Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jewish leaders denounce traditionalist's remarks on 'deicide'
cns ^ | October 20, 2011 | John Thavis

Posted on 10/20/2011 7:46:30 AM PDT by NYer

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Jewish groups have called on the Vatican to suspend reconciliation talks with a traditionalist group after one of its bishops argued that the Jewish people were responsible for the death of Jesus.

"Comments like these take us back decades to the dark days before there was a meaningful and mutually respectful dialogue between Jews and Roman Catholics," Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, president of the Conference of European Rabbis, said in a statement Oct. 19.

"We call upon the Catholic Church to suspend negotiations with extremist Catholic tendencies until it is clear that these groups show a clear commitment to tackling anti-Semitism within their ranks," he said.

He was referring to comments by Bishop Richard Williamson, a member of the Society of St. Pius X, who said recently in his online newsletter that the killing of Jesus "was truly deicide, the killing of God" and that "only the Jews (leaders and people) were the prime agents of the deicide" because they clamored for his crucifixion.

Bishop Williamson criticized modern church leaders who have moved away from that position, and said: "Until (the Jews) convert at the end of the world, as the church has always taught they will do, they seem bound to choose to go on acting, collectively, as enemies of the true Messiah."

Bishop Williamson, one of four bishops whose excommunication was lifted in 2009 by Pope Benedict XVI, became well-known at that time for his remarks denying the Holocaust. He has since been told by the Vatican that he will not be welcomed into full communion in the church until he disavows and publicly apologizes for those comments.

Meanwhile, Bishop Williamson has grown increasingly estranged from the leaders of the Society of St. Pius X. Bishop Bernard Fellay, the head of the society, recently told Bishop Williamson to stop publishing his online newsletter.

In New York, the Anti-Defamation League called on the Vatican to publicly repudiate Bishop Williamson's remarks.

"Bishop Williamson's remarks are further evidence that the Society of St. Pius X has no place in the mainstream church," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL national director.

"It is hard for us to imagine how a congregation that does not accept fundamental church teachings against anti-Semitism, and promotes classic anti-Jewish canards, can be accepted back into the fold," he said.

In its landmark 1965 document on non-Christian religions, "Nostra Aetate," the Second Vatican Council affirmed that "though Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ, neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his passion."

The document said that although the church is the new "people of God," the Jews "should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed." The text also underlined the church's "common heritage" with the Jews.


TOPICS: Current Events; History; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: jews; sspx
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last

Italian Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, the new apostolic nuncio to the United States, is pictured at his residence at the Vatican Oct. 20. He succeeds the late Archbishop Pietro Sambi. (CNS/Paul Haring)
1 posted on 10/20/2011 7:46:38 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 10/20/2011 7:47:14 AM PDT by NYer ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I think the Jewish leaders in question need an “irrelevant nutcase” filter on their outrage machine.


3 posted on 10/20/2011 7:54:46 AM PDT by Tax-chick (You could be a monthly donor, too. It's easy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
"The Jews killed Jesus! The Jews killed Jesus!"

So what?

Where would Christianity be if Jesus had not been crucified in exactly the manner the prophesies said He would be?

4 posted on 10/20/2011 7:55:51 AM PDT by WayneS (Comments now include 25% more sarcasm at NO additional charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Actually, I killed Jesus.


5 posted on 10/20/2011 8:42:50 AM PDT by beethovenfan (If Islam is the solution, the "problem" must be freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

When and your descendants have faced systematic persecution for 1,700 years, you can tell the “Jooooz” to not pay attention to a Catholic “irrelevant nutcase” - his kind of talk led to the murder of countless Jews by “outraged” mobs.


6 posted on 10/20/2011 9:03:36 AM PDT by Tzfat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tzfat

He’s an irrelevant nutcase.


7 posted on 10/20/2011 9:08:25 AM PDT by Tax-chick (You could be a monthly donor, too. It's easy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer
It´s interesting to me that when Jesus taught prayer through, ¨Our Father¨,
he taught a Hebrew Prayer without a single reference to any Christian concepts at all.
8 posted on 10/20/2011 9:38:36 AM PDT by onedoug (lf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beethovenfan

Amen. The Jews are no more Deicides than I am. And no less.


9 posted on 10/20/2011 9:51:56 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Jesus, I trust in you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

He’s an irrelevant nutcase.

<><><><<>

If he’s such an irrelevant nutjob, why in God’s name is the Vatican so interested in bringing him back into the fold? This attempt at reconciliation has been going on now, for what?, a couple of years now?


10 posted on 10/20/2011 10:56:58 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Ok everyone one more time-Jesus was CRUSIFIED(sp?). The Romans CRUSIFIED people NOT THE JEWS. The JEWS STONED people. OH and Caiaphas and his Roman Appointed toadies were probably not much for Jews either. If they were then they would have NEVER accepted the Roman Appointment.


