(Jewish-Christian Relations.Net) Many Catholics are aware that Vatican II signified the overt Jewish takeover of the Church — but what many don’t realize is that the actual documents of Nostra Aetate were written by a rabbi, along with Jews who had recently “converted” to Catholicism — and that they used their unshakeable belief in the co-called Holocaust™ as the impetus to shame and manipulate the Vatican into accepting their radical revision of Church dogma vis a vis “The Jews”.
On the 50th anniversary of Vatican II, liberal Catholic academic Joshua Furnal published the essay, “Abraham Joshua Heschel and Nostra Aetate: Shaping the Catholic Reconsideration of Judaism during Vatican II” which detailed — if not celebrated — the Jewish hand in the writing of Nostra Aetate — from without at the behest of Rabbi Abraham Heschel — and from within by the Zionist converso Jews — notably John Oesterreicher — and not mentioned in the article — Gregory Baum, and Bruno Hussar.
Rabbi Abraham Heschel
Rabbi Abraham Heschel was a “radical” Talmudic Jew born in Poland — and claimed many of his family members were “murdered” by the “Nazis — before fleeing to the U.S. where he became a leading figure of many subversive movements such as the Civil Rights Movement and anti-Vietnam demonstrations. He became a “close friend” and “secret” confidant to the Jesuit Cardinal Bea — and he made it clear to him and many others that he’d rather die in the mythical “Gas Chambers” at Auschwitz than convert to Christianity:
“As I have repeatedly stated to leading personalities of the Vatican, I am ready to go to Auschwitz any time, if faced with the alternative of conversion or death.”
“Coincidentally” Cardinal Bea’s personal secretary was none other than the notorious Malachi Martin — a crypto-Jew and subversive, defrocked “Irish” priest and blackmailer who was working as a spy on behalf of Rabbi Heschel and the American Jewish Committee to steer the debates about Nostra Aetate in their favor.
Afterwards, Rabbi Heschel would brag,
“Have you noticed that what was introduced into the final text of the declaration [Nostra Aetate] is in the spirit of the words that I suggested to the Pope?”
–from the book Spiritual Radical: Abraham Joshua Heschel in America, 1940-1972 by Edward Kaplan, p. 273
John Oesterreicher
Born in Moravia, John Oesterreicher converted to Catholicism and became a priest — and in the 1930s engaged in anti-Nazi activities in Austria while his parents were interned at Theresienstadt and Auschwitz where they allegedly died — before fleeing to the U.S. where he set up the the Institute of Judaeo-Christian Studies at Seton Hall University.
In 1965 Oesterricher wrote the essay “Auschwitz, the Christian and the Council” in which he conceded that while “some Jews” were, in fact, involved in the killing of Christ, not all Jews for all time should be blamed for it — and used the alleged Gas Chamber myth at Auschwitz to elevate their status as “martyrs”. He also makes the outlandish claim that the “Nazis” didn’t hate the Jews for killing Christ per se — but rather hated the Jews for giving the world Jesus Christ, whom the “Nazis” allegedly hated — because He stood in their way for “world domination.”
Gregory Baum
Born in Weimar Germany, and then fleeing to Canada via England, Gregory Baum — a strong supporter of gays and lesbians in the Church — and a closeted homosexual himself — wrote of Auschwitz,
“After Auschwitz the Christian churches no longer wish to convert the Jews. While they may not be sure of the theological grounds that dispense them from this mission, the churches have become aware that asking the Jews to become Christians is a spiritual way of blotting them out of existence and thus only reinforces the effects of the Holocaust.”
Bruno Hussar
Born in Egypt to Jewish parents, Bruno Hussar converted to Catholicism and became a priest in France before moving to Israel after the war where he set up different organizations to promote Jewish-Catholic “dialogue.” Of his confused identity, Hussar wrote,
“I feel I have four selves: I really am a Christian and a Priest, I really am a Jew, I really am an Israeli and if I don’t feel I really am an Egyptian, I do at least feel very close to the Arabs who I know and love.”
It’s no wonder that these types of converso Jews have been “pricks” in the eyes and “thorns” in the sides of the Catholic Church from its very beginning.
