R
RomanCrusader
Guest
It reminds them that their religion is a fraud.
Austrian bishops barred from Jewish holy site in Jerusalem for wearing crosses
- Status
B
bones_IV
Guest
Theres two things the devil fears, communion and the priest. We are the true Church! Outside the Church there’s no salvation.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
Those that made up that policy apparently never read, “How To Win Friends and Influence People.”
That was a disastrous decision.
That was a disastrous decision.
A
a_cermak
Guest
The Pope is a head of state. The keepers of the Wall might very well have made an exception for him, but the Cardinals are not heads of state so didn’t get the same break. I don’t see the big deal. All they had to do is take off their crosses. Heck men at the wall are frequently required to put a hat or kippot on.
As for the Star of David, it is not all that important to most Jews. It is an emblem but does not have the same meaning as the Cross does to Christians. In fact, some Jews who were required to wear the yellow Star never again wore the Star on any kind of apparel or jewelry.
As for any hatred written in the Talmud, and I can’t recall any off the top of my head, don’t forget there were many, many pogroms prior to the Holocaust, despite the fact that the Jews were never in power so never launched state attacks against the Christians.
Jews don’t believe in Christ. We do not believe in the Cross. We do believe that we can live holy lives without Jesus.
As for the Star of David, it is not all that important to most Jews. It is an emblem but does not have the same meaning as the Cross does to Christians. In fact, some Jews who were required to wear the yellow Star never again wore the Star on any kind of apparel or jewelry.
As for any hatred written in the Talmud, and I can’t recall any off the top of my head, don’t forget there were many, many pogroms prior to the Holocaust, despite the fact that the Jews were never in power so never launched state attacks against the Christians.
Jews don’t believe in Christ. We do not believe in the Cross. We do believe that we can live holy lives without Jesus.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
If the crosses were not a big deal why were they ordered to take them off? If they (crosses) were not a big deal why were the crosses “offensive”?
This is a Catholic forum which is rooted in the Cross…most Catholic homes have a cross displayed; many Catholic people wear crosses…it’s a big deal to them.
I’ll bet the Muslims don’t order the cardinals to remove their crosses if they visited the Dome of the Rock.
However, the “Wall” is a remnant that has significance to christians since it is what is left of the Temple retaining wall.
Shalom !
__
Praised be Jesus
B
Biblioassistant
Guest
I have a Jewish boss. I could never disrespect the Jewish faith since that was the faith that Jesus was born into and practiced Himself. However, I would hope that my own faith would be respected.
If a Jewish man came to my church wearing a tallit, tefflin, and kippah, he would be welcomed and not told to take them off. The Austrian bishops were there to see the place where Jesus worshipped when he was on earth. They were not there to cause trouble. They should not have been so disrespected.
A
a_cermak
Guest
They could easily have kept their crosses under their shirts. The Wall is different than someone’s house. I would not expect a Christian to remove his Cross upon coming to my home. I would not expect a Moslem women to remove her Burqa if she was wearing one to remove it upon coming into my home. But my home is not a holy site. It is not a site of mourning, a visceral sign of the many, many misfortunes that have befallen the Jewish people.
The Cardinals are not heads of states, they are merely functionaries of the Catholic religion. So for them to say well the Pope got to do it is missing the point that he was probably extended an optional courtesy due to the fact that he was a head of State and he had very, very good relations with the Jewish faith. I have not seen that kind of outreach with the current Pope even.
The Cardinals are not heads of states, they are merely functionaries of the Catholic religion. So for them to say well the Pope got to do it is missing the point that he was probably extended an optional courtesy due to the fact that he was a head of State and he had very, very good relations with the Jewish faith. I have not seen that kind of outreach with the current Pope even.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
The odd thing about all of this is the Wall is a remnant and in the material sense just “stones piled one atop another.” The “stones” have an historical significance, true enough and reverence is shown for the HISTORY the stones represent.
However, history is being used to prohibit the wearing of crosses by the bishops. Since the rabbis reject Jesus and see Him as insignificant, then how is it the cross becomes SIGNIFICANT? The rabbis that made that decision should live in the present and respect christians as they want to be respected.