11 posted on 10/20/2011 11:09:26 AM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dmz

Rome wants SSPX to come back into the fold. What Williamson does is his own business. I get the feeling he says stuff like this at least partly to make reconciliation impossible. Fellay should think seriously about showing Williamson the door, IMO.


12 posted on 10/20/2011 11:43:22 AM PDT by Campion ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies when they become fashions." -- GKC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
He’s an irrelevant nutcase.

He is only reiterating what the Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years. How is that irrelevant?

13 posted on 10/20/2011 1:40:46 PM PDT by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: beethovenfan; NYer

We are all responsible for his death by our sins.

It is a wonderful and merciful God that sacrificied for us and we are so unworthy.

While many Jews have become Catholic, I have always wanted to ask my Jewish friends have they considered accepting Jesus as our Lord and God?

I guess I would like to ask my non-Catholic Christian friends why they belong to a church established by man rather than the original ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC Church established by Jesus Christ?

I would ask my Catholic friends if they fully appreciate the sacrifice of the Mass and our ability to receive the body and blood of Christ? Do they view Mass as an obligation or as an opportunity to be with Jesus Christ?


16 posted on 10/20/2011 4:46:51 PM PDT by ADSUM (Democracy works when citizens get involved and keep government honest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tzfat; Tax-chick
tzfat:

I think you are misconstruing Tax-Chick's post. SSPXer Williamson is a schismatic and an irrelevant nutcase, and, incidentally an imbecile. He has been charged, I believe, by Germany for his expression of his opinions that the Holocaust never occurred. He is a source of great humiliation to his fellow schismatics of SSPX. He is not alone in that respect as their Bishop de Mallerais has a mouth on him towards John Paul II that makes Williamson seem mild as an irrelevant nutcase and imbecile. John Paul II excommunicated these two and about four others of their cult including its founder Marcel LeFebvre. They are crazies who assume that somehow pope-bashing and making a career of offensive remarks is "traditional."

Benedict XVI is the universal pastor of the Church and, although, as the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under John Paul II, he signed off on the original excommunications as did Bernardin Cardinal Gantin of Dahomey who was then head of the Congregation for Bishops, Benedict XVI has lifted the excommunications but not (as I understand it) the Declaration of Schism (also by John Paul II). In these "discussions," Benedict XVI seems to show near infinite patience with the impertinent pretensions of these malcontents such as their current ringleader Fellay who presumes to "instruct" the pope as to the content of Catholicism in a vain attempt to "correct" the pope. One suspects that SSPX is likely to remain in the outer darkness where they appear to belong in spite of incessant breathless propaganda from them about how the Vatican will surrender to them at any moment.

I can certainly assure you that neither Tax-Chick nor I nor anyone having any business calling him/herself a Catholic on FR or elsewhere wants people of the Jewish Faith or of Jewish ancestry persecuted in the slightest, much less systematically, much less for 1700 years. I would be willing to offer leadership to an outraged mob of Catholics in your defense or that of your co-religionists if ever again you should be so persecuted and I would say confidently that we have got your back. If they want to get to you, they will have to come through us. I suspect that plenty of other Christians here and elsewhere feel the same way. One Holocaust was more than enough.

I acknowledge that there have been many shameful episodes of anti-Semitism in history and all too many by Catholics. OTOH, I am partially English and I do not defend the behavior of the likes of Henry VIII or Elizabeth I, partially German and despise Hitler and Bismarck, partially Scottish but loathe those in league with Edward I (Longshanks), partially Irish and am repulsed by the Castle Irish and those who "drank the soup" during the famine.

Give us credit that we often learn from history and that one important thing we learn is not to repeat the worst of it.

May G-d bless you and yours!

17 posted on 10/20/2011 5:02:39 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club: Burn 'em Bright!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tzfat
Two more points.

1. We Catholics worship Jesus (a Jew) as the second Person of the Holy Trinity, i.e. as G-d. If Williamson doesn't get that, he is no Catholic and no Christian at all. Any purported Christian of whatever denomination making anti-Semitic noise is a schizophrenic, charitably speaking. Without Judaism and Jews, there could be no Christianity.

2. Jews generally have gotten a verrrry bum rap over the misbehavior of Annas and Caiphas and that little mob demanding Christ's crucifixion. One of those two, informed by Pontius Pilate that he found no guilt in Christ, replied by saying: Let His Blood be upon us and upon our children." No one died and left those two in charge of calling down punishment upon anyone but themselves personally and the mopes in the crowd who voluntarily agreed with them. They had no authority to speak for their own children much less those of all the pious Jews all over Jerusalem who were preparing their Passover Seder and attending to their ordinary obligations in life. The Blood Libel is/was an historical outrage and Christians need to concede that it is.

Again, may G-d bless you and yours!

18 posted on 10/20/2011 5:18:12 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club: Burn 'em Bright!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Benedict XVI has lifted the excommunications but not (as I understand it) the Declaration of Schism (also by John Paul II).

