I think that the age-old objection is the notion that "the Jews killed Jesus" without an understanding that had we lived at that time, we would have killed Jesus too... indeed, we crucify Him every day with our sins.

Petrus, Your remark is a nice pious sentiment but has no basis in reality. If today, you appeared before the Just Judge, the list of your sins would not include deicide. We might look at a drunkard and humbly say, “There but for the grace of God go I,” but that doesn’t impute to me the sin of drunkenness. If we consider the crime of the Jews, and say, “There but for time go I,” we are still not guilty of killing Our Lord. That Our Lord was killed by the Jews is more than a “notion.”

My part in Christ's crucifixion is more than "a notion", which is what the confessional is for.

And deicide is an oxymoron. God cannot be killed. If He can, we are all fools.

Cyprian :

The answer to this lies in the 4 causes, as St. Thomas would look at it. I'll venture a guess at defining the causes here, but would ask the help of someone studied in Thomistic philosophy to clarify.

I think the final cause of the Crufixion is man's fall, which would include our sins also. But the formal cause is the Sanhedrin, right? Is the material cause the Cross itself? And then the efficient cause? Pilate?

The Four Causes were first enunciated by Aristotle and are as follows: material, formal, efficient and final.

In this context, some Jews in this case might be the efficient cause. However, it would only relate to those people who were actually involved in the betrayal. It would actually be more applicable to the soldiers who hammered the nails.

The Final cause would be the salvation of souls, the formal cause would be unselfing, self-giving sacrifice and adherence to the will of the Father. And the material cause would be the hammer, the nails, etc.

So, to apply to Four Causes in this case still does not indite "The Jews" as a whole race of people.

In defending the Jews, Petrus, you have to be careful not to follow their error and deny that Our Lord is God. It’s fitting that we are talking of this on the feast of Saint Athanasius. God was born, suffered, died, was buried and rose from the dead. Mary, His mother, was witness to all these events.

Where did I deny the divinity of Christ? It is His divinity that I affirm by saying that God cannot be killed.

I'm not defending Jews, I'm simply trying to flesh out the issue here. Its too simplistic to blame an entire race of people on Christ's death when His sacrifice had to occur in order to redeem us. To blame it on the Jews is very close to denying personal responsibility for sin - which makes His sacrifice necessary to our redemption.

To say that Christ was killed is not the same as saying that God was killed. If we are to bring such great philosophers as Aristotle and Aquinas into the discussion that we too must be very precise with our language.

Cyprian :

"To say that Christ was killed is not the same as saying that God was killed."

How so? To say that Christ was born IS the same as saying that God was born. This is how Our Lady is called the Mother of God.

The Fathers saw it this way, for they used the term "decide": "If anyone does not worship the Crucified One, let him be anathema and numbered among the deicides." St. Gregory Nazianzen

Cyprian :

Now that we've established that the chief priests and their coterie who cried "Crucify Him" are the efficient cause of Our Lord's death, now we must look to the Fathers to understand the magnitude of their offense.

"It would be licit, according to custom, to hold the Jews in perpetual servitude because of their crime." St. Thomas Aquinas

"The Jews wander over the entire earth, their backs bent and their eyes cast downward, forever calling to our minds the curse they carry with them." St. Augustine

This reminds me of the discussion between Esther and Sadie at the beauty salon--both sitting under the dryer, Sadie reading the NY Times:

“Sadie, did ya hear? They finally figured out who killed Christ.”

“Really, Esther, after all this time I should hope so. Who was it?”

“The Puerto Ricans.”

Cyprian :

Oy vey!

staff :

Thaddeus- yer killing me!!!!!

By all means, let us enslave the Jews. What an excellent form of evangelization.

Cyprian :

Petrus points out the great dichotomy between the past and today. This gets to one of the reasons for this blog, to contrast new doctrine with the old.

We have established that the Jews were guilty of a crime. Now we need to know what sentence the Church, and hence Our Lord, prescribed for their crime. When this is found, we will know the best way to procure conversion of the Jews, for Our Lord would prescribe nothing less.

To this end, I quoted St. Thomas and St. Augustine. I could quote popes also, showing a consistent teaching upheld for more than a millenium. Is this not, then, the mind of Christ? By what right do we belittle such teaching?

Cyprian:

We established that the Jews living at a particular place and time may be considered a material cause for the crucifixion. We did not establish exactly what guilt being a material cause would indicate. Further, it has not been established that this sin necessarily is passed on to the children of these people.

Yes, slavery and bigotry is one idea. However, I cannot say how effective those two methods might be.

Also, why not condemn the Romans as heartily as we condemn the Jews? As I said before, it is truly the Roman soldiers who exhibit more evidence of being the material cause since they actually hammered the nails.

And Cyprian, to be clear, you are asserting that Christ wishes for the enslavement of the Jews? Perhaps a clearer posting would be to that point.

Cyprian :

"If we are to bring such great philosophers as Aristotle and Aquinas into the discussion then we too must be very precise with our language." (Petrus)

You use the word "enslavement," not the Fathers. Your argument is not with me but with the Fathers. Are you asking for more quotes from them?

Our Lord converted the Roman Empire long ago. But that's a different subject.

Well, then I think that Goering was right. We are going to have statues and holidays to commemorate Hitler. And the Latin Mass community will be leading the way.

Cyprian :

Dear Murphy,

I'll leave your pejorative online.

The Church, before Vatican II, forthrightly and unambiguously condemned national socalism (Naziism), socialism and communism. Do you want to make the case that Sts. Augustine and Thomas were Nazis?

In contrast, Vatican II followed the Vatican-Moscow agreement that there would be no condemnation of communism at the council. You'd have better footing making the case that the post-conciliar Church is pro-Marx and Lenin. I can help with references.

In regards to the quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas and others: We need to put these quotes in context. Thomas Aquinas was actually echoing the words of Innocent III who was dealing with a politico-socio situation, not a spiritual one.

I find nothing in this discussion that exhibits a hope for the salvation of Jews, but only seeks their condemnation - no, not even their condemnation, but rather their "servitude."

Does a condemnation of the Jews serve to increase our prayers for their conversion, or to boost our own self-righteousness?

Conversions don't happen race by race or empire by empire. Rather, person by person, heart by heart. A blanket indictment serves no one.