As another poster said above Jews are allowed into a church with their religious symbols and thereby are shown tolerance even though they are unbelievers.
Oddly, the Austrian bishops are NOT UNBELIEVERS. They too embrace the significance of the Temple that stood there even before Jesus coming into the world to redeem mankind.
The bishops did NOT wear the crosses for that particular occasionj…they wear the cross EVERY DAY,. They did NOT come to Jerusalem to FLAUNT Catholicism…they came to contemplate the connection between God and mankind.
The prohibition of wearing their crosses at the Wall is outrageous and shows contempt for the cross.
__
Praised be the Holy Name of Jesus
However, history is being used to prohibit the wearing of crosses by the bishops. Since the rabbis reject Jesus and see Him as insignificant, then how is it the cross becomes SIGNIFICANT? The rabbis that made that decision should live in the present and respect christians as they want to be respected.
As another poster said above Jews are allowed into a church with their religious symbols and thereby are shown tolerance even though they are unbelievers.
Oddly, the Austrian bishops are NOT UNBELIEVERS. They too embrace the significance of the Temple that stood there even before Jesus coming into the world to redeem mankind.
The bishops did NOT wear the crosses for that particular occasionj…they wear the cross EVERY DAY,. They did NOT come to Jerusalem to FLAUNT Catholicism…they came to contemplate the connection between God and mankind.
The prohibition of wearing their crosses at the Wall is outrageous and shows contempt for the cross.
__
Praised be the Holy Name of Jesus
B
Brendan
Guest
It’s the last reminant of the Temple of Jerusalem. That is where 2 of the Mysteries of the Rosary happened ( the Presenation and the Finding in the Temple)There is no Christian signifinace to the Wailing Wall.
It IS a Christian site, this is where Christ was found by His parents, saying to them: “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”
This is where the Compline Cantical sung by countless priests and monks for millenia was first sung ( the Cantical of Simeon, otherwise known as the Nunc Dimittis). If I ever make it to the Holy Land, chanting the Nunc Dimittis at the Wall would certainly be on my 'things to do" list,
This is where Christ preached, and drove out the moneychangers.
So yes, it is a Christian site.
R
RomanCrusader
Guest
Not true. King Dhu Nawas (Jewish) massacred the Christians within his empire, and in the Jerusalem massacre the Jews and Persians untied to slay over 90,000 Christians. And then there was always the time period of 30 AD to 300 AD where rabbis endorsed the persecution of Christians.
Christians and Jews have both done bad things to the other.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
When you contemplate the Wall which is only a remnant of the Temple and the Temple was totally destroyed so that not one stone was atop another as Jesus said it would…it makes you wonder. The Temple was God’s dwelling place and He manifested Himself as a cloud in the Holy of Holies sanctuary.
That being so, then how could anybody by force of arms destroy that Temple? Remember when Jesus breathed His last breath a fissure started at the foot of His cross and moved from Mount Calvary through the gate of Jerusalem into the Temple and broke the veil which hid the Holy of Holies. That has got to tell the world something. The Wall is a reminder that the Temple was destroyed.
The prohibition of wearing their crosses is an insult to the Catholic world. Perhaps those that ordered the prohibition thought it was only an insult to Austrian bishops…they do not realize that it is an insult to ALL of us.
They should apologize to the Catholic world.
That being so, then how could anybody by force of arms destroy that Temple? Remember when Jesus breathed His last breath a fissure started at the foot of His cross and moved from Mount Calvary through the gate of Jerusalem into the Temple and broke the veil which hid the Holy of Holies. That has got to tell the world something. The Wall is a reminder that the Temple was destroyed.
The prohibition of wearing their crosses is an insult to the Catholic world. Perhaps those that ordered the prohibition thought it was only an insult to Austrian bishops…they do not realize that it is an insult to ALL of us.
They should apologize to the Catholic world.
R
rien
Guest
I’ve seen this decision defended by many evangelical Christians. Not a surprise.
But to their points. Did the bishops’ crosses have the corpus on them? The evangelicals defending this say so. I don’t know. Please inform.
