Calls for removal of "anti-Semitic" imagery in Orthodox Liturgy

[scamandrius]

I have never once perceived the celebration of the Liturgy whether at Pascha or any other time to be in the least anti-semitic.  And usually I'm pretty good at paying attention to the words in our hymnography.  The priests in this article are labeled as "dissident."  Is that meant to imply that they are non-canonical?  See the article at:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152838943&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

 

[PeterTheAleut]

I have never once perceived the celebration of the Liturgy whether at Pascha or any other time to be in the least anti-semitic.  And usually I'm pretty good at paying attention to the words in our hymnography.

I have seen in the Matins Canons of Sunday mornings some hymns that could be interpreted as anti-Semitic, which my parish canonarch is very careful to recognize--he usually skips these.  I can understand this mentality that we certainly don't want to drive away potential converts from Judaism by appearing to continue to blame them for killing the Christ, as if they even know who Jesus is and could be held complicit in His murder.  The Russian pogroms have also shown what can happen when the masses are inspired by this hymnography to acts of anti-Semitic violence, not that the hymns were themselves to blame.  However, I also have a very deep reverence for our hymnographic traditions and am extremely hesitant to even consider removing any of our hymns for the sake of making our liturgy more amenable to the ever-fickle standards of the current day.  (Can you say "politically correct"?)

Why do our hymns communicate a semblance of anti-Semitism?  What were the Fathers thinking when they condoned and even preached such "anti-Semitism"?  Do we have the right, or even the sobriety to preach that the Holy Fathers were misguided?  (This certainly reeks of great hubris that we would call ourselves more enlightened than they, not to mention how this attitude thoroughly undermines the Patristic foundations of our faith.)  What can we apply of their preaching, teaching, and liturgizing to the present day?

Supersessionist Theology (pejoratively known as Replacement Theology) is not something foreign to our Tradition.  In fact, the theology is based on the biblical doctrine of the Apostle Paul (see Romans 9:1-11:36), not to mention the Prophets whom St. Paul quotes effusively and even some words of Christ Himself.  Even so, St. Paul was willing to give his own life and be accursed if only it would bring his own Jewish people to salvation in Christ Jesus, their Messiah.

The priests in this article are labeled as "dissident."  Is that meant to imply that they are non-canonical?

I don't think this means that they are non-canonical yet.  Rather, I think this merely means that they are acting in disobedience to their ruling bishops.

 

[Asteriktos]

I guess when you start with things in your history like, say, canons saying not to go to Jewish doctors, or your most famous and beloved homilist--and also the primary author of your liturgy--saying that he hates the Jews (whether rhetorically or not), you've already dug yourself a hole as far as relations with Jews go.

 

[Anastasios]

I guess when you start with things in your history like, say, canons saying not to go to Jewish doctors, or your most famous and beloved homilist saying that he hates the Jews (whether rhetorically or not), you've already dug yourself a hole as far as relations with Jews go.

That canon makes perfect historical sense in that medicine and religion were intimately linked at that time, and as such, you would not want someone to be given a good dose of Judaism (i.e. anti Christian positions) when they went to get something healed. I can see why some read into it something that is not there but that is the fault of people that pick around looking for something to get excited about, much like the people who pick around in the Babylonian Talmud to find excitable things there.

 

[serb1389]

Is it anti-semetism when we declare historical truths?  I mean, how far can our PC culture go?  So the Jews no longer were involved for putting Christ on the Cross? I mean, we can do have this understanding that it is all of us who put Christ on the Cross...

But my basic question is, how far do we go to scew history?  We should be missionizing to people, but history is history (most of the time  ) 

Curious to get people's opinions on this...

 

[Asteriktos]

Anastasios

Well I guess that's true. Though what comes to mind if that's true is, were there also canons saying that Christians couldn't go to doctors who were part of other religious persuasions, or were the Jews the only perceived problem area? I personally don't think that the Church was as anti-semitic as people like Elaine Pagels argue, but there did seem to be some things said and done that should be grappled with.

Serb

Is it anti-semetism when we declare historical truths?  I mean, how far can our PC culture go?  So the Jews no longer were involved for putting Christ on the Cross? I mean, we can do have this understanding that it is all of us who put Christ on the Cross... But my basic question is, how far do we go to scew history?  We should be missionizing to people, but history is history (most of the time  )  Curious to get people's opinions on this...

My opinion probably is least relevant here, being a non-believer, but fwiw, I think many people (including some glorified Orthodox saints in recent memory) go way beyond history. I'm all about giving historical facts, and thoughts about history, even if those facts or thoughts are unpopular. But according to the Gospels, Jesus asked God to forgive those who were crucifying him, and said they didn't understand what they were doing. So, should an entire people be blamed two thousand years later, when Jesus asked God to forgive those who actually had a hand in the murdering? Are the sons and daughters punished for the sins of the Father? I'm not saying that this applys to you directly, but I have read some things which were pretty extreme, and took the "all Jews are cursed/in a conspiracy against Christians/an evil sub-culture" approach.

 

[greekischristian]

I guess when you start with things in your history like, say, canons saying not to go to Jewish doctors, or your most famous and beloved homilist--and also the primary author of your liturgy--saying that he hates the Jews (whether rhetorically or not), you've already dug yourself a hole as far as relations with Jews go.

Well, when the Jews started out by killing the person we believe to be God, that kind of puts a damper on relations. I know it's the new PC thing to be pro-Jewish since WWII and all...but truthfully they're a small and irrelevant minority today; indifference towards them and their plight would be the most reasonable course of action for our Church. Who really cares what happens to them one way or another.

 

[arimethea]

I guess when you start with things in your history like, say, canons saying not to go to Jewish doctors, or your most famous and beloved homilist--and also the primary author of your liturgy--saying that he hates the Jews (whether rhetorically or not), you've already dug yourself a hole as far as relations with Jews go.

What I feel is the problem here is that we forget that we are the New Israel and that we are the inheritance of the Jews. When you see these types of passages that mock the Jews it is our own pride and sinfulness that is being mocked. We as Christians no longer recognize Judaism to exist except in us. Just as any group may want to call themselves the "Holy Catholic Christian Church" we would say that we are the only ones who can truly use that title. 

 

[Asteriktos]

GIC

I'm aware of that bias, though I don't really think it effects me enough to change my position. As I just said, Jesus asked God to forgive them, implying that he had already forgiven them. Shouldn't Christians be able to step up, be obedient to God, and have dropped the animosity insomuch as was possible? And it's not like Jews in Egypt (for example) were rallying to crucify Jesus. Put into a modern context, personally, I don't want to pay reparations to african americans because of what someone else's anscestors did two hundred years ago.

arimethea

When you see these types of passages that mock the Jews it is our own pride and sinfulness that is being mocked.

No offense man, but this is sort of what I was talking about when I mentioned grappling with this issue. I've not seen many Orthodox who face up to the bad stuff in their history, especially when it involves beloved saints. But however you take it, the people who actually wrote and did the anti-Jewish stuff in the ancient Church were definitely talking directly to Jews, and didn't mean it to be taken in some type of humble spiritual way.

John Chrysostom, Eight Homilies Against the Jews

 

[greekischristian]

GIC

I'm aware of that bias, though I don't really think it effects me enough to change my position. As I just said, Jesus asked God to forgive them, implying that he had already forgiven them. Shouldn't Christians be able to step up, be obedient to God, and have dropped the animosity insomuch as was possible? And it's not like Jews in Egypt (for example) were rallying to crucify Jesus. Put into a modern context, personally, I don't want to pay reparations to african americans because of what someone else's anscestors did two hundred years ago.

