‘Preserve the Legacy or Make It Fruitful?’

Geplaatst op door Ropa

Henri van Praag’s Call to the Church (1949–1950) and the Liturgical Choices After Nostra Aetate

Introduction

Henri van Praag (1916–1988) was a well-known Jewish-Dutch philosopher, theologian, and educator. Even before World War II, he took early steps toward dialogue between Jews and Christians. After the Holocaust, he became one of the most influential voices in Holland for renewal and mutual understanding. His work combined philosophical depth with a practical call to encounter.

Sixty Years After Nostra Aetate: A Moment for Reflection

On October 28, 1965, the declaration Nostra Aetate marked a historic turning point. For the first time, the Catholic Church officially affirmed the enduring validity of God’s covenant with the Jewish people, rejected the theology of replacement, and called for dialogue and mutual respect. After nearly two thousand years of Christian hostility toward Judaism—culminating in the Shoah—this seemed the beginning of a new path.

Sixty years later, the question remains: where does the Church stand today? When Andrea Bauer recently reflected on the current state of Jewish-Christian relations, she touched a sensitive nerve. Many who have been involved in this dialogue for decades recognize what she perceives: parts of the Church are falling back into old reflexes—not in open hostility, but in silence. And silence has never been innocent in history.

As we celebrate the birth of Jesus, it is striking how his Jewish identity is increasingly blurred in contemporary discourse. When a former pope places a keffiyeh in the nativity scene, when Jesus is presented in some circles more as “Palestinian” than as Jew, the question arises whether the promise of Nostra Aetate has truly been fulfilled.

That question becomes even more urgent when we discover what happened on January 1, 1970—just four years after Nostra Aetate. But to understand this paradox, we must first listen to a Jewish voice from 1949.

1949: “The Church Is the Apostolate Itself”

Shortly after the Holocaust, in 1949, Van Praag wrote the article “The Sign in Israel.” His vision of the Christian Church was neither accusatory nor admonishing, but theologically constructive. He did not call for mere guilt reflection or paralysis in grief, but for dynamism and renewal:

“The Church is not the heir of the apostles; it is the apostolate itself. It is not about dividing Jesus’ legacy into a thousand ditches, but about trading with the talents.”

Van Praag made a sharp distinction between being a passive heir and an active continuer. The Church, in his view, is not a museum preserving a historical inheritance, but the living continuation of the apostolic mission—the “being sent” that characterized Jesus’ first disciples. His warning against “dividing into a thousand ditches” targeted both institutional fragmentation and bureaucratization of what should remain alive.

The reference to the parable of the talents (Matthew 25) underscores what Van Praag considered essential: actively multiplying what has been received, not guarding it fearfully. For 1949, this call was remarkable: a Jewish thinker urging the Christian Church toward renewal, dynamism, and unity. It marked the beginning of Van Praag’s lifelong project: a dialogue between Church and Israel in which both see each other not as rivals but as partners in a greater calling.

1950: The Threefold Pattern—Birth, Circumcision, Baptism

A year later, in December 1950, Van Praag elaborated this vision in “The Meaning of Christmas.” He outlined a theological line that should make the bond between Judaism and Christianity visible in the liturgical cycle. For Van Praag, three moments in Jesus’ life formed an inseparable chain:

  • Birth (Christmas, December 25) – his natural coming
  • Circumcision (the eighth day, January 1) – his entry into Abraham’s covenant
  • Baptism (later) – his rebirth in the Holy Spirit

Van Praag linked these three moments to three dimensions of redemption: birth, election, rebirth—a movement from life to life, not from life to death.

“In Jesus’ life these three saving facts first become visible as birth, circumcision, and baptism. Circumcision means here: God asks for the living, not the dead son (Abraham and Isaac). The wonder of election is Passover: the angel of death passes by. That is the primal fact of Israel’s preservation.”

Van Praag’s Theological Logic

Circumcision is the sign of the covenant God made with Abraham (Genesis 17). Van Praag links this to the Akedah—the binding of Isaac (Genesis 22)—where God asks Abraham to offer his son but ultimately spares his life. “God asks for the living, not the dead son.” Circumcision thus becomes the sign that God does not sacrifice his people but chooses and needs them to fulfill his work on earth—a calling in which Jesus, as firstborn of the Messianic age, plays a decisive role.

This interpretation differs from Lutheran readings that emphasize blood: some sermons see circumcision as the “first shedding of blood” pointing to Calvary. Van Praag, however, stresses continuity: birth, election, rebirth—a line toward Easter and Pentecost, not Golgotha.

1965: The Promise of Nostra Aetate

Fifteen years later, Van Praag’s hope seemed fulfilled. Nostra Aetate (1965) affirmed precisely what he had emphasized: Christianity is inseparably linked to Judaism; Jews remain God’s chosen people; and the Jewish roots of Christianity must be acknowledged and celebrated. The declaration was revolutionary—a fundamental break with centuries of anti-Jewish thinking.

1969: A Remarkable Liturgical Choice

Just four years after Nostra Aetate, sweeping liturgical reforms followed. In the 1970 Roman Missal, January 1 became the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God, and the Feast of the Circumcision disappeared.

What disappeared:

  • Explicit celebration of Jesus’ circumcision as a Jewish ritual
  • Emphasis on his submission to the Torah
  • The link with Abraham’s covenant
  • The most concrete liturgical sign of his Jewish identity

What replaced it:

  • The Marian solemnity on January 1
  • Later (2002), the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus returned as an optional memorial on January 3—but not the circumcision itself

Other traditions retained the feast: Lutherans celebrate the Feast of the Name and Circumcision of Jesus, Anglicans The Naming and Circumcision of Jesus, and the Eastern Orthodox Church marks January 1 with a night vigil (All-Night Vigil).

Why This Matters

A liturgical feast alone does not guarantee a healthy relationship with Judaism. But abolishing this feast—precisely when rediscovering Jewish roots was the official goal—raises questions. Have we truly cultivated those roots? Or has attention shifted away from Jesus’ concrete Jewish identity?

Conclusion

Henri van Praag’s call remains urgent: will we preserve the legacy or make it fruitful? Sixty years after Nostra Aetate, the calendar choice of January 1 invites renewed reflection.

Epiloog: An Unfinished Dialogue

Henri van Praag died in 1988. He did not witness the developments of the last decades. Yet his voice from 1949–1950 still resonates.

The question Van Praag posed—will the Church guard its heritage fearfully or make it fruitful?—is as relevant today as it was sixty years ago. The abolition of the Feast of the Circumcision in 1969 was not a technical adjustment. It was a choice that removed the most concrete sign of Jesus’ Jewish identity from the liturgical calendar—precisely in the period when the Church officially sought to rediscover its Jewish roots.

Whether this choice was a deliberate reaction against Nostra Aetate, the result of internal power struggles, or an unintended consequence of liturgical “simplification” remains an open question that deserves further historical research. What is certain is that other Christian traditions chose to retain this feast—motivated by exactly what Van Praag had emphasized: the importance of continuity with Judaism.

Today, in a time when Jesus’ Jewish identity is once again being blurred or erased, Van Praag’s words remind us what is at stake. The question is not only what the Church decided sixty years ago, but what it chooses today: to preserve the legacy—or to make it fruitful.

Roel Paredis
House of Abraham
December 31, 2025

This essay is a side product of the research project Biblical Code. From time to time, we publish reflections that arise during the study process. The full project—exploring patterns and structures in biblical texts—is introduced separately on this site.