And yet mindbogglingly, the Catholic Church still prays for their conversion — blindly ignoring the destruction within the Church that the Jews have repeatedly wrought — the foundation of the Jesuit Order, the Inquisition, the granting of “indulgences” and easing of usury laws, and their death knell — Vatican II.
And it’s hard to imagine that the Catholic Church — at the highest levels — was not aware that the Jewish claims about the so-called Holocaust were gross exaggerations of their “suffering” during World War II — they are on record as not believing outrageous Jewish claims about the Warsaw uprising.
And the fact that the Catholic Church helped many accused “Nazis” — such as Josef Mengele — escape Allied persecution after the end of the war to the safety of South America would suggest that the Church was well-aware that the accusations against these surrendered German soldiers were motivated by political retribution and propaganda rather than based in reality.
Since Jewish identity is now predicated on “antisemitism” culminating the Big Lie of the Holocaust, it raises the question — can a Jew who believes in the Holocaust ever truly give up his Jewish identity and sincerely convert to Christianity — a faith that is based on the Truth?
We saw this conflict in the “conversion” of the Jew Roy Schoeman to Catholicism — like the converso Jews mentioned above — his conversion is still deeply intertwined with Jewish Holocaust “victims” at the hands of “antisemites” — and it’s that victimhood that makes them somehow identify with Jesus “as a Jew.”
That said, here we present a section of Joshua Furnal’s essay on the outsized roles played by Rabbi Heschel and the converso Jew John Oestrreicher in the writing of Nostra Aetate at the Vatican II Council:
[Excerpt]:
…After the War in 1959, as Pope John XXIII, he removed the anti-Jewish language from the Good Friday liturgy (perfidia Iudaica). One year later, John XXIII set up the possibility for an official document on Catholic-Jewish relations to be formulated, appointing Cardinal Augustin Bea to oversee the Secretariat for Christian Unity and charging him to draft the document. Bea was a renowned Hebrew Bible scholar — the rector of the Biblicum — and the confessor of Pope Pius XII. However, we need to attend to Bea’s efforts during this time period to break out of the Curia’s insular mindset because it often involved relying upon Jewish scholars, and especially Rabbi Heschel….
…One detail that is suppressed in [Gavin] D’Costa’s account [Vatican II: Catholic Doctrines on Jews and Muslims (2014)] of the formulation of Nostra Aetate is the important role played by the philosopher and theologian, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel (1907–1972). It is necessary to appreciate the role of Rabbi Heschel, especially since some scholars, like D’Costa, have reduced the contribution that Heschel made during this time merely to providing Catholics with feedback about how Jewish people felt.
Yet, without Rabbi Heschel it is doubtful that Nostra Aetate would have taken the shape that it did. After Heschel’s rightful protest, the final version of Nostra Aetate did not include the earlier proselytizing remarks regarding the conversion of the Jewish people as the Christian hope.
In August 1961, Cardinal Bea set up his first commission to identify the relevant dogmatic, moral, and liturgical principles to make concrete proposals toward the formulation of Nostra Aetate.
By November, Bea was already in conversation with Rabbi Heschel because Heschel had supplied Bea with a draft of what should be involved regarding any Catholic declaration on Jewish people—namely, a condemnation of any accusation of Jews killing God (deicide), and to drop all references to Jewish people joining the Church.
For Heschel, the problem was not that Judaism was incompatible with Christianity, but rather that the proselytizing claims of the Church were at odds with the integrity of the shared spiritual heritage of Judaism and Christianity. This fact in the timeline is often neglected.
For instance, in his commentary on Nostra Aetate, John Oesterreicher explicitly says that the American Jewish Committee and Abraham Joshua Heschel in particular, “deserve mention, even though [political initiatives] took place at a later stage, and had no influence to speak of on the discussion of the Council Declaration or the form of its text”.