No. Anyone in schism is automatically excommunicated. SSPX bishops have always denied the charge of schism and Pope Benedict's disavowal of the excommunications provides acknowledgment that their is no schism. Benedict's admission that the Latin Mass was never suspended, despite the words and actions of previous liberal popes and bishops, shows that the SSPX was correct in that regard as well.

I acknowledge that there have been many shameful episodes of anti-Semitism in history and all too many by Catholics. OTOH, I am partially English and I do not defend the behavior of the likes of Henry VIII or Elizabeth I, partially German and despise Hitler and Bismarck, partially Scottish but loathe those in league with Edward I (Longshanks), partially Irish and am repulsed by the Castle Irish and those who "drank the soup" during the famine.

Is their any more historic guilt you wish to pile on the heads of Catholics? One never sees Jews or Muslims slobbering with such self-abasement about their misdeeds against Christianity. Get a grip.

19 posted on 10/20/2011 5:40:50 PM PDT by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: onedoug
he taught a Hebrew Prayer without a single reference to any Christian concepts at all.

Because the Christian "Jesus" is an invention of men. The Jewish Sage, known as "Yeshua ben Yoseif HaNatzeret" - who called Himself "Son of Man" and is called by others "King Messiah" was thoroughly Jewish. He lived as a Jew, in a Jewish land. He taught as a Jew, from Hebrew Scriptures. He died as a falsely accused criminal at the hands of Syrian mercenaries in the Roman 10th Legion, at the direction of a Roman governor.

Even after His resurrection, He still did not start a new religion - His religion is, and always was biblical Judaism.
21 posted on 10/20/2011 7:41:33 PM PDT by Tzfat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Morning, BlackElk. It’s always a pleasure to read anything you’ve written.


22 posted on 10/21/2011 4:06:29 AM PDT by Tax-chick (You could be a monthly donor, too. It's easy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tzfat
Sorry, but currently the "Laws of Attribution" are not credible given the present culture. When you personally can demonstrate you individually, and not deceased ancestors, have been persecuted for 1700 years, only then will you have the legitimacy to make the statement you made.

To claim "Victimization" suffered by ancestors even if true, merely serves to inflate the argument and society is discounting such, given the attraction to make inflated claims by so many discrete groups.

The Victimization card has been played so ofter by so many groups that it has lost its meaning.

23 posted on 10/21/2011 8:20:47 AM PDT by proe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: proe
The Victimization card has been played so ofter by so many groups that it has lost its meaning.

Morality is not subject to your nonsensical "Laws of Attribution."

6 million + Jews exterminated by a system founded upon the filthy anti-Semitism espoused in the theology of the likes of Justin Martyr, Augustine, Origen, and Martin Luther, and then devastatingly expressed in European society in the 1930s trump your "culture."

Oh, and if you are quick about it, you might find some holocaust survivors that can demonstrate a "victimization" that meets your silly "law." But of course, if you wait, they will all be dead.

Which begs the question: if you commit genocide, does it "lose its meaning" if you kill all the people in the group? After all, then no one can "personally demonstrate" that they have been harmed.
24 posted on 10/21/2011 9:19:27 AM PDT by Tzfat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tzfat

From the Roman Catechism (Catechism of the Council of Trent)

sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured …We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt.

And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, “None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” We, however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him.


25 posted on 10/21/2011 10:25:50 AM PDT by Pope Pius XII (There's no such thing as divorce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: mas cerveza por favor; Dr. Sivana; Tax-chick; ArrogantBustard; ninenot; AnAmericanMother
No Catholic who is a Catholic should have the slightest concern over the self-serving claptrap and rationalizations and Clintonian tortured word-parsings of the schismatic SSPX ecclesiastical revolutionaries who were justly excommunicated AND declared in schism by Pope John Paul II for the ecclesiastical crime of the late Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre conjuring up a delusional claim of "emergency" to justify his gross disobedience toward legitimate papal authority and his stiff-necked contempt for John Paul II's orders NOT to consecrate as bishops de Mallerais, Fellay, Williamson and Gallaraga (unless he had a predecessor in schism) each of whom was also an object of that declaration of schism and of excommunication.

Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of those still living (which would not include Marcel LeFebvre who died without recanting his misbehavior). B-XVI most certainly did not "disavow" those excommunications. Think of B-XVI extending papal charity toward the surviving miscreants to give them an opportunity to recant their evil.

If anyone in schism is automatically excommunicated, you will notice that B-XVI has also treated the Eastern Orthodox as no longer excommunicated. Is the Great Schism not a schism or does the papacy have considerably more authority than marvelous Marcel and his fellow miscreants imagine?

Don't bother to repeat the foolish nonsense of Dario Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos and Msgr. Perle neither of whom has been pope or ever will be in disagreeing with John Paul II's declarations against SSPX. Their wish to play "Fr. Recruiting Sergeant" towards the tradition-hating "traditionalists" of SSPX does not trump papal authority.