I dont think there's really an issue here. Our liturgical tradition relates historical events as we believe them to have occurred. My point is that the Jew really doesn't matter, it doesn't really matter if we are being pro or anti-semitic in our liturgy; frankly our liturgical tradition is more significant than our relations with the Jews. I dont think this is animosity, per se, rather it's just indifference. For instance, I dont see how being an anti-semite either adds or detracts from Chrysostom, one is welcome to hold his opinion or the opposite opinion, or no opinion whatsoever. I will admit that this position is not purely Christian, as it also hs Nietzchean influences, if a people are not in a position to demand respect or to have gained respect, they are not worthy of the same. The Jews, like any people, only have themselves to blame for their status in the eyes of others. Of course, I do not know why one would concern themselves with the opinions of weaker peoples and nations.

 

[Eleos]

Personally, I've been uncomfortable with the language used about Jews in liturgical texts and wouldnt mind if there was some editing.  On the otherhand, I feel the context from which these texts came about, along with certain patristic writings around the times of the earliest councils are too often ignored.  Prior to the legalization of Christianity in the empire, much - maybe even most - of the persecution of early Christians was supported and fueled by the political and regional Jewish power.  This was a time period of horrific persecution and left a bitter collective memory among Christians, much like the holocaust today is remembered and under constant consideration by modern Jews, even if they don't have firsthand experience of it. 

 

[Aristibule]

First - these clerics are associated with the Society of Jesus' Thomas Aquinas college in Moscow and the related Ecumenical (Catholic) Moscow Biblical College.

Secondly - they obviously aren't talking about Orthodox theology. The stance of the Church Fathers and the Liturgy is not anti-Semitic but anti-Judaic. Jews are a people, hatred of Jewish people (including Christians of Jewish ancestry) is what anti-Semitism is. Disagreement with Judaic religion and theology, however, is what one finds in the Fathers and Liturgies. Having said that - there *is* anti-Semitism amongst Orthodox people, but one won't find it in the Fathers or Liturgy. I'm of Jewish ancestry, and expected those texts to not be excised when we prayed - that was just affirming the Church as Israel, the Jerusalem of God and not the Babylon of the Pharisees. The anti-Semitism I experienced was in the rumors I was Mossad simply for speaking Hebrew and admitting Jewish descent.

The anti-Semitism is in those who are suspicious of clergy and laity of Jewish ancestry, or not wanting to share in the Church with people of Jewish ancestry. It might help to read http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/jewish_1.html by Dr. Gregory Benevitch, of the St. Petersburg School of Religion and Philosophy (translated into English.) Dr. Gregory understands what these anti-Orthodox 'dissidents' don't. That is, the Church is Israel and the disagreement was an internal one centered around the accepting or denying of the Messiah.

Strangely enough, this charge comes out of these Jesuit-associated clergy at the same time others in their association are attacking the possible restoration of the traditional Roman liturgy in the West... that suggests a shared attitude, and a hope to use the publicity to 'kill two birds with one stone' - the liturgies that descend from the Apostles. The attack starts with the Liturgy, the next step is purging the Scriptures (Epistles and Gospels.)

Finally - YOU killed Christ. There are no Gentiles in the Church. When you disavowed your pagan gods, you left Gentilism and entered Israel - you worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. When you disavowed the leaven of the Pharisees (their hypocrisy and fence-building), you were restored to the Remnant of Israel - the Church. That's a New Creation, a new nation called by His Name. That being said, as Israel - the words of the liturgy are a call for YOUR repentance (everyone.) As St. Paul said, that if we sin - we crucify Christ anew. So, again, it is not anti-Semitism in the liturgy - but strong medicine, Orthodox theology, and that call for repentance.

 

[lubeltri]

Indeed, that is the last desperate tactic used by opponents of the traditional Roman rite---smear it as anti-Semitic. If they think that will scare the Holy Father into not issuing the motu proprio, they are mistaken.

 

[Theognosis]

I have never once perceived the celebration of the Liturgy whether at Pascha or any other time to be in the least anti-semitic.  And usually I'm pretty good at paying attention to the words in our hymnography.  The priests in this article are labeled as "dissident."  Is that meant to imply that they are non-canonical?  See the article at:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152838943&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Priests are no bishops.  If they have problems with the teachings of the Church and go out in the open as if they knew everything, they are dissidents--protestants who think like Arius.