John Oesterreicher
Oesterreicher’s report is misleading because as a representative of the American Jewish Committee, Heschel was already in conversation with Bea since 1961. Indeed, Rabbi Heschel was a close friend of Cardinal Bea and Willebrands, and scholars have documented Heschel’s influence leading up to the final form of Nostra Aetate. This took shape in May 1962, when Rabbi Heschel sent a Memorandum to Cardinal Bea outlining the proposed agenda for a meeting with specific proposals for improving the cause for reconciliation between Jews and Catholics:
(1) a full condemnation of anti-Semitism, and any teachings that hold Jews responsible for deicide as sinful.
(2) a full recognition of holiness and faithfulness to the Torah be accorded to Judaism as a distinct feature of Jewish identity that should be preserved and celebrated today.
(3) to maximize efforts to mutually enhance religious literacy among Christians and Jews, through public discussions, research projects, and publications.
(4) that a high-level commission be put together at the Vatican regarding Christian-Jewish relations.In his official commentary, Oesterreicher reproduces Heschel’s “demands” from the May 1962 memo in a footnote, but provides no comment on the contribution of this external, ”secular”, and Jewish element in the formulation of Nostra Aetate. Heschel’s influence is reflected implicitly in the way Oesterreicher reports that despite Cardinal Bea’s attempts to keep this wording in the council document, it was eventually dropped in the final draft.
Between 28–31 August 1960, a group of scholars gathered in Apeldoorn that was comprised of Anton Ramselaar (Katholieke Raad voor Israel), Karl Thieme (Freiburger Rundbrief), Paul Demann (Cahiers Sioniens), Jean Roger (Oeuvre de St. Jacques), and Oesterreicher (The Bridge). For Oesterreicher’s narrative, it was this group that “formed the prophetic element that over the years prepared a place in the Church, intellectually and spiritually, emotionally and theologically, for the Council Declaration of which they too as yet knew nothing”.
Later, Oesterreicher presents himself as offering an important position paper in Ariccia on 6–21 April 1961 that refocuses the discussion upon the exegetical insights of Romans 9–11. It is at this point in the story that Oesterreicher begins to insert himself into the plot as an implicit representative of the Church’s eschatological aims.
The buffered Vatican mindset during this time is repeated in Oesterreicher’s commentary, which creates a narrative that stresses the theological nature of Council deliberations so as to downplay any political maneuvers behind the scenes.
The stated reason for this apolitical strategy was to deflect any negative interpretations by Arab governments of a perceived Vatican endorsement of the State of Israel and its political agenda.
However, Cardinal Bea was in conversation with important Jewish voices during this time. For instance, Bea flew to New York to meet privately with Rabbi Heschel at the American Jewish Committee on 31 March 1963 to discuss with Heschel and some others “the basic issues of Jewish concern” regarding Vatican II. In advance of the meeting on 7 March, Heschel had sent to Bea a revised version of his memo from the year before.
One notable difference in this version was how Heschel drew to the Cardinal’s attention the need to condemn ‘sins against charity”—that is, “attributing the worst possible motive” to the intentions of any human being based upon ‘superficial evidence [and] generalizations”.
The timing of this private meeting between Bea and Heschel was crucial because the issues needed to be addressed before 8 September 1963 when the council reconvened. The meeting was meant to last 90 minutes. It was reported to have lasted three hours.
Bea returned to Rome with a new draft of the Council document — significantly influenced by the issues that Heschel brought to his attention. But by 1964, Heschel’s memo had been heavily redacted and the penultimate draft had removed the condemnation of proselytism, which was leaked to the New York Times and Herald Tribune (12 June 1964).
Because of the controversy surrounding this document, all things looked like this document would be thrown out of the Council process altogether. So Heschel went to the press and he made headlines in Time Magazine (11 September 1964) where he is quoted as saying “As I have repeatedly stated to leading personalities of the Vatican, I am ready to go to Auschwitz any time, if faced with the alternative of conversion or death”.
It has been said that after Heschel met with Pope Paul VI, the Pope crossed out the line of text with his own pen.
Oren Potito of the National Christian Church which he operated his organization, in literature he sent out to supporters showed many photos of the so called Nazi’s with Catholic priests,Cardinals , just as we see plenty of our Presidents and Putin. Surrounded by Jew rabbi’s.
