Catholic Perspective on the Proposed Jewish Response to Vatican II and the Noahide Laws: Vatican II’s Doctrinal Shifts and the Path to a Potential Vatican III

   See Home Page

SevenColorsMinistry@gmail.com

Catholic Perspective on the Proposed Jewish Response to Vatican II and the Noahide Laws: Vatican II’s Doctrinal Shifts and the Path to a Potential Vatican III

The Noahide movement, rooted in Jewish tradition, promotes the Seven Laws of Noah as a universal moral code for non-Jews, derived from Genesis 9:1–7 and codified in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 56a–b) and by Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 9:1). These laws include a prohibition against blasphemy, which some Noahides interpret as forbidding criticism of Judaism or Jews, aligning with a broader push for interfaith harmony. A 2015 article by Marshall Breger and Jack Bemporad in The Forward suggests that some Jewish leaders seek to respond to Vatican II’s reforms with an authoritative document, potentially incorporating the Noahide Laws, to advance Jewish-Catholic dialogue. The quote states:

"The Catholics have revised their understanding of the place of Jews in the Catholic worldview. Jewish interlocutors should respond in kind. This is necessary if the interfaith dialogue is to proceed effectively. There is much to build on here. The ancient Jewish text, the Tosefta, clearly states that the righteous of all nations have a place in the world to come, and Jewish sources repeatedly proclaim the doctrine mipne darchei shalom, or for the sake of peace, which enjoins Jews to ‘seek peace and pursue peace’ with everyone, including their non-Jewish neighbors. The rabbinic teaching of the Noachide Commandments is relevant, as are other such teachings. All are building blocks by which we can erect an authoritative document responding to the church’s transformation since Vatican II. The Catholics feel that they have gone far on the path. They are waiting for us to do our part."
Source: Breger, Marshall and Bemporad, Jack; "Why Haven't Jews Responded to Vatican II After 50 Years?", The Forward, 09/22/2015, Retrieved 03/06/2020 From: https://forward.com/opinion/national/321305/pope-francis-and-the-50th-anniversary-of-vatican-ii/

From a Catholic perspective, this proposal raises concerns, as Vatican II’s doctrinal shifts—particularly regarding Jews and Judaism—have already opened the door to ambiguities that align with Noahide principles, such as the anti-blasphemy law’s potential to stifle criticism. These shifts, when compared to pre-Vatican II teachings, reveal a trajectory that could culminate in what we term “Vatican III,” a hypothetical future council further aligning Catholicism with interfaith pluralism and Noahide ideals. This essay delineates the differences between pre- and post-Vatican II doctrines, emphasizes changes in teachings about Jews, argues that Vatican II’s reforms facilitate Noahide influence, and warns that a Vatican III could entrench these trends, compromising the Church’s mission to proclaim Christ as the sole savior (John 14:6).

---

Pre- and Post-Vatican II Doctrinal Differences

To understand how Vatican II opened the door to Noahide influence, we must first compare Catholic doctrine before and after the Council, highlighting key changes and their implications.

Pre-Vatican II Doctrine

Before Vatican II (1962–1965), Catholic teaching, rooted in scripture, tradition, and the magisterium, was characterized by clarity and exclusivity, emphasizing the Church’s role as the sole means of salvation and the necessity of faith in Christ.

• Salvation and the Church: The doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (outside the Church, there is no salvation), articulated by Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam (1302) and reaffirmed by the Council of Florence (1442), held that explicit faith in Christ and membership in the Catholic Church were necessary for salvation, except in cases of invincible ignorance (Pius IX, Singulari Quadam, 1854). Non-Catholics, including Jews, were urged to convert (Matthew 28:19).
• Christ’s Mediatorship: The Council of Trent (1545–1563) affirmed Christ as the sole mediator (1 Timothy 2:5), whose sacrifice on the Cross was necessary for all (Session V, Decree on Original Sin). Other religions were seen as deficient, lacking the fullness of truth found in Catholicism.
• Liturgy and Worship: The Tridentine Mass, codified by Pope Pius V in Quo Primum (1570), emphasized the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist and the Trinity’s centrality, with no concessions to interfaith sensibilities. Worship was exclusively Catholic, rooted in John 4:23–24.
• Relations with Jews: Pre-Vatican II teaching viewed Judaism as superseded by the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:13). The Church prayed for the conversion of Jews, as seen in the Good Friday prayer in the Tridentine Missal: “Let us pray also for the perfidious Jews… that they may be converted.” Jews were not collectively blamed for Christ’s death, but their rejection of Jesus as Messiah was seen as a theological error requiring evangelization (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 1943). Criticism of Judaism’s post-Christic developments (e.g., Talmudic teachings) was permitted as part of defending Catholic truth, as seen in St. John Chrysostom’s homilies (Adversus Judaeos).
• Religious Freedom and Truth: Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors (1864) condemned religious indifferentism and the notion that all religions are equal, asserting Catholicism’s unique truth. Criticism of other faiths, including Judaism, was a defense of orthodoxy, not hatred.