 

[aserb]

Yes the last time that I went to my doctor (who is Jewish)  I found myself singing the shma on the way home --- sheesh.

Also, history is history it was written and performed by imperfect men and women. Althoug the Jewish people were the literal people who were responsible for killing Christ, in essence we are all to blame.

 

[Timos]

But why do we blame the Jews as a whole, as if they ALL did it? Thats like saying all Germans were Nazis and should be blamed for the concentration camps...most dont go around saying the "Germans did it" but the "Nazis did it". It was only those Jews who were there at that specific time who did that to Christ.

And about Jewish doctors...once when I was younger, about 5 or 6 I needed an operation and my mom wanted to put a small Bible in the operating room but the Jewish doctor refused to do the operation with a Bible in the room...

 

[orthodoxlurker]

But why do we blame the Jews as a whole, as if they ALL did it?

How did you come to the conclusion we are blaiming "the Jews as a whole"?

Those accusing St. Chrysostom of "anti-semitism" should reed his homilies on heretics and his explicit denounciation of use of force against heretics.

Are we to have Jews redacting our Liturgy? Are you serious guys?

 

[sdcheung]

I am dead-set against this, shame on the people who call for this!

 

[sdcheung]

Well, when the Jews started out by killing the person we believe to be God, that kind of puts a damper on relations. I know it's the new PC thing to be pro-Jewish since WWII and all...but truthfully they're a small and irrelevant minority today; indifference towards them and their plight would be the most reasonable course of action for our Church. Who really cares what happens to them one way or another.

Darn right!

 

[Aristibule]

But why do we blame the Jews as a whole, as if they ALL did it?

The point is, it isn't blaming the Jews as a whole. The texts are referring to those in Jerusalem. The Greek term we translate as 'Jews' in English is the term for Judaeans. It was the Judaeans who first accepted Christ with Hosannah, then turned on him with 'give us Bar-Abbas'. There were others there at the time - Romans, Greeks, Galileans (who were also Israelites), etc. But it was the Sanhedrin of the Judaeans that sought to kill Christ for blasphemy (and that has been maintained by Orthodox Jewish polemicists throughout history - "we killed him for blasphemy".) Still, the Orthodox theology is that he died for our sins - the Reproaches are not about singling out an ethnic group for separation and punishment, they are a continuation of God's reproaches to mankind for continued sin.

Are we to have Jews redacting our Liturgy? Are you serious guys?

And that is really what it is all about - orthodoxlurker is right. The goal is a Judaic reediting of what makes our faith - purge the liturgy, purge the Scriptures. The cross is an offense to the Jews. Why? Look at the parable of the vineyard - the rich man sends his own son, and the workers kill him. It was a foretelling. Christ went willingly to his death, but we are still culpable for it because we sinned, and continue to sin. But, they want rid of the offense - first the Crucifixion, then the Resurrection, then the Incarnation, St. Paul, the Theotokos, .. it will all have to go because it is all an offense against Judaism.

 

[StephenG]

If you are struggling with a text or texts from the services is this reason to alter those same texts? Or is this something to try and find someone to help you understand, or simply recognise the Church's wisdom may be greater than your own?

Is it for the church to follow the world's mores and fashions over time? After all I thought we were to be in the world but not of it.........

 

[PeterTheAleut]

If you are struggling with a text or texts from the services is this reason to alter those same texts? Or is this something to try and find someone to help you understand, or simply recognise the Church's wisdom may be greater than your own?

Is it for the church to follow the world's mores and fashions over time? After all I thought we were to be in the world but not of it.........

Yet, is it wise to not recognize that, as a Divine/human organism, the Church is indeed a human organization just as bound to human culture as it is transcendent of it?

 

[Pravoslavbob]

Darn right!

Your views are clearly motivated by racism and bigotry, and I am astonished that you are allowed to continue disseminating them here.

