Posted on 01/30/2009 10:12:00 AM PST by NYer
Another member of the SSPX has decided to share his thoughts about the Holocaust with the world:
In the wake of a global furor triggered by Pope Benedict XVI’s decision to lift the excommunication of four traditionalist Catholic bishops, including one who cast doubt on the Holocaust, another leader in the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X has questioned whether the Nazis used gas chambers for anything other than “disinfection,” and said that people who hold revisionist views on the Holocaust are not anti-Semites.You can read more, and the full translation of his interview, at the NCR link.
Fr. Floriano Abrahamowicz, a pastor and spokesperson for the Society of St. Pius X in northeastern Italy, also referred to Jews as “a people of deicide,” referring to the death of Christ, and suggested that the Jewish Holocaust has been “exalted” over what he called “other genocides,” such as the Allied bombing of German cities and the Israeli occupation of the Gaza strip.
On the other hand, Abrahamowicz insisted that the traditionalist movement founded by the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is not “anti-Semitic.” Among other things, Abrahamowicz said, he himself has Jewish roots on his father’s side.
The comments came in a Jan. 29 interview with the Italian newspaper La Tribuna di Treviso.
Unfortunately, you're missing the point.
You're assuming the "new testament" to be "scripture." The point I'm making is that by reversing the role of the Jewish People in the cosmos the "new testament" (in light of previous Revelation) comes across as an imposture.
The moslems follow "scripture" too, you know.
Typical bible perverter...You don't like what it says so you change a word here or a phrase there to suit your theology...Try expounding on the verse as it's written...The verse DOES NOT SAY, blindness happened to part of Israel...
Not quite. The sentence structure is admittedly obscure in the Challoner, but in the RSV we find "a hardening has come upon part of Israel..." The NAB is similar, and the Haydock Commentary also agrees.
There you go...And in other scriptures, God talks about blinding others as well...
I disagree with your reading, as it makes an enemy and author of sin of God. God uses our sin to our and others benefits. He allows the blindness, and uses it, and we therefore find this kind of language regarding it. However, if we insist on a view of these words that God causes people to sin and fall and reject his grace then we have to throw out much of the rest of scripture which would be left meaningless. Much better is to interpret the Bible with the rest of scripture, and if we do that we will find ourselves firm. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. There are many other instances following this same idea. God desires the salvation of all his creation, and not just part.
Are you just making this stuff up??? Have you ever read Romans 11???When it says they were all in unbelief, it means they were ALL in unbelief...
Impossible.
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin...
I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
You try to lift one verse against those around it. At that "present time" there was a remnant "according to the election of grace," i.e. members of Christ. There cannot be a remnant if "all" are blind. That is clear to even the most cursory reading.
Attributing motives and reading minds are forms of "making it personal."
Well I can't help but chime in here as well...Do you have any clue as to why Israel is called the enemy (only concerning the gospel) FOR YOUR SAKES??? They are enemies of the gospel for our sakes...They are not you enemies, nor enemies of the church...
Yes and no. They are enemies of God, insofar as they oppose the Gospel, but they are beloved as relates to the covenant with their fathers. The Gospel, which those blind Jews were enemies of is the work of the Church, and that makes them enemies of the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ and Christ is God, which means an enemy of Christ is an enemy of the Church.
Now, should we build on this some idea of attacking or maltreating the Jews? Certainly not. We should love our enemies and pray for them. That is what Christians do. Anti-semitism, of any stripe, is anti-christian and evil. It is as evil as the sin the Jews would be accused of. But, I merely pointed out that it is not evil to suggest that Christians in history would see Jews, who denied sometimes very vigorously Christ, as enemies. That was the claim being made above.
You're assuming the "new testament" to be "scripture." The point I'm making is that by reversing the role of the Jewish People in the cosmos the "new testament" (in light of previous Revelation) comes across as an imposture.
How can recognizing that many, perhaps even most, Jews were obstinate in their opposition to God be taken to be "reversing the role of the Jewish People in the cosmos?" I seem to recall a few times in the Old Testament that the same idea is presented.
In the "old testament" they are labeled obstinate when they deviate from the Torah. Chr*stianity labels them obstinate for refusing to cease observing the Torah and replacing it with something else.
And again, the truth of chr*stianity and of the "new testament" is hardly "self-evident."
You’re right, sorry...
And again, the truth of chr*stianity and of the "new testament" is hardly "self-evident."
I am curious about a couple of things in this. One, why are you arguing about "self-evident?" Do you really believe that the truth of the Old Testament is "self-evident?" If so, how? I wouldn't think so, at least not for a great deal. There is, after all, a reason we call it faith.
Two, why the scare quotes around New Testament? What are you suggesting about that? You seem to have some real language issues or something. You mysteriously refuse to put the "i" in Christianity. Perhaps it reveals a pharisaical attitude that the Greek word for anointed is too holy to include the middle vowel even though there is, to my knowledge, no concept that Christ, annointed or Messias or any equivalent was ever treated that way by Jews historically. And yet you won't capitalize it, even though it is a proper noun. So I would think you are trying to be doubly insulting and saying that Christianity doesn't deserver the moniker invoking Christ, so you won't use it replacing the 'i' with an asterisk, and you won't capitalize it, or New Testament (another proper noun, btw) as a snide aside at believers of that faith. Oddly, you do seem to capitalize Jews. You also write God in full, with caps, and even capitalized people when associated with Jews. Are you trying to say something about somebody through these actions?
I am curious about a couple of things in this. One, why are you arguing about "self-evident?" Do you really believe that the truth of the Old Testament is "self-evident?" If so, how? I wouldn't think so, at least not for a great deal. There is, after all, a reason we call it faith.
In college I took a course on argumentation. In it we learned various fallacies. One of these was denial of the antecedent, denying something agreed upon by both parties as a common assumption. Another was affirmation of the consequent, assuming the conclusion one is arguing for and invoking it as the reason to draw that conclusion.
Jews and chr*stians both accept the Hebrew Bible. Chr*stians accept the "new testament" and the claims of chr*stianity, while Jews do not. Therefore chr*stian apologeticists have the task of showing that the Hebrew Bible, acknowledged by both, actually authorizes the NT, which is the point of contention between the two parties.
Once the veracity of the Hebrew Bible is granted by both parties it cannot then be made an object of contention by one of them (the antecedent). It must be used to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it authorizes chr*stianity or else a rejection of chr*stianity remains the safest, surest, and most conservative position. Neither can the claims of chr*stianity be invoked in arguments with people who don't acknowledge the claims of chr*stianity.
If you wish to withdraw your acknowledgment of the Hebrew Bible as the antecedent of your argument that is up to you. But historically it is on far more solid ground than chr*stianity or the NT.
Again, I am sorry if I have offended. It was not my intention to hurt or antagonize you but merely make my point.
Be well.
I did not intend to start an argument with you, cothridge. I don't even know you and I'm not sure where you're coming from. It was my intention to give my own position on the issues. I am sorry if I offended you. Unfortunately, there is no end to these arguments when they get going.
No, you have not offended me. I am afraid a few posts back, in writing to two people at once, I confused Iscool's use of Romans with you and momentarily thought you had used that at text at one point. If this confused you and left you wondering what I was going on about, I am sorry. That wasn't my intention, I promise.
As to your points about arguments I don't disagree with your points as I read them, except that I don't think they quite apply to my actual statement. I didn't say that the Old Testament is not true, but only that its truth is not self evident, or at least no more so than that of the New Testament. I was confused by why you mentioned it, and how you thought it relevant. That was all.
Neither can the claims of chr*stianity be invoked in arguments with people who don't acknowledge the claims of chr*stianity.
Yes, I agree. I believe the appearance of that was because of my above mentioned confusion. Again, sorry about that.
I wonder, though, why you didn't address my questions about your odd manner of writing certain words. Believe me I am not trying to nitpick or some such. I am just curious about why, since it is so clearly meant to be seen and as being so unique can hardly mean nothing. You capitalize Hebrew, Jew, Old Testament, Bible and so on. And you write God in the conventional way. But you obviously are doing something different with Christianity and New Testament. Why?
Again, I am sorry if I have offended. It was not my intention to hurt or antagonize you but merely make my point.
No, you have not offended me. And I certainly hope that I have not offended you. It is also not my intention, and if I have I apologize as well.
Agreed.
Is Fr. Floriano Abrahamowicz too stupid to realize that he just called himself a Christ-killer? His name is clear evidence of recent Jewish ancestry. Blood is on his hands if it is on mine.
Is Fr. Floriano Abrahamowicz too stupid to realize that he just called himself a Christ-killer? His name is clear evidence of recent Jewish ancestry. Blood is on his hands if it is on mine.
Thought you might be interested to know that Fr. Abrahamowicz has been tossed from the SSPX.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2180301/posts?page=3
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.