Talk:Nostra aetate

,

Minor changes
I am leaving the link to the Vatican web site "visible" to better support printed copies of the article -- as is suggested in the Wikipedia Style discussions.

Also restoring bold on the descriptive title of the declaration to be consistent with other articles

don't know where to post this, but "therefore, the changes to be brought about by the declaration on the Church's Relations with non-Christian Religions, Nostra aetate, carried implications not fully appreciated at the time." is neither logically correct nor elucids what the implications were.

Anniversary?
I am somewhat surprised that the fortieth anniversary of NOSTRA AETATE seems to have been ignored by the major press. In Sydney tonight - 20 October 2005 - there is a meeting at which Catholic and Jew speakers will be celebrating this event. A source for this event and for the anniversary is page 14 of the Australian Jewish News, Sydney Nsw dated 20th October 2005. Hynot 06:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree -- this remains one of the major accomplishments of the Council, to the irritation of many, apparently. I just reversed some rather POV language hostile to NA. ClaudeMuncey 02:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC).

Update
I added a short bibliography, and am working on an expansion of the bibliography and new sections dealing with the origins of Nostra Aetate and a history of the drafting of the text. I hope to follow this up later with post-Conciliar implementations of NA post-Conciliar documents and other developments, including events associated with the 40th anniversary of NA User: couchoula 3 September 2006

Grammar between draft 3 and 4
The grammar of the extracts from draft 4 changes pretty obviously from that of the previous three paragraphs, with the loss of speech marks, parenthases around the summary at the beginning and a few others. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject to make the changes myself, but I'm sure the draft 4 paragraph could be tidied up somewhat. Sithemadmonkey 11:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What is said vs. What happened
There is a very typical dialectic in reporting on the Second Vatican Council, which is to oppose the events on the floor of the Council (or the spirit of the times) with the actual content of the document. I feel that the content of the document is probably more pertinent than who wrote it and what he was doing when he was writing it. In fact, when you re-read Nostra Aetate, it only mentions Jews in 20 % of the text, with other Non-Jewish - Non-Christian religions occupying perhaps 75-80 % of the script, instead of the rate of 50-50 given by various journalists. This appears to be an important detail that should very much be taken into account. ADM (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I find the 20% estimate misleading. The fourth section is directly about the Jews and the word count there comes to 39.15% of the text in the declaration. One could point out that the Jewish scriptures also have relevance to Christians and Muslims, but that would not leave "75-80% of the script" to Non-Jewish and Non-Christian religions. The first draft seems to have retained its prominence in the final document. Jzsj (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism in Revision as of 13:55, 16 January 2008
It looks to me like several paragraphs from that vandalism in Revision as of 13:55, 16 January 2008 were not restored. Can an editor more involved with this article verify and correct this? Thanks. Tzvee (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There appears to have been a sort of vandalism by either a Sedavacantenist, or a protestant Anti-Catholic who added the section "Errors in Doctrine". Please delete or ammend this section ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepopeami (talk • contribs) 05:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nostra aetate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090131171417/http://bc.edu:80/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/topics/NA-40.htm to http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/topics/NA-40.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Simplify comparison of drafts
How many people reading this article can perceive the differences between the first 3 drafts? I propose to help in the understanding of the changes to focus on differences rather than including the long excerpts. How would you feel about this? Jzsj (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

As rightly observes in the template message, making the quotes more focused would be synthesis. What is needed is finding appropriate citations for all material in the article. I have access only to internet and so must leave this task to someone with library access. Jzsj (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to source the quotes in this article, I would try googling them; you can probably source them from official sources. However, the article should not be based on primary quotes, but secondary analysis. I would find some journal articles on the subject and hit up WP:RX; they've been very helpful to me in the past. You can also read papers online for free on JSTOR. Good luck. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 03:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For better or for worse, the long quotes from the different versions could not even be shortened; their source is the originals and shortening would be "synthesis". I'll see what the article would look like from all the newspapers (which I have full access to) but I agree that the decree importantly impacted Catholic relations with all non-Christian religions. This will take time, and I'll mention here if I have to give up on it. I can access books through my Jesuit community at Rockhurst University, but I only visit there every four months.Jzsj (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your recent edits. I think you might be confused about WP:SYNTH. It refers to putting sources together to get to a conclusion that is not stated in either. However, trimming quotes to the most relevant parts is accepted and encouraged. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 16:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I may not have expressed the issue well but I wonder whether most editors agree on this. They'd call this original research. I met with opposition (still present in the template at the top of the article Theology of Pope Francis) when I selected passages from Pope Francis' foundational writing Evangelii Gaudium. I went on to find secondary sources that made the same selections. Would some not demand that here? Jzsj (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, what the editor was objecting to was that the article was largely based on primary sources. In that case it can be very difficult to tell whether the content is being cherry-picked. However, that doesn't mean that it's beneficial to include large block quotes (see WP:QUOTEFARM). Ideally, the article would be based on secondary sources; failing that, it would be best to summarize. b<b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 17:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My reading of WP:QUOTEFARM is that all quotes are placed with references to secondary sources. That would rule out most of the quotes in the present article. Jzsj (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I try to avoid quoting primary sources, but that's not actually required by QUOTEFARM. The key part of the guideline is: • a quotation is used without pertinence: it is presented visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained anywhere

• quotes are used to explain a point that can also be paraphrased

• the quotes dominate the article or section Clearly, most of the quotes in this article do not satisfy this standard at present. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 17:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ORIGINAL does seem to exclude the sort of "analysis or synthesis" that is involved in selecting what parts of a document to prioritize or quote. Again, the Theology of Pope Francis article was my education in this. Jzsj (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church
Just for WP:NPOV, now it has been reported the comment to Nostra aetate given by Patriarch Elijah, the head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church. Significantly, about the Most Holy Trinity he affirms: " Muslims do not worship Him but they worship Allah, the highest (akbar) of the 360 pagan gods of Mecca."Theologian81sp (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

POV language hostile to NA, sedevecantist influence
I've noticed throughout this piece some ways of phrasing things that seem hostile to Nostra Aetate, Vatican II, and to Pope John XXIII. For example, the author consistently refers to Pope John XXIII by his given surname (Roncalli), which, while accurate, is weird. It's inconsistent with how popes are referred to in general in reporting, and within wikipedia (almost always by papal regnal name), and also inconsistent within this article, as Pope Paul VI is never referred to as "Montini", except in historical contexts before he became pope.

In addition, there seems to be some very heavy POV language especially in the section title "Second Session of the Council, 1962–1963", against NA and against AJ Heschel. Separating this out from representation of the opposition that NA received historically is difficult, but I think there is language here that crosses from reportage to POV - for example: -"Heschel had inserted himself into the American civil rights movement" - why "inserted himself"? Why not "was deeply involved with"? -"The main aims of Heschel and the Jewish side had been to encourage the alteration of..." Heschel did enjoy support within the AJC's ad-hoc committee, but his position (that the Vatican should be actively lobbied to change its doctrinal positions) was heavily contested among Jewish leadership at the time (see for example JD Soloveitchik's landmark essay "Confrontation", in which he argues that such lobbying is inappropriate and sets a dangerous precedent). It's very accurate to say that Heschel lobbied heavily - but why "the Jewish side"? it's awkward at best, and creepy at worst. -"And in addition to this, the Jewish side wanted a stop to any efforts; whether peaceful or not; at converting Jews to Christianity." Again, this sounds too favorable of missionary efforts, and is also not exactly accurate. Jews wanted to be recognized as a legitimate religion, and not as a heresy of Christianity. The end to missionary activity would represent that. -"In addition to this, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church traditionally affirmed Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and that the covenant with God, since Jesus Christ was exclusively with the Christians and that the Catholic Church is the New Israel (superseding any ancestry-based Old Covenant; rendering Jewish rites null and void). These teachings had passed down through the Gospels, many Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church and Ecumenical Councils over numerous centuries" What is needed is something less obviously in favor of supersessionism. I suggest: "In addition to this, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church had traditionally affirmed a principle referred to as 'Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus', which states that the covenant with God after the life of Jesus is exclusively with the Christians, and that the Catholic Church is the New Israel (superseding any covenant with Jews, which was understood to be transmitted through ancestry or conversion to Judaism, rather than by affirmation of faith or baptism). This principle, the basis of supersessionism, had been long held as a foundational principle of Catholic faith, and issuing a declaration that contradicted it, reversed it, or revised it, would be a stark change in direction." -"In 1963, a controversial play was released by the German writer Rolf Hochhuth called The Deputy, which popularised a theme of insinuating Pope Pius XII's "indifference" to Nazi Germany's mass killing of Jews during World War II. The play, offensive to the sensibilities of Catholics, led to a rebuff by Pius XII's former advisor Giovanni Montini, Archbishop of Milan." "popularised a theme of insinuating" suggests that it was an unreasonable or bad-faith accusation, and putting "indifference" in scare quotes suggests that Pope Pius XII was indeed not indifferent to Nazi genocide -- regardless of whether the author believes Pope Pius to be wrong or right, the wording should reflect the accusation, not suggest whether it was spurious or not. Also, "offensive to the sensibilities of Catholics" places blame on the play for being offensive, rather than reports that Catholics were upset. I recommend: "In 1963, a play was released by the German writer Rolf Hochhuth called The Deputy, which accused Pope Pius XII of indifference to Nazi Germany's mass killing of Jews during World War II. Many Catholics were upset at the accusations suggested by the play, which led to  a rebuff by Pius XII's former advisor Giovanni Montini, Archbishop of Milan (the future Pope John VI)." 130.44.133.254 (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)