Some Catholics argue that, technically speaking, Nostre Aetate changed nothing as far as the Church’s attitude toward the Jews go, that they still held “some” Jews responsible for the killing of Christ, and still prayed for their conversion.
But the Church did officially denounce all forms of “antisemitism” without defining what that is, giving Jews carte blanche to define it as basically everything the Church stands for.
The problem is that since Vatican II, the Jews have controlled the narrative, declared victory, and have used Vatican II to leverage more concessions from the Church as far as the Jews go.
The changes that the Jews forced to the Passion Play at Oberammergau is a prime example of the long term consequences of Vatican II:
https://christiansfortruth.com/germanys-historic-oberammergau-passion-play-gets-judaized-with-kosher-seal-of-approval/
Focusing on who’s responsible for the death of Christ plays right into the Jews’ hands.
Romans, “Jews” or Israelites, take your pick.
It is besides the point. If you understand the meaning of the crucifixion, you will know that Christ HAD to die as a blood sacrifice in order to bring about the resurrection and our salvation.
Being the son of God, Christ could have stopped His own murder if He so chose, but He didn’t.
Luke 9:22-24 makes this very clear….
“Then Jesus said, ‘The Son of Man must suffer many things. He will be rejected by the older Jewish leaders, the leading priests, and teachers of the law. And he will be killed. But after three days he will be raised from death.’
“Jesus continued to say to all of them, “Any of you who want to be my follower must stop thinking about yourself and what you want. You must be willing to carry the cross that is given to you every day for following me. Any of you who try to save the life you have will lose it. But you who give up your life for me will save it.”
“His blood be on us and our children”
It’s pretty clear bud. Maybe not to Judeo Christians and grifters but to anyone willing to actually read scripture it is right there.
There is a reason they throw a fit over passion of the Christ. Your argument is invalid.
Todd:
I guess you really don’t understand the context of Matthew 27:25. When Pilate washes his hands of the crowd’s insistence that Christ be crucified, the crowd itself responds, “His blood be on us and our children.”
In other words, it isn’t Christ or God the Father who curses the lynch mob, rather it’s the mob itself who curses themselves. By stating this, the mob takes responsibility for the death because that’s what they desire, and they know that Pilate does not want that responsibility.
However, the mob does not have the power to inflict a real curse upon themselves without the backing of God. Sure, those who reject Christ and call for His death may bring about negative spiritual consequences, but that is not something that comes directly from the mouth of Christ or His Father.
On the cross, Christ asks His Father to forgive them, and if that is the case, any curse they put on themselves is to none effect, especially to those who repent of it, and thus does not have the power behind it that the Catholic Church claims it does.
Actually, the first Jew to really get the ball rolling for Nosta Aetate was Jules Issac, a Jew from France who claimed that 3 of his family member were “murdered” by the “Nazis”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Isaac
In his mind Issac blamed Christians for enabling the “Nazis” because of the supposed innate hatred Christians have for Jews. He went so far as to even claim that Christians who helped Jews escape the “Nazis” held unconscious hatred of Jews.
This irrational belief in the holocaust poisoned the already poisoned Jewish mind and confirmed, in Issac’s case, that the Gospel’s were inherently “antisemitic” and were the philosophical basis of the holocaust.
Issac once claimed “the glow of the Auschwitz crematorium is the beacon that lights, that guides all my thoughts.”
He also claimed, “All authorities are agreed that a true Christian cannot be an anti-Semite, he simply has no right to be one.”
In other words, Christians are not allowed to criticize Jews or say anything that Jews don’t like.
Somehow, Issac was able to finagle a personal audience with Pope John XXIII to plead his case for absolving the Jews of killing Christ and renouncing all “antisemitism”. It was this meeting that would eventually culminate in Nosta Aetate, after Rabbi Heschel took up Issac’s baton and saw it to the end.
The official position of the Catholics has been that once a Jew accepts baptism, they automatically become Christian, and their conversion cannot be questioned. What a disaster.
That’s not much different from the evangelicals who believe “once saved, always saved” which is contradicted explicitly in Hebrews 6:4-6.