They also insist Christians are not allowed to openly wear the cross at the Dome. Muslims chiming in say this is not true. Who am I to beleive? Either the evanglicals or the Muslims are, to put it lightly, being disengenous on this. What is the truth here?
But to their points. Did the bishops’ crosses have the corpus on them? The evangelicals defending this say so. I don’t know. Please inform.
They also insist Christians are not allowed to openly wear the cross at the Dome. Muslims chiming in say this is not true. Who am I to beleive? Either the evanglicals or the Muslims are, to put it lightly, being disengenous on this. What is the truth here?
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
I am more inclined to believe the Muslims. I visited the Dome of the Rock with a few priests in our tour group and there were no incidences of confrontation. All that was required was we take off our shoes on entering. That was not in any way an inconvenience.
As for the Corpus, the evangelicals call it a “graven image” and therefore denounce the “Image.” Most evangelicals take the Bible most literally. The Old Testament event of the Chosen worshipping a Golden Calf is their reference.
But it was a COMBINATION that offended God mightily…it was MORE the GOLD that was the object of worship…and that is true to this very day. Some pursue wealth/gold as their god. We lose sight of the fact that it was Gold. It represented avarice. The “calf” was an inanimate object void of supernatural and natural powers…but the gold represented human power.
The Wall is merely a landmark ; it never was part of the Temple; it was a retaining wall for the grounds above.
Nonetheless, bishops have visited the Wall for many years previously and were never insulted until now. Demanding crosses being removed never occurred before. Why is it up until now it was a non-issue? Something is going on in Jerusalem. It hasn’t gotten “holier” IMO.
R
rien
Guest
Yes, but did the Austrian bishops’ crosses contain the corpus as evangelicals are claiming? Not that that should make a diference, but I’d like to know.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
I don’t know if a Corpus was affixed onto the crosses. But, like you, it never should have been an issue.
I forgot to mention that when I visited the Dome of the Rock with my tour group our tour guide was a resident Franciscan from the Terra Sancta House in Jerusalem.
He wore a rosary with a large crucifix slung onto his waist-rope. Not once was he ever confronted, in fact, he took us to the Wall and some on our group had rosaries clutched in their hands and very visible. No one was confronted…this is something new.
It looks like this is something the rabbis recently put into force in Jerusalem. It may be a message they are sending to the Vatican, especially the Holy Father. It could very well be a form of pressure aimed at the Vatican…relations are getting more distant.
The Jerusalem “officials” want to tax Church properties (Protestant/Eastern OrthodoxByzantine as well) while exempting Jewish synagogues and other sites of Jewish reverence.
There is another wall, much of it already built, that detours pilgrimages to the Church of the Nativity. This is ANOTHER “bone of contention.” Thinking the worst, it could be a program of eliminating ALL Christian presence in Jerusalem.
Pope John Paul always insisted that Jerusalem be an Open City to ALL faiths: Christian and Muslim as well. The treatment of the Austrian bishops, IMO, is only the tip of the iceberg.
V
Valke2
Guest
Look. If you were a guest at my synagouge, I would expect you to wear a head covering and I would expect that you would not display a cross during services.
As for the 13 bishops, it seems to me that had they been given advance notice, they would have complied and not appeared at the wall with crosses displayed.
V
Valke2
Guest
.
Of the thousands of pages of Talmud, there are maybe a dozen paragraphs that mention Jesus (assuming you believe the paragraphs in question are about Jesus). The Talmud is not “rife with hatred” for Jesus.
To the extent it has negative language regarding Jesus, while it was certainly written before the holocaust and WWII, these were not the only two events in which Jews were persecuted, humilated and murdered. Jews had plenty of reasons to give christians the cold shoulder at the time the Talmud was written.
V
Valke2
Guest
How do you constantly avoid being banned?
R
RomanCrusader
Guest
I do not deny Christians persecuted Jews at certain points, but what about the Jews who persecuted Christians?
Both groups have persecuted each other, stop pretending Jews are always the victim.
V
Valke2
Guest
Maybe there are some here who should read that book as well.Those that made up that policy apparently never read, “How To Win Friends and Influence People.”
That was a disastrous decision.
- Status