Наша община в контексте Универсальной Церкви (2004)

Our kehillot exist and at their head is a new bishop, and the question is: Why did we want a special “section”, apart, within the diocese of the Latin Patriarchate in the Land, a community with our own bishop? What is special about our communities, the Hebrew kehillot, is it just a question of language? Is the present status simply a first step?

There are many members of these kehillot, our kehillot, who might say: “we have no answers”, or “we never thought about it”. Many members who belong today do not know how it all began, what were the developments and the various stages, the searching over the past fifty years. However, among the first members of the “Hebrew kehilla” from fifty years ago, there are just a few remaining.

Our intention in these pages is to write an initial summary of the history of the kehillot, and to state briefly what might be the place and the role of this kehilla in the Christian world. This will provide a framework and background to enable a better understanding of what some of us expect or would like to see materialize.

A bit of history

In 1950, a few Fathers of Sion were living in the Ratisbonne building, and among them was Father Stiassney (at present being looked after in Germany)(TR. since deceased), and in Notre Dame de France, belonging to the Assumptionists, there was Father Jean Roger, a pilgrim tour guide. Two Little Sisters resided in a convent on Mamila Street, and they were studying Hebrew and beginning to live within Israeli society. One of them was Aliza, a member of the Jerusalem kehilla until today (since deceased).

In 1952, Bruno Hussar, a Dominican, arrived in Jaffa and he began to gather a few Jewish Christian women, mostly immigrants from Bulgaria. They would meet in private homes, mass was in Latin (and other prayers in Hebrew and French). Some young people, Jewish Christians, were coming from Europe and going to live in the kibbutzim (three young women in Ginegar in the Galilee, Max Lazega in Zeelim in the Negev). There was still nothing organized.

In 1954, the idea was raised to establish “The Work of Saint James”, a kind of association, in order to take care of these Christians, who were neither Arab nor expatriate. This was planned within the framework of the Latin Patriarchate (even though the seat of the Patriarch was in the Old City of Jerusalem, still in Jordan in those years). Bruno opened a “club” in Jaffa, and some Jewish Christians (Catholics) or Jewish men with Catholic wives and children gathered there. Jean Roger was going around the country and meeting such people here and there.

In the year 1955, the Statutes of the “Work of Saint James” – this was the name of the new association – received official approbation. Here, we will cite a few of the paragraphs of these Statures:

- The Work will develop a strong Christian spirit among the members. It will try to fittingly understand the mystery of Israel. It will underline education with regard to the TaNaKh (Old Testament) and encourage and promote a Jewish-Christian culture as well as a spirit and an expression appropriate to it.

- The Work will do everything to fight stereotypes against the Church, especially against the idea that a Jew who takes upon himself the Christian faith has abandoned his people.

- Rather, like every Christian, “he must fulfill his duty as a citizen (…) and render to his homeland what is rightful, love and loyalty” (quoted from an official declaration of Pius XII, 1939).

- Furthermore, as a Christian from the circumcision, he should be aware of his special vocation within the Church and among his people, and he should take up the responsibility that derives from this vocation.

At that time, Catholics all over the world were hearing mass in Latin. This would only change after the end of the Second Vatican Council, in 1965. However, here in Israel, it was seen as preferable to pray in Hebrew, the language of the TaNaKh (Old Testament), the language that Jesus prayed in.

Therefore, already in 1954, Yohanan (religious) met with Cardinal Tisserant in Rome and spoke about this to him. Tisserant was, in the Vatican, the head of the office that dealt with the Churches of the Middle East. A historian with an encyclopedic knowledge, he was sensitive to the importance of the formation of a Hebrew Catholic community, and he also supported the idea of prayer in Hebrew. He then raised the possibility of using the ancient Syro-Aramaic rite (used by Christians in Syria and Iraq since the first centuries of Christianity). He gave permission to use the rite and to say a large part of the rite of the mass in Hebrew. On this basis, Yohanan, when he arrived in Haifa on March 21, 1956, celebrated mass in Hebrew for the first time in Israel. That same year, at Christmas, the prayer at the Little Sisters in Jerusalem was conducted in Hebrew with a Christmas carol in Hebrew according to a Jewish melody (“Shower o heavens”).