We have our Tridentine Mass back not because of the grand theft (of bishop status) ecclesiastical of SSPX's chronic malcontents and eccentrics but in spite of it. de Mallerais and Williamson are particularly loathsome, but each and every one of them with the possible exception of Gallaraga has played a role in making restoration far more difficult than it had to be.

Unless you have previously used other screennames on FR, we have not tangled previously. I almost left the Church for Russian Orthodoxy in the 1970s over liturgical abuses. I was persuaded to wait a year by a fellow alumnus of the Jesuit prep school I attended and I never changed. I recognize, as Catholics must, the validity of a properly celebrated Novus Ordo Mass but prefer the Tridentine Mass which is the exclusive form celebrated by the Institute of Christ the King pastor at our local Oratory. Whatever your personal opinions of "previous liberal popes" may be, is irrelevant. They were popes (whether you admit it or deny it, whether Marcel obeyed or disobeyed, whether your tastes were offended or not) and that settles the issue. No one died and left you or Marcel or SSPX or SSPV or "Pope" Michael of North Dakota or the late Leonard Feeney, SJ, during his excommunicated period or otherwise, or Fr. Nicholas Gruner or some village idiot posturing as Catholic or any number of other miscreants to sit in judgment upon any pope.

As to any misdeeds by Jews and by Moslems, I will leave that to them and to God. Their souls and the eternal disposition thereof are in their own hands subject to God's judgment. If any of them have offended us in any way, we should remind ourselves of the words of the Lord's Prayer which we Catholics and some other Christians pray as Jesus instructed us: "...Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us...." That is to say, if we don't forgive those who sin against us, we are asking God not to forgive us for our own sins against whomever and more importantly against Him. As to those who commit various evils in the name of Catholicism, it is a different story in that candor requires that we Catholics (assuming that you are Catholic) recognize evils committed in our name as Catholics. I would be happy to see Williamson excommunicated again until he cleans up his anti-semitic act and publicly repents. Whether he is excommunicated again is up to B-XVI and his successors. The Keys are his and will never be mine (for which fact SSPX should be eternally thankful).

It is an insult to human intelligence (and to history) to deny that evils have been perpetrated against Jews by Catholics (however sinful). Crusaders on their way to the Holy Land apparently stopped at Jewish European villages on the way to rape Jewish women and loot the towns. They were marching towards Jerusalem to free the Holy Land from Islam because God wills it (Deus Vult). They were risking death in battle or by disease in the name of God and of the Catholic Church but committed such crimes along the way. The Eastern Orthodox Church can justly complain of Crusaders perpetrating genocidal crimes in the East. Pope Gregory XVI in about 1830 ghettoized Rome's Jews when Rome was governed by him as part of the Papal States.

To admit such misdeeds and many others is not self-abasement and is not slobbering. Rather it is the candid admission by Catholics of the historical and immoral record of SOME Catholics.

Catholic misbehavior is not limited to that against Jews. If the homosexual pedophile scandals of recent decades teach us anything, they teach us that we must be ever vigilant against the enemy within rather than making believe that there are no enemies within. Further, we humans are all sinners (save Mary and Jesus, both of whom were Jews). As such, we all crucified Christ (save Mary and Jesus) and that responsibility does fall but not at all uniquely on Annas and Caiaphas and their little mob so subject to their demagoguery. They were the immediate occasion but we all (including Christians) were the cause through our own respective sins.

If you would be honest with yourself, you will have to admit that I have a "grip." If someone Jewish were to admit the truth of the shameful role played by Annas and Caiaphas, that would not make the person anti-Jewish but would rather serve as an example of candor and honesty.

27 posted on 10/21/2011 6:21:07 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club: Burn 'em Bright!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Aw shucks! Thank you, dear lady.


28 posted on 10/21/2011 6:24:43 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club: Burn 'em Bright!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: NYer; Absolutely Nobama; Elendur; it_ürür; Bockscar; Mary Kochan; Bed_Zeppelin; YellowRoseofTx; ..
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.


30 posted on 10/21/2011 7:20:04 PM PDT by narses (what you bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and what you loose upon earth, shall be ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proe; Tzfat
proe:

Let's review the history. Shall we? At the end of World War II, the old League of Nations British mandate known as "Palestine" was partitioned (largely due to a remarkable and successful Jewish revolt against the Brits led by David ben Gurion, and many famous Jews including Menachem Begin) and the Jews received Israel and the rest became Jordan and was for the "Palestinians." The Palestinians still have Jordan but they want to pry Israel away from the Jews and drive them into the sea. The Jews have allowed a remarkable number of "Palestinians" to continue to live among them in Israel and have been badly mistreated for decades by many Arabs in and out of Israel as their reward for their generosity.

