Six decades of rupture, not continuity…
Sixty Years of Vatican II:
Church and Synagogue After Nostra Aetate
On Oct. 28, 2025, the Novus Ordo Sect celebrated the 60th anniversary of its apostatical document Nostra Aetate, issued by ‘Pope’ (and now, naturally, even ‘Saint’) Paul VI as part of the so-called Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). The document styles itself a “Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions”. We already critiqued some of its contents a few days ago:
For over 1,900 years the Roman Catholic Church had spoken of other religions quite simply as false, pernicious, and diabolical instruments of damnation. For example, the 16th-century Catechism of the Council of Trent, composed under the direction of St. Charles Borromeo and ordered to be published by Pope St. Pius V (r. 1566-1572), teaches that heretical sects are “guided by the spirit of the devil” (Creed, Article IX, First Part). How much more so, then, must religions be guided by the spirits of hell that are not merely heretical but infidel or apostate. Nonetheless, the Modernist-controlled ‘Second’ Vatican Council decided to speak about other religions in overwhelmingly positive terms.
For example, Islam’s rejection of the revealed truth that Jesus Christ is God is indeed mentioned in the conciliar decree but is quickly passed over in favor of what is made to sound positive: “Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet” (Nostra Aetate, n. 3). Whoop dee do! Never mind that it is of no use to consider Christ as merely a prophet — for Our Lord, it is all or nothing: “For if you believe not that I am he [the Messias], you shall die in your sin” (Jn 8:24; cf. Mt 16:13-17; Mk 10:18; Lk 14:26). And even St. John the Baptist was “more than a prophet” (Mt 11:9).
One might as well take that logic further and also praise those who do not believe Christ was even a prophet of any kind: “Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as a prophet, they agree He was a rabbi” could have been a Vatican II formulation for the Jews; and for those who think even that would have been too offensive to the ‘elder brothers in the faith’, as ‘Pope’ John Paul II liked to call them, perhaps “they agree He was a nice fellow” or “they agree He probably meant well” might have cut it.
That such a foul document as Nostra Aetate with its infernal implications could not have been ratified by a valid Roman Pontiff and true Vicar of Christ should stand to reason. For Paul VI approved the declaration with these solemn words:
Each and all these items which are set forth in this Declaration have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ, together with the Venerable Fathers, approve, decree and establish them in the Holy Spirit and command that what has thus been decided in council be promulgated for the glory of God.
[Latin original: Haec omnia et singula quae in hac Declaratione edicta sunt, placuerunt Sacrosancti Concilii Patribus. Et Nos, Apostolica a Christo Nobis tradita potestate, illa, una cum Venerabilibus Patribus, in Spiritu Sancto approbamus, decernimus ac statuimus et quae ita synodaliter statuta sunt ad Dei gloriam promulgari iubemus.]
There are, then, only two options for Catholics: Either Nostra Aetate is in perfect conformity with the Catholic Faith and the will of God, or Paul VI was not in fact the Pope of the Catholic Church when he proclaimed these words. As the former constitutes a blasphemous impossibility, the latter is the only possible (and therefore necessary) conclusion, regardless of what other problems or questions it might raise.
More than anything else Nostra Aetate has revolutionized the relationship between, ostensibly, the Catholic Church (i.e. the Vatican II Church) and Judaism, that is, the Talmudic Judaism of our day, which is essentially different from the Judaism of the Old Testament. Whereas the Old Testament Judaism looked ahead to the Messiah’s arrival with faith, the Judaism of our day, which has its origins in the rejection of Christ by the high priest on the first Good Friday (see Mt 26:65-66), has repudiated “he that art to come” (Lk 7:20; cf. Is 35:4) and is instead preparing to receive the Antichrist, just as our Blessed Lord prophesied: “I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive” (Jn 5:43). As such, today’s Talmudic Jews — we are talking about the Jews as a religion, not an ethnicity — are the spiritual heirs of those “Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men” (1 Thess 2:14b-15).
