nazism owed to the Catholic Church and its teachings, which is, of course, precisely nothing.”

What a bold, chest-thumping statement. An unwatchful reader might come off thinking that the Roman Catholic Church played absolutely no role whatsoever in attitudes that led to the killing of the Jews during Hitlers’s regime.

But nothing could be further from the truth.

Rubinstein here is lumping “the Catholic Church” together with “its teachings”. Even here, “the definition of the word ‘church’” comes into play.

I’ve been asked why I picked up this series, “The Popes Against the Jews” just now, and I think that some of the Roman Catholics who wander over here may find this interesting. It’s something that’s hit very close to home with me.

In my “resignation letter” to my parish priest, dated July 1999, I wrote this:

I am deeply disillusioned with the Catholic Church, and I have been for a long time. Not that I believe that, in a moral sense, the Church is too strict or anything like that. I would have to say my disillusionment has more to do more with the Church’s attitude about itself.

Over the years, my life has been marked by some degree of devotion to Christ. A friend of mine, [name], noticed this and invited me to an “evening of recollection,” sponsored by Opus Dei. I was amazed by the number of relatively young men who sought to follow Christ in such a complete way, in their daily lives.

I had mentioned to you once, in passing, that I had been attending these evenings of recollection. At any rate, the guys at Opus Dei started quoting out of the new Catechism the way Baptists quote out of Scripture. I mentioned this to [name], and eventually we got into a friendly religious argument. The basis for the argument was that I believed the Protestant Reformers were justified in protesting the (many) abuses of the Church of the day, and that it was Rome’s response to them that caused most of the schisms.

Things got a bit heated (mostly via e-mail), [name] asked to stop the discussion, and I have been quiet about it ever since. But because of that discussion, I looked more intently at the Catholic/Protestant debates (current and past), and I decided that the Catholics are on the short end of that argument.

See how naïve I was back then. I thought it was “the Church’s attitude toward itself,” when really, it was “the way the Church defined itself” that was the problem. (Or maybe I was just being kind calling it an “attitude.”)

In fact, it is the “official” Roman Catholic response in this matter which speaks as directly to what I am talking about as almost anything except for the massive cover-up of abusive priests by bishops. Generally speaking, these are held to be things outside of the circle, not doctrinally related, except insofar as they stem from the Roman Catholic Church’s definition of itself. This is precisely the “attitude” which is to be condemned.

This struck me especially while reading Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, which introduced the Catechism of the Catholic Church “which contains a complete and systematic exposition of Christian moral teaching.”

The thing that struck me was this phrase:

At all times, but particularly in the last two centuries, the Popes, whether individually or together with the College of Bishops, have developed and proposed a moral teaching regarding the many different spheres of human life. In Christ's name and with his authority they have exhorted, passed judgment and explained (Section 4, emphasis in the original).

My thought was, where were you, where was this “moral teaching” prior to these “last two centuries”?


Rome defines itself in Lumen Gentium,” Vatican II’s “Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. This is Rome’s official definition of itself.

Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element. For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature [that is, Christ’s flesh] inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body. (LG 8)

Note what is being said here. Christ is both God and man. In the Incarnation, he “assumed” a human nature that is “inseparably united to Him.” In a similar way, the church hierarchy that we have seen throughout history, which claims to be affirmed in itself through an unverifiable “apostolic succession,” – “the visible social structure” of the Church, is “comparably” “inseparably united” to Christ.

Just in case there is any question about what this means:

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”. This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, … (LG 8)

Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, [and defined as it is] is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved. (LG 14)

“The Roman Catholic Church” here defines and identifies itself, (and subsequent statements have affirmed this), as “the one church of Christ” – founded instantly at the moment the words of Matt 16:18 were spoken – in majestic and glorious authority from that moment till the present.

But right here, at the heart of its definition of itself, that Rome not only makes, but emphasizes, another one of its fundamental misunderstandings of what the Scripture is saying. The hierarchy of the Roman Church so completely identifies itself with “Christ” that it has completely cut off its own ability to repent, lest it accuse Christ of sin.

As I’ve noted, this identification found its articulation in the Reformation. Turretin described it this way:

Thus this day the Romanists (although they are anything but the true church of Christ) still boast of their having alone the name of church and do not blush to display the standard of that which they oppose. In this manner, hiding themselves under the specious title of the antiquity and infallibility of the Catholic church, they think they can, as with one blow, beat down and settle the controversy waged against them concerning the various most destructive errors introduced into the heavenly doctrine. (Francis Turretin, “Institutes of Elenctic Theology, translated by George Musgrave Giger; edited by James T. Dennison, Jr.: Phillipsburg, NJ, P&R Publishing, ©1997, Vol. 3, pg 2).

This was a not-so-cutesy way of trying to “define” itself out of a problem. In defining itself as “the one Church of Christ” or “the Church that Christ Founded”, the Roman hierarchy, in one fell swoop, sought to remove from itself any notion of accountability for what Turretin called “destructive errors introduced into the heavenly doctrine.”

Being “the pillar and foundation of the truth” is not a call to authoritatively uphold teaching in some infallible way. It is a call to holy living. It is precisely here, as James says, “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works” and “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” This is the true place where in Rome’s definition of “the faith” fides quae -- “the teaching” (see Rubinstein above) -- the Roman hierarchy has failed grievously.

Back to this issue of “The Popes Against the Jews.”

In its own official document responding to the Holocaust, We Remember: A Reflection On The Shoah, Rome shifts the blame away from itself.

Before this horrible genocide, which the leaders of nations and Jewish communities themselves found hard to believe at the very moment when it was being mercilessly put into effect, no one can remain indifferent, least of all the Church, by reason of her very close bonds of spiritual kinship with the Jewish people and her remembrance of the injustices of the past. The Church's relationship to the Jewish people is unlike the one she shares with any other religion. However, it is not only a question of recalling the past. The common future of Jews and Christians demands that we remember, for "there is no future without memory". History itself is memoria futuri. …

Later, when the Emperors themselves converted to Christianity, they at first continued to guarantee Jewish privileges. But Christian mobs who attacked pagan temples sometimes did the same to synagogues, not without being influenced by certain interpretations of the New Testament regarding the Jewish people as a whole. "In the Christian world—I do not say on the part of the Church as such—erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament regarding the Jewish people and their alleged culpability have circulated for too long, engendering feelings of hostility towards this people". Such interpretations of the New Testament have been totally and definitively rejected by the Second Vatican Council. [Oh, the poor, poor Church, getting blamed for these “certain interpretations”.]

Despite the Christian preaching of love for all, even for one's enemies, the prevailing mentality down the centuries penalized minorities and those who were in any way "different". Sentiments of anti-Judaism in some Christian quarters, and the gap which existed between the Church and the Jewish people, led to a generalized discrimination, which ended at times in expulsions or attempts at forced conversions. In a large part of the "Christian" world, until the end of the 18th century, those who were not Christian did not always enjoy a fully guaranteed juridical status. Despite that fact, Jews throughout Christendom held on to their religious traditions and communal customs. They were therefore looked upon with a certain suspicion and mistrust. In times of crisis such as famine, war, pestilence or social tensions, the Jewish minority was sometimes taken as a scapegoat and became the victim of violence, looting, even massacres.

By the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century, Jews generally had achieved an equal standing with other citizens in most States and a certain number of them held influential positions in society. But in that same historical context, notably in the 19th century, a false and exacerbated nationalism took hold. In a climate of eventful social change, Jews were often accused of exercising an influence disproportionate to their numbers. Thus there began to spread in varying degrees throughout most of Europe an anti-Judaism that was essentially more sociological and political than religious.

At the same time, theories began to appear which denied the unity of the human race, affirming an original diversity of races. In the 20th century, National Socialism in Germany used these ideas as a pseudo-scientific basis for a distinction between so called Nordic-Aryan races and supposedly inferior races. Furthermore, an extremist form of nationalism was heightened in Germany by the defeat of 1918 and the demanding conditions imposed by the victors, with the consequence that many saw in National Socialism a solution to their country's problems and cooperated politically with this movement.

The Church in Germany replied by condemning racism. The condemnation first appeared in the preaching of some of the clergy, in the public teaching of the Catholic Bishops, and in the writings of lay Catholic journalists….

