Austrian bishops barred from Jewish holy site in Jerusalem for wearing crosses

[johnstown_johnn]

Could you please elaborate on your reference to Jewish supremism. What is its definition, sources and how does it express itself? Is the idea of Jewish supremism similar to the idea
of “Jewish Naturalism” as espoused by Fr. Fahey and if so, is it a concept rooted in Catholicism and Catholic attitudes towards Jews?

We have strayed so far off topic that we lost focus on the Cross being banned at the Wall.

Holocaust has nothing to do with oppressing the Cross from being worn at the Wall. Nazis are for another thread as well as the Holocaust.

The ban of the Cross was very revealing…never knew how much hate was in some people for the Cross. That “hate” means those haters hate us; there is no way around that.

 

[chosen_people]

We have strayed so far off topic that we lost focus on the Cross being banned at the Wall.

Holocaust has nothing to do with oppressing the Cross from being worn at the Wall. Nazis are for another thread as well as the Holocaust.

The ban of the Cross was very revealing…never knew how much hate was in some people for the Cross. That “hate” means those haters hate us; there is no way around that.

The only person in any connection to use the word “hate” is yourself. Something that is inappropiate and not suitable in a Jewish place of worship, certainly the most holy Jewish site of worship, has nothing to do with “hate”. Had they wanted to hold communion or to bring a statue or picture of a Catholic religious figure, or sing praises to their Messiah, they would have been refrained from doing so without that action in any way being indicative of “hate”.

 

[Lev23]

We have strayed so far off topic that we lost focus on the Cross being banned at the Wall.

Holocaust has nothing to do with oppressing the Cross from being worn at the Wall. Nazis are for another thread as well as the Holocaust.

The ban of the Cross was very revealing…never knew how much hate was in some people for the Cross. That “hate” means those haters hate us; there is no way around that.

There is no way this thread can stray off topic with Bones statement in post #1
"I bet the Godless people of peace and tolerance are just gloating with joy over this one. May God convert the hearts of these perfidious people."

He leaves no room for a Orthodox Jew to try reason the actions of the Rabbi, but sets up confrontaion from the word go.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

The only person in any connection to use the word “hate” is yourself. Something that is inappropiate and not suitable in a Jewish place of worship, certainly the most holy Jewish site of worship, has nothing to do with “hate”. Had they wanted to hold communion or to bring a statue or picture of a Catholic religious figure, or sing praises to their Messiah, they would have been refrained from doing so without that action in any way being indicative of “hate”.

To DEMAND that the crosses be removed requires much, much more than formality…it is formed out of hate for the Son of God. Intolerance such as this can only come from H-A-T-E. The Cross being “offensive” is borne out of HATE.

Ludicrous that the bishops would even imagine saying Mass at the Wall since the Wall is a tourist attraction and is even depicted in Israeli travel brochures.

A tourist attraction and a “holy site” is one or the other. Tell us, just which is it?

Holy site? Then ban ALL non-Jews from that place. Simple as that.

Tourist attraction? Then let all visitors visit…let them “come as they are”…no restrictions. They should NOT be told to renounce who they are while visiting the Wall.

Shut that place down to all non-Jews…problem solved.

---

 

[Daddums]

He leaves no room for a Orthodox Jew to try reason the actions of the Rabbi, but sets up confrontation from the word go.

I agree with you on this point. I am Catholic and I’ve come to this forum to learn and grow. I come across stories in the press about some people within the Jewish community taking offense at the cross but the stories contain little by way of explanation as to the nature of the offense. When I was a child going to Catholic school there was a crusifix hanging in every room. The nuns would point to it and tell us that Jesus had to suffer and die because of our sins. We were told that every time we sin we are swinging the hammer that drives the nails into the hands and feet of Jesus. For Catholics, the cross is a reminder of both our own sinfulness as well as God’s infinite love. The juxtaposition of the two is a profound and deeply moving experience for us when we make the effort to meditate on it. We cannot fully understand the magnitude of God’s love until we understand the magnitude of our own sinfulness. The cross defines our relationship with God. We hurt God, God loves us in return. The cross must have a different meaning to the Jewish people if it can be seen as offensive, but I don’t know what that meaning is. However, I would like to know and I would like to understand.

Daddums

 

[johnstown_johnn]

The Cross represents Jesus; there is no other meaning other than Him. The Cross means redemption for our sins and one who wears a Cross outwardly is like a “name tag”, it says who I am…who I REALLY am down to my very soul.

To demand the bishops to remove or obfuscate their crosses is tantamount to forbidding them to come to the Wall as themselves. It is an outrage. I am glad the bishops did not comply with that form of abandoning of their identities. They rather chose to wear their crosses instead and be treated as a pariah by the Rabbis. The bishops were directed to stand behind in an enclosure . The bishops gained great favor with God.

This is a Catholic forum and praising the Son of God is the very reason for its existance. The bishops at the Wall were NOT proselytizing; they were tourists. The bishops represented their dioceses and all the people therein. But they were still tourists.

The Israeli government should either dismiss these rabbis responsible for a more tolerant substitute; ban all non-Jews from the Wall; or have a mandatory notation on all their travel brochures that the wearing of the Cross is prohibited at the Wall (and wherever else they might want to seal off from the Christian vistors.).

__
He came unto His own and His own received Him not.

 

[peary]

As were Slavs. What about them?

The explanation (this is not a justification) for neo-nazism in Germany is quite simple: The Germans have been cruelly slandered for 60 years. 60 years of being labelled nazis. 60 years of not being allowed to be proud of their nation. 60 years of being the “bad guy” of Europe. Germans cannot even proudly wave their flag without being accused of being “nazis”.

The Germans are being unfairly forced by the world to bear this stupid guilt-complex for their past. It is ridiculous.

America killed the Natives. England killed the Irish. Russia killed the Ukranians. Japan killed the Chinese/Filipinos/Koreans/Vietnamese/etc. And yet none of these countries are being forced to bear a guilt complex. Only Germany is.

The Germans are understandably getting fed up. One way the Germans are venting their anger is turning into what everyone unfairly labels them as: neo-nazis. Call someone something over and over and eventually they will accept that label themselves.

Nazism is an abhorrent and evil ideology, and I make no justification for those who believe in it. However, if the world would just leave the Germans alone and let them have some pride then this problem would be non-existant.

I have no idea why they were taken to Aushwitz. That is a tragedy. I don’t really see what you are getting at here.

I agree, it should never happen again. But what makes the holocaust so much more “worse” than any other genocide? I see all genocides as equally bad. In WWII, the Japanese behaved argueably more barbarically than the Nazis, and yet we really don’t hear much about the atrocities committed in Asia, or the massacres of Slavs by Hitler.

My only comment on all of this: :whacky: