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.
Got a source for that amazing statement?
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.
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.
The other likely book was Martin’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church,
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.
Links were just FYI. I was wondering if someone else was confusing Augustine with Chrysostom.
Thanks for the tips on Malachi Martin.
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.
What Is the Cause of Antisemitism? By Manis Friedman
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2902/jewish/What-Is-the-Cause-of-Antisemitism.htm
You assertion does not make it so. Most anti-Semites think they are G-d’s servants. Fact, Supercessionism is recognized by 1700 years of Judaism as the source for Christian anti-Semitism. Don’t care about that? Fine, but don’t pretend to care about Jews.
LOL! Judaism's assertion does not make it so.
Don’t care about that? Fine, but don’t pretend to care about Jews.
There's a difference between "caring about Jews" and giving in to their irrational biases and institutional bigotry against my Faith.
I just wasted a couple minutes reviewing your posting history. You are a vicious, bigoted anti-Christian. I’m certain that if your type had been in the majority and in power over the past two millenia, my fellow believers would have fared far worse under your rule than your people did under mine.
If you believe the "Greek Scriptures," then perforce you believe in the Resurrection. That would be an eccentric belief for one who is Jewish just as eccentric as alleging that there is no distinction between the Jerusalem Canon and the Alexandrian Canon (both Old Testament) and all that came later to be recognized as Scripture (in the 4th Century or so by the Roman Catholic Church) which is the New Testament. You have a remarkable point of view in which Christianity and Catholicism seem to you to have been invented just to aggravate Jews as a service to Supercessionism or Replacement Theology or whatever.
I may be wrong but my instincts suggest to me that you may not be Jewish as such but rather one belonging to some group with which I lack familiarity. I have never come across your mix of beliefs before. It is interesting that you find all 66 books to be a single unified message. That would seem quite possible for a Christian of some sort or most sorts but not for believers in the Jewish Faith. For one obvious example, a belief in one Person as G-d (OT) vs. a belief in three persons in one G-d as Christians must believe. To a Christian, that is evidence of further revelation by G-d but to a Jew it would likely seem a monstrous heresy. Maybe that's just my view.
I have not reviewed your posting history as has Dr. Brian Kopp but perhaps I should since I find him among the most reliable posters here, a lot more scholarly and a bit less colorful than I but verrrrry reliable.
As a "Traditionalist," dead excommunicated Marcel was on a par with "Pope Michael" of North Dakota and other loons of that ilk. No one did evil to Marcel and his satraps. They got what they deserved from John Paul II and the survivors have so far gotten far better treatment than they deserved from B-XVI. In the Age of Faith, these miscreants would have been subjected to a just inquiry and burned at the stake. We live in gentler times and a good thing for them since it prolongs the period during which they may repent as publicly as they have revolted. If Pope St. Pius X were alive and had available the remedies of the Age of Faith, he would certainly burn these chronic malcontents and eccentrics at the stake for impersonating Catholics.
Blasphemy is against God. Popes are not God. They are however his vicars on earth. See Matthew 6:13-20. Roma Locuta Causa Finita.
You have the entire litany of SSPX rationalizations down pat but repetition does not enhance them to truth.
B-XVI noted that the Tridentine Mass had never been surpressed. Frankly, you could have fooled me but thanks be to God for JP II and Benedict. John XXIII and Paul VI made prudential errors and they are being corrected no thanks to the sulfuric rage of Marcel and SSPX and SSPX's ceaseless attacks on the Church. Fellay is still presuming to instruct the papacy on Catholicism (flea, elephant's leg, rape in mind). Has de Mallerais gotten control over his infernal mouth yet? Did Marcel die excommunicated and in schism? Were John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II popes or not? Did they have the keys or not? Were any of Marcel and his malcontents ever popes or not? Is Williamson still rampaging against history as well as against Catholic tradition or not?
As to non-Catholics (including SSPX?) having a "right" to embrace their religions, we Catholics have a name for it: free will. We are not Calvinists. We are not Feeneyites. We draft no one and we leave it to God to judge each person including ourselves. It is above our pay grade to substitute our judgments for His and futile in any event. Catholicism is a far easier glide path to heaven with all of the Mass, the sacraments and the races available to Catholics but God knows better than you and better than Marcel and better than me. Don't you think?
The only "crisis" experienced by Marcel and his mad hatters at the hands of the Vatican was that their infernal ids were stylistically offended to such an extent that they launched a rebellion against God's own Church and against his Vicars on Earth. Nothing new under the sun. There have been angry schismatics and heretics from very early on. The Church and the papacy survive them all as Jesus guaranteed. His guarantees are still good and always will be.
Whatever will you folks do when JP II is canonized and Pio Nono and even John XXIII? One of my favorites is Pope St. Gregory VII. I would also like to see Leo XIII and Pius XII canonized and JP II recognized as Saint JP the Great. A very god argument can be made for John Paul I to be canonized as well. Each in his own way resembles Pope St. Pius X. Marcel is about as likely to be canonized as is Alexander VI (Borgia). As to those two, don't hold your breath.
Marcel is a hindrance and not a help but we shall have our Mass back as the norm sooner or later and the sooner the better (which probably requires Fellay, de Mallerais, Willimason, Gallaraga and their minions to dry up and blow away). maybe the miscreants will go the way of the "liberation theologians," of Charles Curran, of Fr. Drinan, etc.
If you make it to heaven and find Protestants or Jews or popes of whom you do not approve there, will you ask God for permission to leave or just try to escape lest the Teaching Magisterium of Marcel and you be transgressed without your resisting God to His Face?
Ron Paul is not a conservative. Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist are not Christians. Cindy Sheehan is no patriot. AND Marcel and SSPX are/were not faithful Catholics. In each case, absent public repentance, Burn 'em bright!
I am not Jewish. I am a ardent student of the Word, particularly in original languages. I have studied Christian and Jewish theology for 35 years. The comments on this thread are to be expected, and evidence of why the thread topic is still relevant.
I am not Jewish. I suppose you will have to hate me for another reason.
Pointing out simple facts makes me a “hater,” now? Well, at least now we understand your biases, and the reliability of your viewpoints regarding Catholicism.
I don’t care if you are Jewish. I don’t hate you either.
But I do have a duty to point out your errors and biases to the readers of this thread.
And judging by your vicious posting history, you are practicing “projection” in charging others with “hatred.”
Take a long hard look in the mirror, child.
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.