Thus we cannot ignore the difference which exists between anti-Semitism, based on theories contrary to the constant teaching of the Church on the unity of the human race and on the equal dignity of all races and peoples, and the long-standing sentiments of mistrust and hostility that we call anti-Judaism, of which, unfortunately, Christians also have been guilty.

We deeply regret the errors and failures of those sons and daughters of the Church….

At the end of this Millennium the Catholic Church desires to express her deep sorrow for the failures of her sons and daughters in every age. This is an act of repentance (teshuva), since, as members of the Church, we are linked to the sins as well as the merits of all her children.

This is not repentance. At its most fundamental level, the call of Jesus to “repent” (Matthew 4:17) is just simply Christ’s call to take accountability for the one serious moral issue that we all face, sin, and to reject it. Man sins and offends God; the one and only response that Christ asks of us is to “repent” in the face of this sin. It is the only response.

Rome not only fails to repent. It has irrevocably defined itself out of both the need to and the ability to repent. It shifts blame to “the sons and daughters” of “the Church”. “The Church” itself refuses to repent. And in doing so, it exhibits “the fruit” by which it is recognized (Matt 7:16).

In our day, what do we call a person who refuses to take responsibility for his own actions? We have a word for that. I just can’t think of it right now.

Green Baggins in discussion with Roman Catholics

There are some good discussions at Green Baggins; they have begun a review of the Robert Sungenis work, Not By Scripture Alone.

Subsequent posts include:

Sungenis's Preface
A Blueprint for Order
Some Presuppositions and Rules for Protestant/Catholic discussions on GB

Key to these discussions is the way that Rome understands the word "church," and the subtle way it defines itself as "church" while it simultaneously excludes Protestants from being "church".

The key document is the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, and section 8, which contains this definition:

Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy [Roman] Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element. For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body.

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". [Note the abuse of 1 Tim 3:15 as a proof-text here]. This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the [Roman] Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.

The key word from that selection is the word subsists in, which is a change from prior documents, which expressed that "this [Roman Catholic] Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, is the Roman Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him ..." It actually went further than that. The language surrounding "the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him" is a scale-back of the language of Vatican I.

But what Rome seems to give, in terms of "good will towards Protestants" with one hand, it takes back with the other. While some theologians understood the word "subsists" as allowing for other Ratzinger, it has been noted that Ratzinger sees the word "subsists in" as meaning "integral existence as a complete, self-contained subject."

See the Avery Dulles article in the February 2006 issue of "First Things," From Ratzinger to Benedict.

It is Ratzinger who is behind the documents that prohibits addressing Protestant churches as "churches," but rather, calls them "ecclesial communities."

Please note this well:

Catholic ecumenism might seem, at first sight, somewhat paradoxical. The Second Vatican Council used the phrase “subsistit in” in order to try to harmonise two doctrinal affirmations: on the one hand, that despite all the divisions between Christians the Church of Christ continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand that numerous elements of sanctification and truth do exist outwith the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church whether in the particular Churches or in the ecclesial Communities that are not fully in communion with the Catholic Church. For this reason, the same Decree of Vatican II on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio introduced the term fullness (unitatis/catholicitatis) specifically to help better understand this somewhat paradoxical situation. Although the Catholic Church has the fullness of the means of salvation, “nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from effecting the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her children who, though joined to her by baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her.”

From the document: "COMMENTARY ON THE DOCUMENT 'RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH'"

This is the attitude that we are dealing with when you speak with the more informed Roman Catholics here. Some of the luddites merely echo these sentiments in their own bad way.

Answers for Dozie

In the thread, "How Confession Became a Divinely Instituted Sacrament," Dozie quoted me and then asked some questions. I think these are important questions, not in the least because they show how Catholics and Protestants have key differences in how they define the word "church".

JB: "It tells you that by the second and third century, they were already misunderstanding what the New Testament writers were saying".

Dozie: Then I have a few questions: … I ask the questions because it is the stated position of bloggers here that the Catholic Church of pope Benedict XVI (which they disdainfully call Roman Catholic) has no direct relationship (apostolic succession) with the early Church and I am interested in getting a Protestant to pin down for me where and when the “Roman Catholic Church” got off the trail.

First of all, “Roman Catholic” is an accurate description. In a preface to his 1987 work, “The Catholic Moment, John Richard Neuhaus outlines three reasons why he prefers to use the term Roman Catholic. I’m not going to reproduce those here, but suffice it to say that it has been a historically-preferred attribution (the post-Tridentine Church referring to itself this way in many official documents), and so, if it seems to be a “disdainful” attribution, well, I didn’t make it up.

Second, before you talk about “when the ‘Roman Catholic Church’ got off the trail,” you first have to establish what the early church was in history, and where the “Roman Catholic Church” came from in the first place. Rome was but one of five "patriarchates" -- and "patriarch" itself was not an early development.

It is vitally important to get the definition straight here of the word “church,” and so a lot of my response here will focus on that definition, and other definitions. If we are equivocating on a particular word, without agreeing on the definition of that word [“church”], then we won’t get anywhere.

It is a very “Newmanesque” thing for a Catholic simply to assume [“not a violent assumption”] that “that the Christianity of the second, fourth, seventh, twelfth, sixteenth, and intermediate centuries is in its substance the very religion which Christ and His Apostles taught in the first.” (Newman, “Development of Doctrine,” From the Introduction).

But the facts of history, as we know them now, are simply not such that you can make this assumption unchallenged. Even Newman “concede[s] … that there are to be found, during the 1800 years through which it has lasted, certain apparent inconsistencies and alterations in its doctrine and its worship, such as irresistibly attract the attention of all who inquire into it.” (From the Introduction). One of these assumptions is the early papacy – it simply wasn’t in existence through the fourth century.

But in the intervening 150 years since Newman, we have learned things about church history, especially about the church in early Rome, that simply make it far too much of a stretch to just permit the unchallenged assumption that the church that existed in the first, second, or third or subsequent centuries, is teaching “in its substance, the very religion which Christ and His Apostles taught.”

Jesus warned of wolves who would come appearing as sheep. Paul, speaking to the Ephesian ELDERS ["overseers"] that "fierce wolves will come in among you [that is, among the number of elders], not sparing the flock;" -- that is, they would be on the inside, and teaching, right in and among what you might call the "apostolic succession." The "succession" is not a Scriptural protection against false teaching. There are a number of other citations to this effect. Do you think that Paul is exclusively thinking of someone like Valentinus or Marcion? These were easily "excluded." The danger is false teaching *within*. The important thing to do is to trace it.

But don't suppose it's just a black-and-white, either "good shepherds" or "wolves as shepherds". There are shades of gray promised, as well.

For example, as I mentioned, T.F. Torrance ("The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers") traces the doctrine of "grace" in the New Testament. As Jesus and Paul "the Gospel as Christ proclaims it is directed to the very folk who, it might appear, have the least right to expect it" (23). Grace is, according to the Protestant (Biblical) definition of it, "God's personal attitude of favor to those who deserve his wrath." (John Frame, "The Doctrine of God," 5) But throughout many of the "Apostolic Fathers," the situation is reversed: "The believer had to strive for it, and it was bestowed upon him if he was worthy" (Torrance, 141).

How do you account for that difference?

So in light of the preceding, it would be foolish to, in Newmanesque fashion, simply “assume away” the very “inconsistencies and alterations” that need to be discussed. The doctrine of Grace is only one doctrine that became corrupted, and that, within just a few hundred years of the Apostles.

It does no one a service simply to “assume” that “The Church” (according to Catholic Doctrine) always had the correct teaching.

Dozie: Do you think that this misunderstanding occurred because the Church of the apostles vanished and a false church appeared?

JB: Consider that the New Testament Church was a missionary movement that sought to carry a message – the message of “Christ and Him Crucified” (see 1 Cor 2:2: “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.”) There is, de facto, more to it. But Paul has given here an excellent summary of the message that he sought to convey, everywhere he went. It’s not like Paul went out and preached, “The Church is now at your doorstep. Join the Church, submit to Peter in Rome, and get access to the sacraments.” There is a fundamental difference between these messages.

And yet, the Roman Catholic Church even today continues to assume that “This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him…”

There are many assumptions made in this very paragraph that need to be, and have been, effectively challenged right on this blog.

You may be familiar with this document:

"In his Message to those attending the symposium, the Holy Father wrote: 'The Catholic Church is conscious of having preserved, in fidelity to the Apostolic Tradition and the faith of the Fathers, the ministry of the Successor of Peter'. In the history of the Church, there is a continuity of doctrinal development on the primacy."

Klaus Schatz, a Catholic, in his 1996 work “Papal Primacy,” places only the “initial phases” of this development “well into the fifth century.” 400 years is a lot of time. In 225 years, the U.S. has grown, but the office of the presidency was outlined very clearly in the original constitution, and it's impossible to say that much "development" has taken place. Organizationally, the office of President is largely what it was in 1800.

On the other hand, I've written extensively, and I hope to be writing more, about what the earliest Roman church was like, the history of how a single leader emerged, in about the year 175, after struggles of "who was greatest." Such an emphasis continued on for the next 1800 years. Rome keeps saying "we're greatest." If Christ was giving a "visible" church -- "Peter and Successors," he sure picked a funny way of showing it -- the "visible head" having been "invisible" for most of the first 200 years.

Dozie: Or, was it the "Apostolic Church" that "were already misunderstanding what the New Testament writers were saying"?

The Apostles certainly did not misunderstand. Paul had a very clear and well-developed set of doctrines – even though they weren’t in some places set out in the systematic form that we would like, it’s clear that he knew what he was talking about. As Peter said, it was the "false teachers" who were twisting the Scriptures (2 Peter 3). But after the age of the Apostles, as Paul said beforehand, and Torrance noted afterward, there were false teachers "within".

Dozie: Would you consider the Church of this period (“the second and third century”) the Church of the "Fathers" and therefore Catholic or simply "Roman Catholic"?

The “Fathers” were not a monolithic group. Rome was a missionary outpost for the first 200 years. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that they were teaching different things in different places. Compare Irenaeus with Origen with Tertullian, as but three examples. There was some core teaching that was consistent -- "Christ and him crucified," for example was still a part of it. There was a huge effort to remain consistent with the doctrine of God. But consider what happened to the doctrine of grace. You can't assume these guys were all teaching out of the same "Catechism of the Catholic Church". There were many heterodox teachings. ("Pope" Callistus was very sympathetic to the modalists of his day.)

Dozie: Does the Church you describe above have any connection to the Church of pope Leo I (459) mentioned in your blog and therefore connected to the Church of pope Benedict XVI?

By the time of Leo in 459, we are far, far away from the church in 100, 200, or 300. The doctrine of God, the Trinity, Scriptures, yes. But "government" of the church had changed dramatically. Leo was the beneficiary of (a) an empire and (b) the fall of an empire. That changed things dramatically.

Dozie: Would you even say that the Church of pope Benedict XVI has a direct link to the Church of pope Leo I?

By the time of Leo, the papacy had taken on a definite shape, the shape of the now deceased Roman Empire, and that form is still present in Benedict. The Great Schisms of the fifth century had largely been effected, though the Schism of 1054 had not. I'd venture to say that Leo had not heard of "the Assumption of Mary," though. Or if he had, he'd have thought it heretical.

Dozie: If there is no connection, why do you disturb Catholics of this age with the “errors” of unrelated organization(s), especially, of prior periods?

Not sure what you are asking here. I see the whole history of the church as a seamless thing -- there is only one church -- the explanation that best fits all the data is that the church that Christ founded is not simply an organization and a hierarchical structure. It is the people -- "us who believe" (Eph 1:19) -- Calvin's "all the elect," none of whom will be deceived (Matt 24:24), none of whom will be lost (John 6:39).

Dozie: If they are related, do you think we should not challenge not only your assessment of the teachings of the second and third century Church and, more importantly, your qualification (a whole lot more than academics) to have anything meaningful to say about “Church”?

Challenge my assessment all you want. I'm certain that more study is needed on all of these things.

What, without making assumptions, is the early church? Trace the history of the uniquely Roman doctrines. Verify that they are biblical. If you can.