“No Rupture with the Past” Update…
The Church and the Synagogue:
Before and After Vatican II
In order to see the clear rupture that exists between the Novus Ordo Sect and the Roman Catholic Church with regard to its view of apostate Judaism (i.e. the “Judaism” after the transition from the Old to the New Covenant), it is not necessary to slog through complicated tomes of theology.
One simple way to recognize and understand the substantial difference between the two is to look at how the Roman Catholic intercessory prayer for the Jews that is offered on Good Friday differs from the post-Vatican II version. We discuss that at length here:
Another simple way is to look at how the medieval artwork known as Ecclesia et Synagoga (“Church and Synagogue”) is rendered today. This set of statues or sculptures constitutes a visual representation of the relationship between Church and Synagogue.
Let’s begin with the traditional depiction, which is grounded in the authentic, truly Catholic understanding of the relationship between the Catholic Church and the apostate Jews, from 33 AD until roughly 1960:
What do we see here?
Both the Church and the Synagogue are represented as women, but the Church, shown on the left, is shown as firmly holding on to the Cross and the chalice, the instruments of salvation, her hope and strength, and her reason for being. With a crown on her head, the Bride of Christ reigns in triumph (triumphalism!), confident as to her place and mission, which she has received from her Bridegroom, who has overcome the world (see Jn 16:33).
On the right we see the woman representing the Synagogue. The blindfold represents her blindness in rejecting the Messias (see Rom 11:7,25; cf. 2 Cor 3:13-16; Mt 15:14), her crownless head drooping in consternation and shame. In her right hand she holds a broken scepter, showing her reign has come to an end; the tablets of the law are slipping from her left hand, for the works of the law have given way to the Faith of the Gospel (see Gal 3:24-25; cf. Mt 5:17).
The contrast between the two women is striking, and the message is clear: The Catholic Church supersedes the Synagogue as the New Covenant supersedes the Old: “…he taketh away the first, that he may establish that which followeth” (Heb 10:9).
Now let’s look at the contemporary rendition of the same sculpture, appropriately called Synagoga et Ecclesia in our Time:
What do we see there?
Both the Church and the Synagogue are still depicted as women, but now the Synagogue is shown to the left and the Church to the right. They are no longer standing but sitting down, and they are clearly presented as equals. Both now wear a crown, and the Synagogue is no longer blindfolded. Each woman is shown looking at the scripture of the other, as though seeking instruction from it.
Clearly, this new rendition expresses a “mutual dialogue” between the Catholic Church (Novus Ordo Sect, that is) and the apostate Jewish remnant, as though the latter, called the “synagogue of Satan” in the New Testament (Apoc 3:9), had anything to teach the true Church, which is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) and is enligthened by God Himself (see Jn 14:16; Jn 16:13; 1 Jn 2:27).
This striking difference in the two ways of rendering Ecclesia et Synagoga sums up very well the essential disparity between the traditional Catholic teaching on Judaism and the Novus Ordo teaching. We cannot, therefore, speak of a development. It is not a development but a corruption, for the later does not build upon the prior but contradicts it.
Even people who are not traditional Catholics and therefore perhaps think the contemporary version of the sculpture is the more appropriate one, will have to admit that the two renditions are radically incompatible with one another. That is, the contradiction between the two is manifest, and this contradiction is based on a rupture in theology that occurred chiefly during the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), specifically in its declaration Nostra Aetate, and that is the point.
Our Blessed Lord Himself gave the world a striking visual representation that the Old Covenant had ceased (“is made void” – 2 Cor 3:14) when He made the temple veil to be torn apart as He “gave up the ghost” (Mk 15:37) on the Cross to seal the New Testament with His Blood (cf. Heb 13:20).
Now, some might object: But what does it matter if some artist makes a different version of Ecclesia et Synagoga? What does that have to do with the (putative) Catholic Church?
The reason it matters is that the artist who made the theologically flawed rendition, Joshua Koffman, was commissioned to do so by St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia — a Jesuit school, of course, and officially “Roman Catholic”. The occasion for the blasphemous work was the 50th anniversary precisely of Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate, and a bronze cast of the sculpture was placed on the university campus. Most significantly of all, Synagoga and Ecclesia in our Time was solemnly “blessed” by “Pope” Francis during his trip to the United States on Sep. 27, 2015. Here is the video evidence:
We can sum up as follows, then: The heretical version of Synagoga et Ecclesia is the artistic representation of the theological revolution of Vatican II with regard to Judaism. It is approved by Rabbi Skorka and bears the official endorsement of the highest authority of the Novus Ordo Church, Mr. Jorge Bergoglio, the man who pretends to be the Vicar of Christ under his stage name, “Pope Francis”.
One final point of interest: The base on which the sculpture at St. Joseph’s University rests, bears an inscription of the following words: “There exists a rich complementarity between the Church and the Jewish people that allows us to help one another mine the riches of God’s word” (source). The author is noted as being “Pope Francis”.
With regard to the Jews mining the riches of God’s Word, our Blessed Lord had a very clear message:
You pore over the scriptures, thinking to find eternal life in them (and indeed, it is of these I speak as bearing witness to me): but you will not come to me, to find life. I do not mean that I look for honour from men, but that I can see you have no love of God in your hearts. I have come in my Father’s name, and you give me no welcome, although you will welcome some other, if he comes in his own name. How should you learn to believe, you who are content to receive honour from one another, and are not ambitious for the honour which comes from him, who alone is God? Do not suppose that it will be for me to accuse you before my Father; your accusation will come from Moses, the very man in whom you put your trust. If you believed Moses, you would believe me; it was of me that he wrote. But if you give no credence to his writings, how should you give credence to my words?
(John 5:39-47; Knox translation)
All Francis does is confirm the unbelieving Jews in their errors. In this manner he demonstrates that he has no love in his heart — no love for God, and no love for Jewish people.