The whole Inquisition proved that many, if not all, jewish conversions should be seriously questioned.
But there was a deeper problem. There were many high level Catholics even at the time of Vatican II who started to believe, and rightly, that Jews could and should and would remain Jews even after conversion.
A Jew remained a Jew “even if baptized by a hundred bishops”.
In other words, many Catholics believed, rightly, that race was a consideration in conversion, though they dared not say it in public.
If the Church is to survive, they must acknowledge what many already know, that Jews will always be Jews regardless of baptism.
True baptism comes from accepting the words of Christ with your whole heart, and becoming a “new creation”, not some empty water ritual conducted by men who themselves believe otherwise.
This is a tall order for any Jew who insists on being a Jew and having sympathy for his fellow non-Christian Jews.
The Catholic Church has known for well over 1,000 years that Judaism is based on the Talmud not the Torah. And they learned this from many converso Jews, who upon their conversion, railed against the Talmud.
That is how Martin Luther learned about the perfidy of the Jews, from a Jew who showed him the Talmud. That’s what caused Luther to write “The Jews and Their Lies”.
The Jews will never forgive the Catholics for exposing the Talmud, and they burned down Notre Dame in Paris a few years ago as payback for the burning of the Talmud there in the 13th century. Proof that Jews never forgive and never forget.
“The Vatican declares Noahide Law to be “incumbent on all humanity” and Biblical”
http://stopnoahidelaw.com/2020/09/28/the-vatican-declares-noahide-law-to-be-incumbent-on-all-humanity-and-biblical/
—->>
“President of European Union and Australian Governor-General praise Noahide Law”
http://stopnoahidelaw.com/2020/10/07/president-of-european-union-and-australian-governor-general-praise-noahide-law/
That pronouncement from the “Vatican” about the Noah Laws actually was the work of the Commission For Religious Relations With The Jews.
The Commission is basically a Jewish Sanhedrin that was set up in the wake of Vatican II as a watchdog group to keep the Vatican in line with Jewish “values”.
And that commission at this point is more powerful than the Pope, and proof of that is that the Pope takes orders from them.
The Jews wanted the Church to fully recognize that “holiness and faithfulness to the Torah be accorded to Judaism as a distinct feature of Jewish identity that should be preserved and celebrated today.”
The Church has known that the Jews are not faithful to the Torah. They aren’t even faithful to the Talmud, which allows them to engage in anything they want, anything that benefits them.
How can any Christian celebrate the antiChrist Talmud?
Why wouldn’t the Church call out Heschel on this hypocrisy?
And the “sins against charity” clause is a joke, “attributing the worst possible motive” to the intentions of any human being based upon ‘superficial evidence [and] generalizations”
Jews don’t want their motivations to be questioned. Jewish morality boils down to “Is it good for the Jews?”
When Jews are “charitable”, their motives should always be questioned by Christians. Vatican II is a perfect example of what their “charity” brings.
Satanic “Illuminati”, [aka scum subversives]:
“Close up view of the Eye of Horus over altar in the Church of Anunciation in Nazareth”
“Incidentally, the Jesuits have their own “Black Pope,” the current incumbent being Count Hans Kolvenbach. The planned takeover mentioned above regarding the Papacy is not future. It has already happened! After 200 years, the Illuminists of the New World Order finally achieved their objective, by installing their own illuminist as Supreme Pontiff. This happened when Pope Paul VI came to power. With the installation of Paul VI, the stage was set to promote the new World Order’s holy grail of One World Religion. The Illuminati plan to eliminate differences of religious belief by the leading of a Pontiff was first seen when Pope Paul VI went to the meditation room of the UN and undertook an occultic initiation ritual in the place where the all-seeing eye is represented by the 6 world faiths – Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Confucianism and Christianity.”
http://illuminati-news-2012.blogspot.com/2012/03/illuminati-infiltrates-catholic-church.html
Being a Catholic myself, I am aware that the Catholic Church has become like Jerusalem in the times of The Christ. An organization which, superficially appears to be full of grander and majesty, but rotting within, and is slipping down slowly to its demise. Some of us know this.