 

[Pravoslavbob]

Well, when the Jews started out by killing the person we believe to be God, that kind of puts a damper on relations. I know it's the new PC thing to be pro-Jewish since WWII and all...but truthfully they're a small and irrelevant minority today; indifference towards them and their plight would be the most reasonable course of action for our Church. Who really cares what happens to them one way or another.

As Christians we are supposed to be concerned with the plight of all people, no matter where they come from or what they believe, following Christ's example.  Your dismissive stance is really saddening.  That is, if it's what you really believe, and you're not just trying to get a rise out of us.

 

[SouthSerb99]

P-Bob,

    I think you are bang on, and GiC is doing his usual best and having some fun.  Although to be fair to GiC, I think he could have been much more controversial and is really only talking a "who cares" approach, which is certainly much better than what I've seen from others (not here).

     Ultimately, I would NEVER allow any others to redact our liturgical texts for the sake of political correctness and I'm a bit conflicted on the overall issues (vs. Jews) as I generally am very sympathetic to them, but completely unsympathetic to Muslims.  Therefore, I feel a bit like a hypocrite disagreeing with GiC, whilst the plank is in my eye.

 

[recent convert]

Such demands for false tolerance by asking for the editing of the Holy Liturgies are the marks of satanists who will also demand that the Lutherans remove their denominational name because Luther was an anti-Semite. There are also carnally obsessed types who demand the removal of St.Paul's passages from Romans that convict them in their sins. No doubt if some thug who may be nominally Orthodox and commits some act of religious vandalism, the eyes of the false tolerant will be upon the whole Holy Church. Meanwhile the false tolerant types have little to say about other religions in the world where honor killings, female infanticide, sex selective abortions are part of the societies shaped by their "faiths." Yes, ugly things have happened in all Christian nations in the past but the ugliest things happened when they stopped being Christian; Marxism, Nazism, French Revolution need I say more? Whatever shortcomings all professing Christian churches have had in history, I think it is safe to say any false justification to murder anyone has been overcome while murderous heathens persist in their abominations.

 

[James]

Short, sweet and simply stated, proper catechesis.

Although I'm a anti-dentite...

james

 

[BrotherAidan]

I was always taught that "the Jews" in the New Tesatament was a political designation, with no more pejurative sense than in current parlance, " the liberals" or " the democrats." It represented those among the Jewish nation that rejected followers of the Way. It was not a nationalistic or ethnic or religious slur.

That later generations lost or forgot this understanding of the term (including some of the Fathers) and that some of the Fathers were less than honorable in this regard hints that although doctrine is not subject to development, it certainly can use, in each generation, proper historical interpretation, correction and refinement.

As regards canons, I think they should be updated every 50 years so as to not appear retarded. I go to a Jewish dentist who I like very much. If anyone wants to use a canon to critique that he is retarded.

Canon law, is by nature, provisional, cultural and attached to specific historical circumsatance and should be interpreted like modern case law. If someone (even a bishop) were to tell me to quit going to my dentist I would politely tell him to seek therapy.

 

[BrotherAidan]

I will say on the other hand that Orthodoxy is probably kinder to the Jewish people than any other tradition of Christianity. The problems for Jews in Russia had less to do with Othodoxy than with not sufficiently converted Orthodox Christians. Just like in America, the problem with black slavery had less to do with protestant Christianity than with insufficiently converted protestant Christians.

Even devout people can be nationalistic, racist people and many of the saints and Fathers were probably both.

Martyrdom and severe ascetic discipline covers a multitude of sins, apparently - in both the East and West.

 

[Isaac]

I think the poster who has said that Orthodoxy is not "anti-Jewish" but "anti-Judaic" has come closest to the truth of the matter.  I remember I confessed a certain sin of judgmentalism and vengance to my spiritual father whose advice to me was to stop practicing 'Judaism'!  Maybe this is a caricature, but this has remained in my mind...  The Law of Christ is fulfilled through love and forgiveness. 

Those who say St. John Chrysostom was "anti-Semitic" know neither the real content nor the context of his sermons against the Judaizers.  But St. John forgives them, I am certain. 