However, by 1957 it was clear that this was not the ideal solution and Cardinal Tisserant, himself, suggested a return to the Latin rite as a base (because he was well known by the Christians in the Land) and he asked Pope Pius XII for special permission to use Hebrew, even while the rest of the Catholic world still prayed in Latin.

Following this decision, the work of translations and adaptations began, with the encouragement of Tisserant, and within this framework also the translation of the New Testament together with the Protestants.

The special character of our kehilla

Rather early, at the beginning of the activity of the “Work”, it was clear that this new group of Christians had a special character with a special task in the midst of the Catholic Church. This can also be sensed in the paragraphs of the Statutes that were quoted above (even though the Statutes were composed ten years before the innovations of the Ecumenical Council), in expressions like “the Work will encourage and promote a Jewish-Christian culture as well as a spirit and an expression appropriate to it” or like “he should be aware of his special vocation within the Church”.

Slowly, the members understood that the two tasks of their community, or rather the two sides of the same task, of the same effort, were: to seek to pray and to speak about faith in a language close to that of the first Christians, without the developments that were necessary when the faith turned to the Greek, Latin, German and other nations over the centuries. It was legitimate in that context in order to provide access to the new faith, however this adaptation is not necessary for those who return to the land of origins, for the people and the culture out of which everything had begun. The two sides of the task of the kehilla are:

1. Finding a more appropriate expression for our environment, this not being a missionary tactic (in order to “find favor in the eyes of the Jews”), but rather and beyond all else a personal need, among us, Christians living amongst our people, in their language and culture. We ourselves can no longer pray as we did in Europe in the past. Furthermore, this is necessary in order to express our faith in a way that will not mislead the Israeli listener (or those that will read our prayer books and our thought). We will come back to this below.

2. Furthermore, the ability to be an example of a return to the origins – to the TaNaKh, to the Semitic thinking of the first disciples – for the rest of the Christians in the world. This is not our purpose. It would be best to forget this in our daily lives and not think of reforming the world! However, a lot of Christians, who visit the Land, said to us not infrequently, that our presence has a symbolic value and that they find here a source of inspiration, and that they expect this of us. Read below the words of Archbishop Rossano.

This is what some church leaders said in conversations or wrote in letters. We will limit ourselves to a few examples:

- Cardinal Danielou, Jesuit historian, wrote in the Universal Encyclopedia (1971):

“After Christianity achieved universality (diffusion throughout the world), the problem is exactly this: there is a lack of the Jewish expression of Christianity, as one of the elements of its universality. (…) After the Gospel had been transmitted to all the nations of the earth, the possibility of renewing the Jewish-Christian branch in the Church reappears”.

- Cardinal Tisserant encouraged the adaptation of an independent special rite and the search we were engaged in.

- Cardinal Martini, Archbishop of Milano, renown Jesuit exegete, said in the framework of two congresses:

“Every schism in the history of the Church is a deficiency that undermines the Church and provokes a loss of equilibrium in her life. What is true of every schism is even truer of the renting apart that took place between Christianity and the Jewish tradition in the first century. I want to emphasize here the importance, both for theological research and for the pastoral perspective of Christian life, of the study of the problems that emerged after the theological and practical contribution that the Jewish Christians contributed to early Christianity came to an end. (…) We miss the Jewish roots and this is an open wound until today. Only if the Church returns to Jerusalem will she be healed.” (congresses in 1984 and 1993)

Cardinal Ratzinger, responsible in Rome for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to a member of the kehilla:

“Your reflections touch on the fact that the Church was born among Jews and among Gentiles, and now there is the following situation: a Church is born again among the Jews, as well as the new importance that Jerusalem has for the Church, From the moment that there is not only a Gentile Church but rather an entire Church, both from among Gentiles and Jews – something Paul speaks about and underlines in his Epistles – there is a new situation. I gather from your letter and see the following necessity: the broadening of the Church that would once again find the double structure, a necessity that might also design the Church anew from within.”

When this same Cardinal heard the words of Brother Daniel from Haifa, who explained to him that we could not say in Hebrew “Mother of God”, he responded: “Yes, of course, for you it is special (…) You must express the faith within a more “narrow” framework (in a more restricted vocabulary (auf eine schmählere Weise).

The Jesuit exegete, Francesco Rossi di Gasperis, who teaches in Rome and in Jerusalem, said in the same spirit:

“You must make every effort to express your faith within the framework of the language of the TaNaKh and the New Testament.”

Another person who understood the situation was Father Arenz, a Jesuit specialist of liturgy (liturgies) in Rome. He once taught in Jerusalem and returned for another two weeks of lectures on liturgy and he showed interest in our problems. Afterwards, he wrote to us:

“The real question is to know whether you are obligated to give courageous and faithful testimony before Jews and Arabs in Israel, who see you living according to models of a “European” religion, “a foreign religion”. And he added, “Only you, here in the land, can find the suitable way forward”.

Three priests who worked in Africa came to Jerusalem for a period of study and were present once at our mass and said: “We expected something more original, more adapted to the land”. Also an Iraqi Little Sister, who belonged to the ancient Chaldean Church, said to us: “What? You do not have your own rite?”

An even more important testimony was that of Archbishop Rossano, head of the Congregation Propaganda Fidei (the spreading of the faith) – an office in Rome responsible for the Church in the Third World. He was once in the country with those who worked in his office, and while visiting Haifa, he pointed to Brother Daniel and said to them: “Here is an example of inculturation. Take him as a model”. Some days later, Professor Father Marcel Dubois invited Daniel and Yohanan to come and meet Archbishop Rossano. After Daniel had explained to him a few of his ideas, he added: “What would happen if we came to the Universal Church with these ideas?” Rossano answered: “You will find many Christians in Europe who would be happy to adopt this for themselves”.

In northern France, lived the abbot of the Benedictine monastery of Wisques, who was an expert in liturgy and whom Pope Pius XII had summoned to Rome in order to prepare the new ritual for the Easter Vigil. Some years ago, he arrived in Israel as a pilgrim and he met Brother Daniel in Haifa. Daniel told him of his view about the Easter Vigil, the renewal of the baptismal vows, that he did it once as a renewal of the covenant, etc. After a long conversation, the elderly monk said enthusiastically: “Very interesting, very important, a pity we did not know about this when we worked on the new ritual of the Easter Vigil in Rome”.

There are two other interesting reactions concerning liturgy, from different periods of history, however they are similar and enlightening:

- Saint Augustine, Bishop of Canterbury, who brought Christianity to the Angles (in England), in 600, wrote to Pope Gregory the Great concerning the need for a prayer rite for the Angles. The Pope sent him the prayer rite from Rome. After some time, Augustine sent him the translation into the local language and Gregory responded: “But… my intention was not that you translate our rite! I only thought that it might give you ideas about what to do over there that would be appropriate for the Angles”.

- Some year ago (1980?), Father Elie, I think, a Carmelite from Haifa, asked that a Hebrew rite for Catholic Israelis be prepared in Rome. Archbishop Mejia, then a central figure in the Secretariat for Christian Unity, was perplexed and addressed Cardinal Lustiger. Together they reached the conclusion: “Such a thing cannot be asked from Rome. There is a Hebrew community in Israel and it must search for the way to crystallize an appropriate rite for itself”.

*****

These matters are surely new for some members who came to the kehilla to find how to live the Catholic faith “one hundred percent” like in the rest of the world, and they are ready to accept everything imposed upon them, thinking “it is either everything or nothing”, a kind of package deal. Perhaps, they will also be pleased to hear that there is an alternative, to be a good Christian in a framework more suitable to the culture of the place.