As someone who took interest in history later in his life, there are three factors that convince me, without a shadow of doubt, that there is indeed, a sinister Jewish Messianic Idea which , with all the subtlety is being implemented in the world.
(1) The fact that our money system is fakery deception of a monstrous Credit System by Jewish Central Bankers whose ultimate aim, is enslavement of the masses.
(2) Vatican II takeover of the Catholic Church by the Jewish Freemasonry.
(3) 9/11 destruction of World Trade Center.
For those who wish to doubt, read history of these three issues and find out for yourself.
The Catholic Church was taken over by crypto Jews long before Vatican II. Leo X was not even a priest, but somehow managed to become Pope. He was a member of the Jewish banking dynasty, the Medici’s.
Leo X instituted the sale of “indulgences” for sin, which is nothing more than having the moneychangers in the temple once again.
That issue, among others, precipitated the Protestant schism. So, yes, Catholics have only themselves to blame for allowing a crypto-Jew as Pope, whose actions led to the Protestant break up of the Church.
Well, Calasanz
Can’t argue with that. The fact is that the Enemy has always endeavoured to destroy the Church. It may have happened much earlier. The reason why Vatican II was a walk across the aisle is because the Church had been FULLY infiltrated following the directive of their Prince as found in the letter was in the sixteenth century Spanish book by the Title “La Silva Curiosa” ( The Curious miscellany) by Julio-Iniguez De Medrano (Paris, Orry, 1608) appear to be a reply by the Elders.
It stated:
” Beloved brethren in Moses, we have received your letter in which you tell us of the anxieties and misfortunes which you are enduring. We are pierced by as great pain to hear it as yourselves.
The advice of the Grand Satraps and Rabbis is the following:
1. As for what you say that the King of Spain obliges you to become Christians: do it, since you cannot do otherwise.
2. As for what you say about the command to despoil you of your property: make your sons merchants that they may despoil, little by little, the Christians of theirs.
3. As for what you say about making attempts on your lives: make your sons doctors and apothecaries, that they may take away Christians’ lives.
4. As for what you say of their destroying your synagogues: make your sons canons and clerics in order that they may destroy their churches.
5. As for the many other vexations you complain of: arrange that your sons become advocates and lawyers, and see that they always mix in affairs of State, that by putting Christians under your yoke you may dominate the world and be avenged on them.
6. Do not swerve from this order that we give you, because you will find by experience that, humiliated as you are, you will reach the actuality of power.
(Signed) Prince of the Jews of Constantinople
The reply is found in the sixteenth century Spanish book, La Silva Curiosa, by Julio-Iniguez de Medrano (Paris, Orry, 1608), on pages 156 and 157, with the following explanation: “This letter following was found in the archives of Toledo by the Hermit of Salamanca, (while) searching the ancient records of the kingdoms of Spain; and, as it is expressive and remarkable, I wish to write it here.” (See also The Reverend Denis Fahey : Water Flowing Eastwards The War against the Kingship of Christ pp 73,)
So, even the Protestant Reformation, was their own making. Do not bank on the Protestants either or the Evangelicals. The Christians World has been hijacked!
From Vatican II of the Catholic Church to –
Something that’s been buzzing me about Putin’s Russia and the Orthodox Church. All red flags were finally answered by this article/blog I just found.
https://www.traditioninaction.org/History/F_012_Masquerade_5.html
The ‘Orthodox’ Masquerade – V
Complicity of the Russian ‘Orthodox’ Church
with the Bolshevik Revolution
Lucas Janusckiewicz Coletta
With this ongoing so-called ‘war’ between the West and Russia in Ukraine, I find the overwhelming siding by Christians with Russia/Putin quite amazing. Even pastors siding with holy Russia (!). This article blows open the truth about Communism entering in and usurping the Church thus becoming null and void according to God:
2 Thessalonians 2
2 Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit, or a message, or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 No one is to deceive you in any way! For it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. 5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? 6 And you know what restrains him now, so that he will be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is removed. 8 Then that lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will eliminate with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not accept the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.
This is what happens when the Church proclaims that race is not a consideration for conversion.