I don't see how references to "iniquitous Jews", et al., could inspire hatred toward the Jews of today than something disparaging about the Greeks or Persians that persecuted the earliest Christians.  I do not want to go out and mutilate Jesuits every time I hear about their mutilation of St. Peter the Aleut. 

Someone mentioned the Pogroms as being inspired from such hymnography.  This is foolish.  The pogroms were mostly political-- Jewish communities were often behind assassination attempts on the Tsar and other politically powerful people... also sometimes (whether true or not) Jewish communities would be blamed for killing Christian children.  This does not excuse these horribly un-Christian actions, but it was certainly not as though the Church was telling people to go and do this.

In fact, there are letters of gratitude written from Jewish leaders of such communities to the Tsar and to the Cossacks, because the pogroms were often stopped by their efforts.  Prior to 1948, one of the only places where Jews had an autonomous province was Russia, under the protection of the Tsar himself... but you won't find any of that in the whig histories written about those times.   

Jews are called to be God's people through Christ just like all of us are.  Christ, the Apostles, even the Theotokos, all Jews according to the flesh.  They were the "chosen people" because God chose their nation to bring forth the Christ.  Judaism which denies Christ, His Gospel, His resurrection-- this is poison and the Church, by her teaching, is obviously opposed to it, no matter what we take out of our hymns.

 

[observer]

I understood that we are the New Israel and those who do not acknowledge Christ have forfeited their 'choseness'.  St Paul speaks of salvation for the Jews when they recognize Christ.  He does not speak of salvation of Judaism.  We the new Jews, the Christians are  the chosen.  This anti-semitism ticket is a modern invention and very persuasive to the degree that back in the 60s, RC theologians attacked Orthdoxy for being anti-Jewish.  To hate Jews or any nation is a sin, but to hate Judaism as a  rejection of the God-Man is regretable but necessary if we believe in Jesus as the Christ.  If you compare Leviticus with the Talmud you will find startling differences.  Being nice and PC about our faith is a betrayal.  Killing Jews is not the answer, but resisting their machinations through the ACLU and other pressure groups is our duty (I believe).  We have a high percentage of Jewish converts in our parish and they are deeply moved by the Passion Gospels.  They don't demand Christianity with water as CS Lewis once put it.

 

[aserb]

The Divine Liturgy is what it is - Love It or Leave It. I am definitely not for making the Divine Liturgy PC!

 

[SouthSerb99]

^Does this mean you'd be against our Priest rapping during Liturgy?  Because... you know I love a good rap song! (This post just conjured up memories of a former poster - LOL)

 

[aserb]

^  ;D

ALso, sorry for my lateness in congratulating you on the birth of your daughter.  Many years Maja!

 

[SouthSerb99]

No problem brate! Kids got a set of lungs on her!!!  ;D

 

[BJohnD]

While it's very clear from all four Gospel accounts that a subset of the of the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem (the Sanhedrin) urged the Roman authorities to have Jesus killed, it was Roman soldiers acting under Roman law who crucified Christ.  I find it curious that none of y'all mentioned that. 

 

[observer]

"by our law he ought to die".  But the Sanhredin could not execute God, so the Romans did it for them.  It was the Jews that cried his blood be upon us and upon our children, not the Roman soldiers.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

While it's very clear from all four Gospel accounts that a subset of the of the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem (the Sanhedrin) urged the Roman authorities to have Jesus killed, it was Roman soldiers acting under Roman law who crucified Christ.  I find it curious that none of y'all mentioned that. 

"You would have no power over Me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin." -Jesus to Pilate (John 19:11)

 

[Isaac]

BJohnD,

You're right about the agency of the Romans... but we're talking specifically about Jews.  All of the earliest Christian writers considered the calamity that befell Jerusalem in 70 A.D. to be God's punishment for rejecting the Messiah.

-- Isaakios

 

[BJohnD]

It was the Jews that cried his blood be upon us and upon our children, not the Roman soldiers.

A verse that the OSB (at least) notes should never be used to attack Jews or Judaism.  WE are the children upon whom the blood shines bright.