The "Palestinians" apparently recognized as their leader one Yasir Arafat who was not himself "Palestinian" but rather an Egyptian communist on the payroll of the soviet KGB via the intermediary services of the Bulgarian KGB. This according to the Bulgarian KGB paymaster who wrote Yasir's paychecks (many millions of $) and the story for the Wall Street Journal which published it. The "Palestinian" "leadership" has been keeping the "Palestinian" proles in concentration camps for decades and blaming the Jews for not vacating Israel. They keep the inmates of the camps stoked up in hatred against the Jews in a manner reminiscent of the hate sessions in Orwell's 1984 without the telescreens and personal luxuries.

Abraham Foxman tends to be a despicable wretch particularly in his attacks on the Roman Catholic Church which rescued him personally from the Holocaust when he was an infant and taken in by a Lithuanian priest and nun at the request of his parents. Because the Church will not reveal to him the identities of the priest and the nun, he is in a permanent personal snit against the Vatican. It should be noted that his subordinates in the Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai Brith have publicly chastised Foxman for his anti-Catholic attitude and attacks on the Church and have publicly admonished him to give it a rest.

You are certainly correct in noting the lack of attention paid to the victims of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot but that should occasion more notice of the sufferings of those victims and not be used as an excuse to silence coverage of the sufferings of the Jews who were targeted by Hitler and his minions simply for having been born Jewish. A racially based holocaust is not a very pretty thing. Nor was communism as practiced anywhere.

31 posted on 10/21/2011 8:53:01 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club: Burn 'em Bright!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: narses

I’m Jewish, but the Catholic Church has a special place in my heart since I went to Mass on Sundays with my Grandpa as a kid and my wife is Catholic, so I have a pretty unique view on this topic. (Not only that, I know more about being Catholic than I do being Jewish. My parents were agnostic leftist Jews, but that’s another rant for another time.)

The Catholic Church has nothing to apologize for, and the Church should never, EVER apologize to the detestable Abe Foxman and his All-Democrat League (ADL). Foxman’s bunch doesn’t defend Jews, it defends LEFTIST Jews. Ask Mark Levin or David Horowitz the last the ADL rode to their defense. The Orthodox, those who married outside of Judaism like I did, and Conservatives (that’s me, too) are left to fend for themselves while the ADL defends George $oros and Rachel Maddcow.

The ADL has no right to demand an apology from anyone. If anything it owes an apology to both Catholics AND Jews for the constant division it tries to create between Jews and Catholics.

God bless!


32 posted on 10/21/2011 10:02:42 PM PDT by Absolutely Nobama (Chairman Obama And Ron Paul Are Sure Signs The Republic Is In Serious Trouble. God Help Us All.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tzfat; Tax-chick; Dr. Sivana; Nachum; SJackson
Tzfat:

As a Catholic, I will leave it to Lutherans and reformed Christians generally to defend Luther.

You reference what you call "the filthy anti-Semitism espoused in the theology of the likes of Justin Martyr, Augustine, Origen..." Would you care to provide the details of such charges? I doubt that most FReepers are any more familiar with such claims than am I. Substantiate or withdraw the scurrilous editorial.

St. Justin Martyr apparently engaged in a written debate in which he disagreed with Judaism and is said to have attacked Judaism. He was beheaded by Roman authorities in about 165. At the time of his martyrdom, Christianity was under Roman persecution for sharing the Jewish reluctance to engage in pagan worship of emperors. Did St. Justin Martyr claim that Judaism was somehow incomplete or that Jesus was rejected by His fellow Jews? If so, that is no more anti-Semitism than is any other theological disagreement (and a milder form of offensiveness than parts of your #21).

I make no claims to scholarship on this subject. However, in a quick study, I have found no references to anti-Semitism by Origen. I am at a loss to review the massive works of St. Augustine to see what it is in his writings that may have drawn your colorful objections.

In any event, it is a bit much to somehow attribute the Holocaust as you suggest to the influence of St. Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and Origen on 1930's Europe and the reign of those pagans who ruled Germany and its brief and brutal empire in the Third Reich.

There was a great Conservative Jewish scholar Saul Lieberman (d. 1983) who apparently may have studied on the dispute between St. Justin Martyr and Judaism but, if so, there seems no easy reference to his work in its details. He was the general editor of Judaica acting through Yale University.

When you are baited by someone who wants to diminish the very real 20th century suffering of Jews and the genocide that they suffered by trying to substitute the self-inflicted suffering of Palestinians held in concentration camps by their own, you might want to refrain from responding as though such a repulsive argument were somehow mainstream Christianity much less Catholicism.

Americans of all faiths and none liberated the camps (much later than should have been the case but that is on FDR). Few have expressed regrets over doing so. Most Europeans of the 1930s would have been altogether ignorant of St. Justin Martyr and of Origen. Most would have heard of St. Augustine and of Martin Luther but few would have read the written work of either. It was not some golden age of scholarship on matters religious.