Post-Vatican II Doctrine

Vatican II introduced significant shifts, emphasizing dialogue, inclusivity, and a redefined relationship with non-Catholics, particularly Jews. While not formally contradicting prior teachings, its language introduced ambiguities that diverged from pre-Vatican II clarity.

• Salvation and the Church: Lumen Gentium 16 acknowledges that non-Christians, including Jews, can attain salvation through grace, if they seek God sincerely and follow their conscience, implicitly through Christ. The phrase “subsists in” (Lumen Gentium 8) suggests the Church’s fullness resides in Catholicism but allows for partial truth in other religions, softening Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Dominus Iesus (2000) later clarified Christ’s unique mediatorship, but ambiguities persist.
• Christ’s Mediatorship: Ad Gentes 7 reaffirms Christ as the source of salvation, but Nostra Aetate 3–4 praises non-Christian religions, including Judaism, for their spiritual patrimony, implying value apart from Christ. This contrasts with Trent’s insistence on explicit faith.
• Liturgy and Worship: Sacrosanctum Concilium reformed the liturgy, leading to the Novus Ordo Mass, which emphasizes communal participation over sacrificial clarity. Interfaith elements, such as shared prayers with Jews, became more common, aligning with Nostra Aetate’s dialogue focus.
• Relations with Jews: Nostra Aetate 4 marked a seismic shift, rejecting collective Jewish guilt for Christ’s death, affirming the enduring covenant with Israel (Romans 11:29), and condemning anti-Semitism. The Good Friday prayer was revised to remove “perfidious,” praying instead for Jews’ preservation in their covenant. Evangelization of Jews was de-emphasized, with some interpreting Nostra Aetate as discouraging conversion efforts, contrary to pre-Vatican II practice. Criticism of Judaism became sensitive, as dialogue prioritized mutual respect (Nostra Aetate 4).
• Religious Freedom and Truth: Dignitatis Humanae 2 affirms the right to religious freedom, shifting from the Syllabus of Errors’ rejection of indifferentism. While upholding Catholicism’s truth, it encourages respect for other faiths, potentially discouraging robust critique of Judaism’s theological errors.

Emphasis: Doctrinal Changes Pertaining to Jews

The most significant shift concerns the Church’s stance toward Jews and Judaism, directly relevant to the Noahide anti-blasphemy law, which some interpret as prohibiting criticism of Jews or Judaism (Sanhedrin 56a; Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 9:3). Pre-Vatican II, the Church viewed Judaism as fulfilled in Christ, praying for Jewish conversion and critiquing post-biblical Jewish teachings (e.g., Talmudic laws like Gittin 38b, restricting Gentile slave freedom). This critique was theological, not ethnic, rooted in defending Christ’s divinity (John 10:30).

Post-Vatican II, Nostra Aetate 4 reframed Judaism as a living covenant, discouraging conversion efforts and criticism of Jewish theology. The 1974 Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing Nostra Aetate urged Catholics to avoid polemics against Judaism, aligning with the Noahide anti-blasphemy law’s emphasis on protecting Jewish honor. This shift, while aimed at combating anti-Semitism, risks stifling legitimate theological critique, as seen in the reluctance to challenge Talmudic practices like Sanhedrin 59a (death for non-Jews studying Torah), which contradict Catholic human dignity teachings (Gaudium et Spes 27).

---

Vatican II’s Opening to Noahide Law and a Potential Vatican III

Vatican II’s doctrinal shifts, particularly in Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae, opened the door to Noahide influence by fostering a pluralistic ethos that aligns with the Noahide Laws’ universalist framework. Breger and Bemporad’s call for a Jewish document incorporating Noahide principles signals a further step toward what we term “Vatican III,” a hypothetical future council entrenching these trends.

• Vatican II’s Facilitation of Noahide Law:
  • Interfaith Dialogue: Nostra Aetate 4’s emphasis on dialogue with Jews, coupled with its de-emphasis on conversion, mirrors the Noahide principle of mipne darchei shalom (for the sake of peace), cited by Breger and Bemporad. This aligns with Noahidism’s view that Gentiles need not convert to Judaism or Christianity, only follow Noahide laws (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 10:9), undermining Ad Gentes 2’s missionary mandate.
  • Anti-Blasphemy Alignment: The Noahide prohibition against blasphemy, interpreted as forbidding criticism of Judaism (Sanhedrin 56a), finds an echo in Nostra Aetate’s call to avoid disparaging Jews or their faith. This shift from pre-Vatican II critique (e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 10, on engaging Jewish errors) to post-Vatican II sensitivity risks aligning with Noahide restrictions, limiting Catholic freedom to defend Christ’s divinity against Talmudic rejections (Sanhedrin 63b).
  • Universal Ethics: The Tosefta’s teaching, noted by Breger and Bemporad, that “the righteous of all nations have a place in the world to come,” resonates with Lumen Gentium 16’s inclusive salvation theology. Noahidism’s universal laws appeal to this, but their rejection of Christ contradicts Dominus Iesus’ insistence on His mediatorship.
  • Moral Ambiguities: Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes 27 condemns violations of dignity, yet Noahide laws permit practices like perpetual Gentile slavery (Sotah 3b), which pre-Vatican II teachings (Rerum Novarum, 1891) and post-Vatican II ethics reject. Vatican II’s failure to critique these inconsistencies, due to dialogue priorities, paves the way for Noahide integration.
• The Path to Vatican III: Breger and Bemporad’s proposal for a Jewish document, incorporating Noahide Laws, suggests a reciprocal step in dialogue, potentially leading to a Vatican III. Such a council could further erode Catholic exclusivity by:
  • Formalizing Noahide principles as a valid Gentile ethic, contradicting Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Unam Sanctam, 1302).
  • Codifying restrictions on criticizing Judaism, aligning with Noahide anti-blasphemy laws and stifling defense of Trinitarian truth (John 10:30).
  • Embracing pluralism, building on Dignitatis Humanae, at the expense of missionary zeal (Ad Gentes 2), risking a syncretistic faith that dilutes Christ’s role (Colossians 1:15–20).
    This trajectory, initiated by Vatican II’s ambiguities, threatens to subordinate Catholic truth to interfaith harmony, fulfilling Noahide goals of a universal, non-Christian ethic.

---

Catholic Critique: Reaffirming Christ’s Primacy

From a Catholic perspective, Vatican II’s shifts, while well-intentioned, opened Pandora’s box by aligning with Noahide principles like mipne darchei shalom and anti-blasphemy norms, at the cost of doctrinal clarity. Pre-Vatican II teachings, rooted in Trent and Syllabus of Errors, upheld Christ’s necessity (1 Timothy 2:5) and permitted theological critique of Judaism, avoiding compromise with errors like Sanhedrin 59a’s death penalty or Gittin 38b’s slavery. Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae, by prioritizing dialogue over evangelization, risk endorsing Noahide universalism, which denies Christ’s divinity and the Church’s mission (Matthew 16:18).

A potential Vatican III, spurred by Jewish documents incorporating Noahide Laws, could entrench this error, aligning Catholicism with a system that contradicts Acts 4:12. The Church must reclaim its pre-Vatican II clarity, as seen in Mystici Corporis Christi (1943), affirming the Church as Christ’s body, and Satis Cognitum (1896), declaring the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff. Criticism of Judaism’s theological errors, such as Noahide rejection of the Trinity (Sanhedrin 63b), must be permitted as a defense of truth, not suppressed as blasphemy.

---

Conclusion

Breger and Bemporad’s call for a Jewish document responding to Vatican II, incorporating Noahide Laws, reflects the profound impact of the Council’s doctrinal shifts, particularly Nostra Aetate’s redefinition of Jewish-Catholic relations. Pre-Vatican II teachings emphasized Christ’s exclusive mediatorship, the Church’s necessity, and the supersession of Judaism, permitting critique of its errors. Post-Vatican II, Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae fostered dialogue and inclusivity, aligning with Noahide principles like mipne darchei shalom and anti-blasphemy laws that discourage criticism of Judaism. This opened the door to Noahide influence, setting the stage for a potential Vatican III that could further dilute Catholic truth. The Church must resist this trajectory, reaffirming Christ as “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6) and the Church as the sole ark of salvation (Lumen Gentium 14; Unam Sanctam). Catholics are called to engage Noahide claims with charity and clarity, defending the faith against errors that undermine the Gospel, and praying for the conversion of all to Christ’s truth (Romans 11:26).