What Nostra Aetate says concerning the Church’s relationship with the Jews thrives on ambiguity. The declaration continually appears to suppose that the Jewish religion of our day is substantially the continuation of the Judaism of the Old Testament. It also seems to draw no distinction between the Jewish religion and Hebrew ethnicity, which makes matters even more convoluted.
Thus, for instance, Nostra Aetate n. 4 speaks of a spiritual bond that supposedly ties Roman Catholics to [Talmudic] Jews and the “spiritual patrimony” we allegedly share. It states, truthfully enough, that the Catholic Church received the Old Testament revelation through the people of the Old Covenant, but then fails to make clear that there is no religious continuity between the Jews of the Old Covenant and those of today, who, essentially, “say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie” (Apoc 3:9). True, there may be in many of them still the fleshly link to Abraham, but then a mere carnal descent is of little value in the New Covenant, for “It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing” (Jn 6:64); “They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham” (Jn 8:39); such that now “there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free. But Christ is all, and in all” (Col 3:11).
The most infamous portion of the conciliar declaration’s section on the Jews is presumably this:
True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ [cf. Jn 19:6]; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.
(Vatican II, Declaration Nostra Aetate, n. 4)
All of a sudden, the council manages to notice that there is a difference between the Jews alive at the time of Christ and the Jews of today — but only, of course, to absolve them of the collective charge of Deicide!
Let’s be clear here: The Romans had no interest of their own in seeing Christ condemned to death: “Pilate answered: Am I a Jew? Thy own nation, and the chief priests, have delivered thee up to me: what hast thou done?” (Jn 18:35). Our Lord was crucified by the Roman soldiers only at the behest of the Jews. That does not absolve the Romans of all guilt, of course, but neither does it absolve the Jews. On the contrary, as our Blessed Redeemer told Pontius Pilate: “…he that hath delivered me to thee, hath the greater sin” (Jn 19:11).
Saints Peter and Paul were both clear in their preaching that the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ. Pope St. Peter told the Jews in Jerusalem: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth … you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain” (Acts 2:22-23); and again: “But the author of life you killed, whom God hath raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses” (Acts 3:15). Likewise, as already quoted earlier, St. Paul spoke to the Thessalonians of “the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men” (1 Thess 2:14b-15).
The accusation of Deicide (the killing of God) is eminently applicable to the Jews, then — not to the Jews considered as a race or ethnicity but as a religion, which thereby became apostate. In fact, it is precisely the official rejection of Christ that turned the Judaism of the Old Covenant into the apostate Judaism that perdures to this day: “He came unto his own, and his own received him not” (Jn 1:11). It follows, therefore, that all those who align themselves spiritually with this apostate (and now Talmudic) Judaism, are indeed rightly said to be guilty of Deicide.
Obviously, spiritually speaking, all sinners have nailed Christ to the Cross, and, tragically, we often do so again and again (cf. Heb 6:6). At the same time, Our Lord also emphasized: “Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father” (Jn 10:17-18). The fact that both Jews and Gentiles contributed historically to the Passion and Death of Christ underscores that indeed, “all have sinned” (Rom 5:12) and all are in need of Redemption, Jews as much as Gentiles.
We can say, therefore, that all are guilty of the death of Christ, and we are all redeemed by it. Not all, however, will be saved, but only those who believe in Christ and, joined to His Church, persevere in Faith, hope, and charity until the end so that they die in the state of sanctifying grace (see Mt 24:13; Mk 16:16; Lk 13:23-30; Jn 3:3-5,14-18; Rom 8:24; Rom 11:22; 1 Tim 3:15; Heb 11:6; 2 Jn 9).