I have had the privilege of becoming acquainted with one elderly Holocaust survivor who had arrived at Auschwitz as a strong 19-year old man in about 1939. He and I had a very lengthy conversation one afternoon when my family had been invited by his daughter's family for a Passover Seder. He dug the graves of the victims for about five years and lived to be liberated. He came to the US after the war, met and married an American Jewish wife, established a small store to support his wife and children and died very recently. Despite all the evil that he personally witnessed at Auschwitz and his own personal sufferings there, he lacked entirely the vitriol you express against Christians and well understood that his torment did not arise from Christianity much less from St. Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and/or Origen.

We exist in anonymity on Free Republic. I feel certain that I am not personally acquainted with you and, if you have suffered personally, I am certainly not familiar with the details. OTOH, it is no more reasonable for you to blame all of Christianity with a broad brush for the very real sufferings of Jews than it was for the anti-Semites of history to act upon the infamous blood libel or to pretend to be justified by the demagogic ravings of Annas and Caiaphas.

I have not responded to your #21 on the assumption that you actually believe its contents. Jesus was certainly a Jew. He certainly resurrected. He certainly taught from Hebrew Scriptures (there were no others at the time). He was crucified by permission of the Roman governor by Roman soldiers of whatever legion and whatever ancestry. Pilate was a pillar of jello but he gets a worse rap in history than perhaps even he deserves. Pilate was a moral coward in the face of public pressure. You need not be a believer in the New Testament but it certainly disagrees with your analysis as to whether Jesus started a new religion. See particularly the Peter passage in Matthew and the New Testament generally. Also the historical evidence of Jesus includes the writings of Flavius Josephus, a contemporary, who was a Roman General but also a Jew from the Holy Land. It is remarkable and puzzling that you concede His resurrection (and capitalize His), the central belief of Christianity, but deny that He founded Christianity.

33 posted on 10/22/2011 3:35:35 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club: Burn 'em Bright!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Absolutely Nobama

Thank you!


34 posted on 10/22/2011 3:38:03 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club: Burn 'em Bright!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I am surprised that nobody picked up on the “Killed God” bit of this. God cannot be killed - Jesus was killed and yes he was fully man and fully God but you cannot kill God.

So it’s a bit of nonsense from the outset.

Mel


35 posted on 10/22/2011 4:19:34 AM PDT by melsec (Once a Jolly Swagman camped by a Billabong....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0011_0_10501.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0002_0_01603.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0011_0_10225.html


36 posted on 10/22/2011 4:51:22 AM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Martyr, Origen, Augustine, and Luther (among others) conceptualizer various components of what is called the theology of Supercessionism (or Replacement Theology). Supercessionism is what made the systematic persecution, torture, and murder of Jews theologically acceptable.

if you are truly interested, you can easily read up on it; which if you do, you may then understand why the Vatican was so concerned with Jewish relations in the past 50 years: ie a philosophical underpinning to anti-Semitism in Christian theology.
37 posted on 10/22/2011 5:21:24 AM PDT by Tzfat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Also the historical evidence of Jesus includes the writings of Flavius Josephus, a contemporary, who was a Roman General but also a Jew from the Holy Land. It is remarkable and puzzling that you concede His resurrection (and capitalize His), the central belief of Christianity, but deny that He founded Christianity

You missed the point. I hold the Greek Scriptures as inspired, as well as the Hebrew. Since the first disciples continued practicing Judaism, including the next generation such as Clement of Rome, "Christianity" was a wholey new religion that transitioned out of Judaism in the 2nd Century. Scholarship is united in this fact. Which means Messiah was not a Christian, and did not start Christianity.

BTW, Josephus was not a Roman general. He was a Pharisee who fought against the Romans, and after his defeat, became a historian and advisor to Vespasian.
38 posted on 10/22/2011 5:31:05 AM PDT by Tzfat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Not a problem, boss!

:)


39 posted on 10/22/2011 7:28:01 AM PDT by Absolutely Nobama (Chairman Obama And Ron Paul Are Sure Signs The Republic Is In Serious Trouble. God Help Us All.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tzfat
Jesus preached: "I come not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it." I suspect that to be the basis of what you call Supercessionism but, by its own terms, it would not seem to be "Replacement Theology" much less a basis for making the systematic persecution, torture, and murder of Jews "theologically acceptable."

Again, I am no scholar or expert on the subject but that passage seems to suggest to me that the Covenant given by G-d to Abraham remained intact and that Jesus brought to men a New Covenant which Jews could accept or reject but distinct from the continuing Covenant with Abraham. G-d put no time limit on His Covenant with Abraham and G-d does not lie.

It may well be that the Vatican wanted to make crystal clear that Naziism and Catholicism are not at all related to one another. Catholics discount Hitler's childhood Catholicism as compared to his pagan adulthood just as we discount Karl Marx having himself baptized Catholic as a young teenager before becoming a Satanist in college or discount Margaret Sanger having herself baptized as a young teenager and apostasizing within the year to begin her murderous career leading ultimately to the abortion Holocaust.

There are specific sources of Vatican discomfort having to do with the traditional Good Friday service which references "perfidious Jews." Those references were erased at or just after Vatican II to assure that the blame was on Annas and Caiphas and their immediate co-conspirators and not on Jews generally. The reference to "perfidious Jews" was also thought to have encouraged anti-Semitism and was especially embarrassing during and after World War II.

See Golda Meir's eulogy for Pope Pius XII in 1958 or 1958 before the United Nations, the writings of Israeli diplomat Pinchas Lapide, the generous post WW II statements of Albert Einstein, and the story of Rabbi Israel Zolli (?) Chief Rabbi of Rome during World War II who converted to Catholicism after the war and took as his baptismal name Eugenio in honor of Pius XII (whose original name was Eugenio Pacelli). Other than Zolli, these people were not Catholic. None of them were fools.

I utterly fail to see the connection between a belief that Catholicism is the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament and making "the systematic persecution, torture and murder of Jews theologically acceptable.

When an early associate of Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits back when they were Catholic, whispered in his ear a gossipy detraction and warning that Fr. Diego Lainez (apparently a fourth generation Catholic of Jewish ancestry) was "a secret Jew," Loyola responded joyfully by saying: How very fortunate he is to be related to Our Lord and His Blessed Mother! Lainez succeeded Loyola as the second General of the Jesuit Order.

May you be blessed.

40 posted on 10/22/2011 11:49:56 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club: Burn 'em Bright!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Karl Marx having himself baptized Catholic as a young teenager before becoming a Satanist in college

Got a source for that amazing statement?

41 posted on 10/22/2011 11:57:08 AM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Tzfat
I take it that the Hebrew Scriptures are what Christians reference as the Old Testament. Please define "Greek Scriptures" since the term apparently has several meanings including a new and often erroneous Jehovah Witness translation completed and published in 1961 (Jesus was a god as opposed to God; Jesus was impaled not crucified, inter alia or some or all of the New Testament). You know what you mean. I don't know what you mean. Please clarify.

See the rendition in Acts of the early Church leaders coming to Jerusalem in the 50s AD to discuss and determine a question posed by Paul as to whether adult male Gentiles had to be circumcised in order to become Christians. The answer of Peter was ultimately that circumcision (and therefore Judaism) was unnecessary for a Gentile man converting to Christianity. This did not mean that it was forbidden. I have no source but I believe that the Sanhedrin saw to the expulsion of the Christians from Temple worship at or about that time.

As to creation of Christianity, see the Peter passage in Matthew 16: 13-20. Jesus was a Jew which I do not dispute but He did build His Church upon Simon bar Jonah, renaming him Peter.

You appear to be correct and I appear mistaken as to Josephus but I am not sure how that affects the underlying question.

42 posted on 10/22/2011 12:08:15 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club: Burn 'em Bright!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jjotto

Malachi Martin, SJ. Fr.Martin claimed that Pius XII came into possession of Marx’s school notebooks which detailed his religious path, that he became a Satanist while residing at the DoktorClub (sp.?) in Berlin, that Marx actually wrote love poetry to a specific chaotic demon and a full length play in honor of same detailing the end of the world in warfare, fire and bloodshed. The book of Fr. Martin was either Rich Church, Poor Church or another containing a series of anecdotes similar to that volume.


43 posted on 10/22/2011 12:13:15 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club: Burn 'em Bright!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: jjotto

The other likely book was Martin’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church,


44 posted on 10/22/2011 12:20:54 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club: Burn 'em Bright!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: jjotto
Brushing the foam off the beer, I would summarize your three links as:

St. Justin Martyr criticized Jews and Judaism in an apologetic work in the form of a philosophical dialogue with a fictional Jewish scholar. Nothing there quite so dramatic as calling for pogroms. The theoretical Jewish scholar disagreed with St. Justin Martyr but that is not anti-Catholicism any more than St. Justin Martyr is an example of anti-Semitism. The fictional scholar was considering conversion at the end which was obviously a literary device.

St. Augustine disagreed with Judaism. Nothing more of relevance. I am somewhat aware of Augustine but not of the authors of these three references.

St. John Chrysostom was not referenced in the original argument. It was he who also observed that the floor of hell was paved with the skulls of bishops but we do regard that as likely truth and nhot as anti-Catholicism.

The other two were Origen and Martin Luther. I defended Origen and said nothing of Luther as is my habit here. I leave his defense to his co-religionists. You will recall that he was no longer Catholic when he came to public attention.

45 posted on 10/22/2011 12:32:26 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club: Burn 'em Bright!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Links were just FYI. I was wondering if someone else was confusing Augustine with Chrysostom.

Thanks for the tips on Malachi Martin.


46 posted on 10/22/2011 12:51:16 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
I take it that the Hebrew Scriptures are what Christians reference as the Old Testament. Please define "Greek Scriptures"

The Bible is written in 3 languages. Hebrew (with parts of Daniel in Aramaic) is found in the front 3/4. The last 1/4 was written in Greek. With the possible exception of the books of Luke and Acts, all 66 books were written by native Hebrew speakers, containing a single unified message. There is no such thing as the "Old Testament" or the "New Testament" - those are man made categories invented for theological reasons - one of which is the theology of Supercessionism - also know as Replacement Theology.
47 posted on 10/22/2011 1:29:31 PM PDT by Tzfat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Jesus preached: "I come not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it." I suspect that to be the basis of what you call Supercessionism but,

Not true. Supercessionism is not about "fulfillment" it is about replacing the people, and G-d of the Bible, with a a new people and new god.

Messiah's comments in Matthew 5:17-19 use a common rabbinic formula (to make the Torah "stand up" or to support it). To "fulfill" is NOT to "abolish" (see His own words in Matthew 5:17), or to supersede (same as abolish, or replace). The Greek word for "fulfill" is used for a Hebrew word that means for it to be seen as standing up, or as it is meant to be. How anyone could supercessionism from Matthew 5:17-19 shows how denigrated biblical understanding has become.
48 posted on 10/22/2011 1:36:36 PM PDT by Tzfat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
No Catholic who is a Catholic should have the slightest concern over the self-serving claptrap and rationalizations and Clintonian tortured word-parsings of the schismatic SSPX ecclesiastical revolutionaries

candor requires that we Catholics (assuming that you are Catholic) recognize evils committed in our name as Catholics.

It is good that you admit the need to "recognize evils committed in our name as Catholics." Our Tradition has always allowed and in fact required that we resist Church officials who distort or fail to pass on the faith, whole and entire. My calling attention the recent popes' liberalism is not blasphemy. You cannot say that resisting errors apparently sanctioned by popes is wrong. Otherwise you reject St. Athanasius for the Arian heresy sanctioned by (non-St.) Pope Liberius. You must reject St. Paul's resistance against the judaizing of St. Peter. You would accept the Monothelite heresy of the subsequently anathematized Pope Honorius.

Some modern respecters of persons have said that St. Paul was unique in history in that nobody else can get away with saying "I resisted him to his face" (Gal 2:11) to a reigning pope. But for almost 2000 years until Vatican II, all Catholics followed St. Paul's admonition "though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." (Gal 1:8)

Therefore, Catholics have always demanded that their leaders be able to say with Paul "For I gave to you first of all what was handed down to me" (1 Cor 15:3). And indeed all real Catholics still do heed St. Paul's admonition by demanding unambiguous conformance to Tradition from leadership. If a leader fails or appears to fail in this regard, it is incumbent upon laymen and religious to resist alongside the Apostles, Saints, and Martyrs. This is what it means to be a Catholic, especially in these times of grave crisis. It is prideful for a Catholic supposing he lives in "enlightened" times to think he is exempt from traditional Catholic duties.

Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre conjuring up a delusional claim of "emergency" to justify his gross disobedience toward legitimate papal authority

It is an insult to human intelligence (and to history) to deny that evils have been perpetrated against Jews by Catholics

It is an insult to human intelligence and to recent history to deny that Vatican II tried to reverse previous Church teaching by professing a theological human "right" of non-Catholics to embrace false religions, such as Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, paganism, and so forth.

The consequence of Vatican II reversals has been an unbroken string of defeats by the Church at the hands of non-Catholics and the takeover of virtually all Catholic schools and most Western dioceses by Modernists and homosexuals. If this does not constitute an emergency, what does? Pope St. Pius' X condemned these Modernists in 1907:

"[Modernists say] the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion." Pope St. Pius' X 1907 Anathema against the Modernists, Pascendi Dominici Gregis

But, but, but didn't Vatican II try to pretend that doctrine can be changed and has changed? Not it has not! It should now be painfully clear to all Catholics that Piux X, the only pope sainted in more than 500 years, was correct in his warning. The promulgation of heresies condemned by Piux X has indeed brought about the "ruin and wreck" of religion in the West. The only confessions where religion is still strong are those that reject the liberal precepts of Modernism. False, non-Catholic religions that reject liberalism are displacing the faux-Catholic liberalism of Vatican II. The greatest bastion of resistance to Modernism today is the SSPX.

If you assist at an Institute of Christ the King parish, you must known about the Fraternal Society of St. Peter. These priests are proud to claim Archbishop LeFebvre as their ecclesiastical father even though they have a status similar to the Institute. Pope Benedict admitted that Paul6's and JP2's failed attempts to suppress the traditional mass were nothing more than deception. This admission occurred in the context of meeting the two preconditions set out by the SSPX for resuming discussions. Still today, many bishops go unpunished while attempting to maintain the deceptive Paul6-JP2 suppression of the traditional mass and traditional Catholic belief.

If you were honest with yourself, you would admit that even the tiny restoration of the Latin Mass so far is mostly the result of Archbishop LeFebvre's legacy.

49 posted on 10/22/2011 3:09:26 PM PDT by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson