The Historical Significance of Nostra ætate

And its Reception

This is an expanded version of the author’s Opening Statement at the September 15, 2025, conference “Nostra ætate at 60: Legacy and Challenges for Reconciliation and Interreligious Understanding” sponsored by Georgetown University. The proceedings of the conference can be viewed on the website of the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs.

Three 80-year-old men put the project that resulted in Nostra ætate on the agenda of the Second Vatican Council: Pope John XXIII, who called the Council to the surprise of all but a handful; French historian and Shoah survivor, Jules Isaac, who was received in private audience by Pope John at the right time in 1960 for the idea to pop into his consciousness; and Cardinal Augustin Bea, who maneuvered it through Vatican II. When Cardinal Bea presented the first draft in the hall of the Council, in November 1963, he was the only one of these three men still alive.

That draft, hidden as a chapter within the larger, more popular draft, “On Ecumenism,” carried the title “On the Relation of Catholics to Non-Christians, above all, with Jews.” An earlier draft, more simply entitled “On Jews,” had to be removed from the Council’s agenda even before it opened because it would have caused an uproar in international relations. The overall project, listed on Bea’s Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity’s agenda as “Questions regarding Jews,” had this accidental and fragile beginning and would face several more severe threats to its existence before a final declaration was approved.

Cautious bishops, some with leverage to disrupt the proceedings of the Council and often identified as conservatives, worried about too much change from past teachings and the political implications of such a statement because of the still undocumented and unexplored history of the Shoah and the political tensions created in the Middle East with the establishment of the State of Israel. At Vatican II, some wanted relations with Muslim included in any possible statement, and some of these, especially missionaries living among Muslims and enjoying bonds of friendship with them, had deeper theological convictions than balancing religious and political tensions in the Middle East. Bishops and theological consultors from Asia and Africa, where few Jews lived, were unenthusiastic, but Pope Paul VI, who succeed Pope John, won their support when he responded to their request by establishing a Secretariat “for those whose religion is not listed among the Christian professions,” which would be, as it were a “second Secretariat” to the one for Christian unity,

Regarding Jews, Nostra ætate reminded Christians that Jesus, his mother, the apostles, and early disciples were Jews and that Jews and Christians have spiritual bonds for exploration through joint studies and dialogue. Nostra ætate insisted that Jews today, and generally at the time of Jesus, were not guilty of his death and that God holds dear the Jewish people, not regretting any gifts and covenants. Nostra ætate condemned antisemitism and insisted that Jews are not a rejected or accursed people. All this is in 422 Latin words in section 4 of the expanded final document of 1140 Latin words (not counting notes). The document also spoke of the one human family, the universal religious sense, and respect for and dialogue with those experiencing various manifestations of that sense, notably Muslims. It rejected all forms of persecution and discrimination “against men or women because of their race or color, condition in life or religion.”

Bishops from the Middle East, where religion and politics are tightly wound, presented the last major challenge. They were perhaps more aware of the long tradition of anti-Jewish church teachings and prayers than most, but worried more about reactions from Muslim authorities interpreting a document focused on Jews as tacit approval of the State of Israel. Paul VI feared they would walk out of the hall, as Patriarch Maximos IV of the Melkite Church had threatened to do, if the text came up for a final vote. Some of their proposed wording was accepted and a personal appeal to each of them by Pope Paul proved sufficient. Bishop Josef Stangl of Würzburg, a member of Bea’s Secretariat, pleaded that they move it to a final vote because Europeans, who were only beginning to face the recent past, needed it for encouragement. The words “Holocaust” and “Israel” are not in the text, though Bea had reminded the Council Fathers of the terrible crimes against Jews under Fascism, and the Shoah was clearly on the minds of most bishops when they voted. There are no references to contemporary Judaism, and there are deficits in the other sections too. For example, among the reasons for the Church’s respect for Muslims, there is no mention of their two principal beliefs, the Qur’an and Muhammad. Because this, the shortest of all sixteen of the council’s documents, was already promoting major changes in attitudes towards Jews, Muslims, and the followers of other religions, the drafters wanted to keep the text as brief as possible. Attempting to address complicated theological topics in too few words might confuse Catholics and offend the subjects about whom the declaration was written.

On October 28, 1965, 2221 of the Council Fathers approved Nostra ætate in a final vote. The opposition, probably an assemblage of reactionaries to the changes in teachings and Middle East bishops, had dwindled to only 88 who voted “no.”

While the contents of Nostra ætate may seem obvious and naïve to us sixty years later, had the document claimed more beyond its carefully chosen words, it might have met with more resistance than it did. Some of what was left out has disappointed many over the decades, but Nostra ætate functions as a constitution. It announced a beginning and not a conclusion. It required implementation and was not intended as a comprehensive report. Catholics gradually grew to accept the Church’s commitment to dialogue and collaboration in every aspect of church life.

Nostra ætate’s approval, six weeks before the Council ended, speeded past bogged down discussions of missionary activity. The word “dialogue” was added, but there was no integration of the concept of dialogue that appears in the later approved decree Ad gentes, “On the Mission Activity of the Church.” Thus, the relationship between mission and dialogue would be argued for the next fifty years, including even the absurd question of our era, “Is there a mission to Jews?” This debate finally dissipated when Pope Francis reiterated Nostra ætate’s message as accompaniment and encounter, but damage was done. Theological progress towards interreligious understanding among scholars more often takes place in their dialogues apart from official church dialogues, where words and opinions are more carefully guarded. But these academic dialogues are only a small part of the ministry of dialogue that continues to grow. The lived experiences of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others meeting as friends and sharing their social, political, and religious and spiritual interests represent the vast majority of interreligious activities today, as they probably did already in 1965.

The formation of the International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations (IJCIC) was a big step forward. Jews organized quickly for dialogues with the Catholic Church also on national and local levels where their populations were sufficiently large enough to have an impact on societies.

Paul VI created Commissions for Religious Relations with Judaism and Religious Relations with Muslims in 1974, and the former immediately issued guidelines for dialogue. Its other publications followed over the decades: Notes on Preaching and Catechesis, 1985; Reflections on the Shoah, 1998; and The Gifts and Calling of God Are Irrevocable, 2015. Their messages need to be re-learned with each generation. The other Commission has been a quieter body within the current Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue. Most of its major documents in the past decades have been on mission and dialogue.

After the Council, the somewhat unrestricted two Secretariats, joined by a third for Non-Believers and expanded to Culture, became Pontifical Councils in 1988 under Pope John Paul II, subordinated to Congregations, such as the one for the Doctrine of the Faith and the one for Evangelization of Peoples. Pope Francis in 2022 converted most of these Curial offices to Dicasteries, promoting a culture of vigilant responsibility among them.

Other milestones on a global scale include when the Synagogue of Rome welcomed Pope John Paul II on April 13, 1986; when John Paul II was invited to speak in the courtyard of the Great Umayyad Mosque in Damascus in 2001; when Pope Benedict XVI accepted the offer to pray privately in the Blue Mosque in Istanbul in 2006.

In October 1986, John Paul II hosted the first World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi, inviting religious leaders to join him in fasting, walking, and praying separately and before one another for peace in the world. That gathering represented the most visible implementation of Nostra ætate to that date—twenty-one years after the final vote. He hosted two more, in 1993 during the war in the Balkans and in 2002 after the 9/11attacks on New York and Washington. A year before the first Assisi event Pope John Paul II had told tens of thousands of young Muslims in Morocco that we worship the same God.

Other milestones came in 1993 with the Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel, which brought about diplomatic recognition of Israel. Something similar was when the Vatican recognized the Kingdom of Jordan and established a liaison with the Palestinian people. Much remains to be negotiated politically. Papal visits to Israel followed each with remarkable acts: John Paul II in 2000, Benedict XVI in 2009, and Francis in 2014.

The release in 2002 of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s study “The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible” was a big step, supplying, among other insights, what Vatican II did not do, acknowledging the Jewish understandings of covenant while explaining our interpretations of the bible. Much has been accomplished that seemed unimaginable in 1965; more remains to be done. Each generation reads Nostra ætate differently, but it remains exceptional in that hardly any other Vatican II text has had so many sixtieth anniversary celebrations.