It would thus be an enormous lack of charity to refuse to evangelize the Jews, yet that is precisely what the Vatican II Church is guilty of, for with the publication of Nostra Aetate in 1965, any mission to the Jews was officially abandoned. That this is so is obvious to anyone who looks at the Vatican’s comportment toward the Jews, and is even reaffirmed verbally on occasion by Novus Ordo prelates. A few years ago, the retired ‘Pope’ Benedict XVI also confirmed it:
- Benedict XVI: No Mission to the Jews, Just Dialogue (Nov. 26, 2018)
The leaders of the Vatican II religion have ‘updated’ Catholicism so much now that proselytism is considered a “great sin”, and denying today’s Jews their claimed status as “God’s Chosen People” is condemned even as “heresy”!
Of course anyone who rejects Nostra Aetate and the false council from which it proceeds is quickly accused of ‘Antisemitism’, which, if defined as hatred of Jews, is rightly condemned by the Catholic Church because hatred of anyone is wrong and contrary to the divine command to love all people: “If any man say, I love God, and hateth his brother; he is a liar. For he that loveth not his brother, whom he seeth, how can he love God, whom he seeth not?” (1 Jn 4:20). But the real question isn’t whether hatred of Jews is wrong but what constitutes such hatred, and what doesn’t.
In 1928, Pope Pius XI issued a decree suppressing the Amici Israel association, in which he stated:
…the Catholic Church has always been accustomed to pray for the Jewish people, who were the depository of the divine promises up until the arrival of Jesus Christ, notwithstanding their subsequent blindness, or rather, because of this very blindness. Moved by that charity, the Apostolic See has protected the same people from unjust ill-treatment, and just as it censures all hatred and enmity among people, so it altogether condemns in the highest degree possible hatred against the people once chosen by God, viz., the hatred that now is what is usually meant in common parlance by the term known generally as “anti-Semitism”.
(Pope Pius XI, Holy Office Decree Cum Supremae, Mar. 25, 1928; underlining added.)
Clearly, what comprises hatred toward Jews is not the preaching of the Gospel but rather the hiding of the Good News from them, and assuring them that they have no need of conversion, as the Novus Ordo Church does continually.
It is thus clear that Nostra Aetate marks a clear rupture with, and reversal of, the timeless magisterial teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. This break in doctrine with regard to the Jews is vividly illustrated in the sculpture Synagoga and Ecclesia in Our Time made by Joshua Koffman (official web site here). It was blessed by ‘Pope’ Francis in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, ten years ago. This blessing took place ‘behind the scenes’, so to speak, during Francis’ trip to the United States in September of 2015. It was not part of the official program, and so, although some journalists and cameras were present, it did not receive much attention in the media.
To understand the import and revolutionary nature of what this sculpture depicts, it is necessary first to familiarize oneself with the medieval artwork it is meant to ‘update’: the set of two statues known as Ecclesia et Synagoga (‘Church and Synagogue’), a medieval motif portraying the relationship between the faithful Bride of Christ (Catholic Church) and the unbelieving, faithless Synagogue.
This is what the traditional depiction looks like:
What do we see here?
Both the Church and the Synagogue are represented as women, but the Church, seen 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) and who charged her to preach to all people, including the Jews, just as He Himself had done: “And he answering, said: I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel” (Mt 15:24).
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 crown-less head drooping in confusion and defeat. In her right hand she holds a broken scepter, showing her reign has ceased; 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: As had been prophesied, the Catholic Church has superseded the Synagogue, just as the New Covenant has superseded the Old: “Therefore I say to you, that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof” (Mt 21:43); “…he taketh away the first [covenant], that he may establish that which followeth” (Heb 10:9). Our Blessed Lord Himself gave the world a striking visual representation that the Old Covenant had ceased (“is made void”, according to 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). Talk about a vivid image!
The torn curtain exposing the Holy of Holies (see illustration above) was exceeded in its vividness only by the complete destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem that followed in the year 70. This, too, the Lord Jesus had foretold: “Behold, your house shall be left to you, desolate. And Jesus being come out of the temple, went away. And his disciples came to shew him the buildings of the temple. And he answering, said to them: Do you see all these things? Amen I say to you there shall not be left here a stone upon a stone that shall not be destroyed” (Mt 23:38b,24:1-2). The destruction of Jerusalem marked the definitive end of the Old Covenant.
Thus far the beautiful and expressive medieval rendition of Church and Synagogue. That it is incompatible with the ‘new and improved’ doctrine of Vatican II will be understood quite easily. Therefore, Koffman, the son of a Jewish father and Catholic mother, decided to update it in accordance with the declaration Nostra Aetate. As the title of the document means “in our time”, the sculptor aptly entitled his work “Synagoga and Ecclesia in Our Time”.
Let’s have a look:
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. The two women 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 is meant to expresses a ‘mutual dialogue’ between the Catholic Church (Novus Ordo Sect, that is) and the apostate Jewish Synagogue, 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 enlightened 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. Just as the two sculptures are irreconcilable with each other, so are the respective doctrinal paradigms they represent. 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 rejects it.
People who are not traditional Catholics may think the contemporary version of the sculpture is the more appropriate one, considering ‘our time’. But even they would 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 Vatican II, and that is the point. It is because the ‘revised’ version of Church and Synagogue repudiates the traditional rendition that it is now acceptable to the Jews.
Some might object: 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 absurd rendition, Joshua Koffman, had been commissioned to do so by St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia — a Jesuit school, of course, and officially ‘Roman Catholic’. By blessing it himself, ‘Pope’ Francis gave it the official approval of the Novus Ordo Church:
The statue commissioned by Saint Joseph’s University in 2015 to mark the declaration’s 50th anniversary reinterprets the medieval motif of Synagoga and Ecclesia to reflect Catholic teaching today. “Synagoga and Ecclesia in Our Time” depict Synagogue and Church as both proud crowned women, living in covenant with God side by side, and learning from one another’s sacred texts and traditions about their distinctive experiences of the Holy One. The artwork visually expresses these words of Pope Francis:
“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)
Pure Modernism!
So the occasion for the blasphemous work was, ten years ago, the 50th anniversary precisely of Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate, and a bronze cast of the sculpture was placed on the university campus. The moments of Francis’ blessing of the monstrosity on Sep. 27, 2015, have been captured on video, and Novus Ordo Watch licensed the clip so that it can now be viewed by all without a watermark:
.
As seen in the video, Rabbi Abraham Skorka was present at the blessing. Skorka is Francis’ long-time friend from his days in Argentina. He is on record mocking Jesus Christ, just as the false pope himself did on occasion. St. Joseph’s University reported:
Pope Francis made a stop at Saint Joseph’s University today, greeting campus officials, student and religious leaders, and visiting the newly dedicated statue, “Synagoga and Ecclesia in Our Time.” The bronze work by noted Philadelphia artist Joshua Koffman was installed Sept. 25 at the plaza in front of the Chapel of St. Joseph-Michael J. Smith, S.J., Memorial, commemorating the 50th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, the Vatican II document that transformed the relationship between the Catholic and Jewish faiths.
Saint Joseph’s, one of the nation’s 28 Jesuit universities and colleges, was the first collegiate institution in the United States to answer the document’s interfaith call by founding the Institute for Jewish-Catholic Relations (IJCR) in 1967. Nostra Aetate calls for dialogue with those of all religions, but particularly those of Jewish faith. Several area Jewish leaders were on hand to witness Pope Francis on campus and were acknowledged by His Holiness.
(“Pontiff Makes Historic Visit to Philadelphia‘s Jesuit University”, SJU.edu, Sep. 27, 2015)
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, then ‘Pope’ Francis.
It is the revolution of Nostra Aetate with regard to the Jewish people that was also a focal point of the Vatican’s 60th anniversary celebrations on Oct. 28 of this year. Francis’ successor, Leo XIV, gave a speech in which he fully endorsed the conciliar text and asserted that “the fourth chapter, dedicated to Judaism, is the heart and generative core of the entire Declaration”. Leo then recalled “some of its most significant teachings”.