There are certainly also those in the kehilla who will voice doubt, or will say: “This is over our heads! Do not ask us to be pioneers in this plan”. They can calm themselves: this is not necessary for everyone, it is simply that everyone should hear about the possibility, this beautiful aim, which will not be executed in one shot. It is worthwhile accepting this joyfully, or simply not to oppose it. There are those who are used to another form, more traditional, from their childhood days in Europe, for example, and would prefer to continue to pray accordingly. One should respect each one, not impose on everyone in one foul swoop. With time, even the perplexed are bound to understand and to join the innovators, understanding that this is indeed possible and perhaps even preferable.

It is sometimes said: “The members of the kehilla (including new members) do not want change, they want to be “good Catholics” one hundred percent. This reminds one of Aaron’s response to Moses, angry because of the Golden Calf: “But it is what the people wanted!” Does the people decide? If these members would understand that it is possible to do it differently, permissible, desirable, that there is total agreement from central Church figures, certainly many would react: “Oh, great, I did not know it was possible, in fact it is better in this way, I agree joyfully”.

Therefore, it is desirable to say over and over again: we have an aim, a role, an official guideline, suitable for the kehilla, not everything that is normal in the Roman Church is obligatory in the same measure, and we should strive for something original that is suitable for us.

Return to the source

What does the expression “returning to the roots of the Christian faith” mean? Does one want to resurrect the Christian community from the first century, or to restore exactly their type of prayer in a Semitic idiom and within the framework of Jewish thought?

Sometimes, it is argued against our yearning:

- You are dealing with archaeology, restoring antiquities, and that is impossible: we do not know how it was exactly.

- There is no such thing as “returning to how it was”, jumping over two thousand years of history, ignoring Christian life for centuries.

To those who say: “One cannot know exactly how it was in the first century”, one can answer: “Yes, but we do know with certainty what was not!”

It is worth remembering again what noted church men said (see above). They certainly thought about this and did not see any problem. They knew, as we do, that what is in discussion is not a verbal restoration or a total ignoring of the tradition that developed over two thousand years. The intention is rather:

- to find an expression for our faith that is suitable and more understood in the midst of this people, and a liturgical rite closer to the act of Jesus during the Last Supper and a form of the Jewish prayer which was habitual to it (even if changes took place in Judaism over the centuries).

- There is no need that we import from Europe forms and additions that were introduced over centuries in order to adapt the expression of the faith to different peoples and to the development of the local culture (see L’Eucharistie, de Jésus aux Chrétiens d’aujourd’hui – III Histoire de la liturgie eucharistique, par Louis Chauvet) (Genuflecting has its origin in a secular act – in the Middle Ages – of a serf before the prince, who places his sword on his shoulder and gives him a job. The Feast of the Sacred Heart is foreign to other non-Latin Catholic Churches and does not exist there). Christians in Asia and Africa try not to translate every European form in their liturgy, even if they are only at the beginning of their way. If they are allowed to search a suitable translation for their culture, which is often foreign and distant from the Christian origin, how much more so is it permissible for us, who have returned to the place of origin of Christianity.

One can preserve many beautiful things from the Christian tradition, which was enriched by the lives of saints and from the writings of renowned thinkers – without necessarily adopting their way of speaking – and one can feel good in the universal Catholic family, and also be accepted by them as true brothers. Thus, what is meant is neither archaeology nor schism from the rest of the Catholic world.

*********

Over the past fifty years, from the time that we began, a vision was formed, and in the light of it, there were searches, experiments, mistakes. We met with criticism and sharp opposition here and there. Yet, there was also some progress in liturgy and in other matters: some customs and expressions changed, and this is a modest beginning.

All the while that we were not recognized and accepted as a special group in the diverse choir of the Churches, it was difficult to advance the cause. Perhaps, the time has come to return to the vision, with the desire to be faithful to our special vocation in the history of the Church.