Before he enumerated four specific ideas, he remarked: “For sixty years, men and women have labored to bring Nostra Aetate to life. They watered the seed, tended the soil and protected it. Some even gave their lives — martyrs for dialogue, who stood against violence and hatred. Today, let us remember them with gratitude.” Thus we see that the Vatican II Church is so far removed from Catholicism and sanity by now that 60 years after the abominable council, they speak of “martyrs for dialogue”! It really is a new religion, one with its own dogmas, its own ‘sacred rites’, and now its own ‘saints’ and ‘martyrs’.
The false pope touched on a number of the usual talking points, blathering on about “becom[ing] prophets of our time”, building bridges, and “discover[ing] what unites us”. He even quoted from Francis’ spontaneous remarks at an encounter with interreligious youngsters in Singapore last year, on which occasion his predecessor of unhappy memory had proclaimed:
All religions are a path to God. They are — I make a comparison — like different languages, different idioms, to get there. But God is God for everyone. And because God is God for everyone, we are all God’s children. “But my God is more important than yours!” Is this true? There is only one God, and we, our religions are languages, [are] paths to get to God. Some Sikh, some Muslim, some Hindu, some Christian, but they are different paths.
(translated from official Vatican transcript)
The underlined words are those quoted by Leo XIV. If that isn’t an endorsement of these apostate remarks by Francis!
The new ‘Pope’ Leo concluded his address with more apostasy — and omitted, of course, any kind of blessing (it might offend some of the non-Catholics present, after all):
This year, the Catholic Church celebrates the Jubilee Year of Hope. Both hope and pilgrimage are realities common to all our religious traditions. This is the journey that Nostra Aetate invites us to continue — to walk together in hope. Then, when we do so, something beautiful happens: hearts open, bridges are built and new paths appear where none seemed possible. This is not the work of one religion, one nation, or even one generation. It is a sacred task for all humanity — to keep hope alive, to keep dialogue alive and to keep love alive in the heart of the world. My dear brothers and sisters, at this crucial moment in history, we are entrusted with a great mission — to reawaken in all men and women their sense of humanity and of the sacred. This, my friends, is precisely why we have come together in this place — bearing the great responsibility, as religious leaders, to bring hope to a humanity that is often tempted by despair. Let us remember that prayer has the power to transform our hearts, our words, our actions and our world. It renews us from within, rekindling in us the spirit of hope and love.
Here, I recall the words of Saint John Paul II, spoken in Assisi in 1986: “If the world is going to continue, and men and women are to survive in it, the world cannot do without prayer” (To the Representatives of the Christian Churches and Ecclesial Communities and of the World Religions, 27 October 1986).
And so now, I invite each one of you to pause for a moment in silent prayer. May peace come down upon us and fill our hearts.
The “hope” he is speaking about is obviously not the Catholic concept of hope, but some Freemasonic-interreligious optimism about everyone singing kumbaya together while dialoguing their way to hell, but always conscious of their infinite dignity.
Leo speaks of a “great mission” and “sacred task” humanity supposedly has. But notice that he does not mention who or what supposedly entrusted us all with this charge. It most certainly was not the Most High God!
There is indeed a great mission that was given by Jesus Christ to His holy Apostles and their successors in the Holy Catholic Church. But that mission is a little bit different from that of Nostra Aetate:
Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (Matthew 28:19-20)
And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16)
Being the very words of Our Lord Himself, the Incarnate God, these sacred utterances are valid forever. They are, therefore, most applicable even to our time.
Image sources: Wikimedia Commons (Rama) / Wikimedia Commons (Calimeronte)
Licenses: CC BY-SA 2.0 FR / CC BY-SA 4.0
;
No Comments
Be the first to start a conversation