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

[Walt_Oliver]

Thread has been edited and cleaned up for the second and hopefully the last time.

---

---

A few reminders to participants:

---

Stay on topic. Throwing barbs at one another is not part of it and has no place here.

---

Do not respond to uncharitable posts. Please report them and let the moderators deal with them.

---

Please review our forum rules and abide by them. This will make participation much more pleasant for everyone, no matter which side they’re on.

---

---

Thank you for your cooperation.

---

---

---

---

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I find myself in the odd situation where I feel myself to be on the same side as the Cardinal where I honestly do see you as being on the same side as the Rabbi.

You might spend a few seconds wondering just why I say that (hint: it’s not to do with crosses).

This ban of the Cross begs the question, "Is this the fixed policy of those that monitor the visitors from all over the world? Is this the official stance? Will travel brochures have a conspicuous notation in very bold letters they might say, “WARNING. LEAVE YOUR CROSSES AT YOUR HOTEL ROOM AND DO NOT VENTURE OUT WHERE THEY CAN BE SEEN !” If so, that would be counterproductive.

The best thing to do would return to a tolerant acceptance of those of the people of faith that differ from some officials.

It would be prudent for the mayor of Jerusalem or an even higher Israeli official to announce a more lenient allowance of pilgrims to wear their religious symbols outwardly for their entire stay in the Holy Land. Not to do so is a form of persecution.

Not to do this leaves an open wound for Christians (Catholics in particular) and some can be prodded to think, “Will adversity to the Cross become more pandemic in Israel?” Will Christian sites such as the Church of the Nativity; the Church of the Holy Sepulchre; the Chuch of the Annunciation in Nazareth be ordered to remove the Cross from the domes and belfries since they cast a shadow on the ground?"

If the incident is not ameliorated by cooler heads it could be like a runaway train. Extremists must never make policy especially when dealing with pilgrimages. Jerusalem MUST be an Open City. Pope John paul firmly advocated that it be so and his advocacy is proven to be very farsighted.

Shalom !

 

[chosen_people]

According to certain talkbacks on the internet, Jews visting the Vatican or Nortre Dame Cathedral or other Catholic holy sites have been required to remove their religious headcoverings (Kippot {Yarmulkas}). Leaving aside the propiety, from a Jewish point of view, of a religious Jew entering a Church,it would seem that a similar analogy may be drawn here. It should also be noted that the Bishops were not told by the Rabbi that they were forbidden as Bishops to come to the wall but only to place their crosses inside during their visit to what is a not only a place of Jewish worship but the most holy site in Judaism. When visiting a holy site of a particular religion, it could be expected that visitors of other religions respect feelings, even if they do not agree with them. Of course it was the perogative of the Bishops to not place their crosses inside their clothes and not visit the wall, which they chose to do. It is irrelevant if Jews visiting a Church think it insulting to be asked to remove their religious headcovering and it is irrelevant if the Bishops think when visiting a Jewish place of worship they should be allowed to wear their crosses on the outside of their clothes. Both sides must respect the feelings of others whether they understand those feelings or not. To be fair, most Christian visitors to the Western Wall place their crosses inside their clothes as a matter of courtesy without having to be asked.

 

[Valke2]

I would think that they were orthodox bishops with a plain cross.

Maybe it was the size of the crosses that was upsetting.
D.

How large are the orthodox crosses?

 

[johnstown_johnn]

According to certain talkbacks on the internet, Jews visting the Vatican or Nortre Dame Cathedral or other Catholic holy sites have been required to remove their religious headcoverings (Kippot {Yarmulkas}). Leaving aside the propiety, from a Jewish point of view, of a religious Jew entering a Church,it would seem that a similar analogy may be drawn here. It should also be noted that the Bishops were not told by the Rabbi that they were forbidden as Bishops to come to the wall but only to place their crosses inside during their visit to what is a not only a place of Jewish worship but the most holy site in Judaism. When visiting a holy site of a particular religion, it could be expected that visitors of other religions respect feelings, even if they do not agree with them. Of course it was the perogative of the Bishops to not place their crosses inside their clothes and not visit the wall, which they chose to do. It is irrelevant if Jews visiting a Church think it insulting to be asked to remove their religious headcovering and it is irrelevant if the Bishops think when visiting a Jewish place of worship they should be allowed to wear their crosses on the outside of their clothes. Both sides must respect the feelings of others whether they understand those feelings or not. To be fair, most Christian visitors to the Western Wall place their crosses inside their clothes as a matter of courtesy without having to be asked.

So then, this will be the standing policy in Jerusalem? If it is it does not bode well for all concerned. Outrage will be an ongoing mode. Israel and the christian world are going to be more distant than anytime in history.

This will be a whole new chapter.

 

[peary]

It’s quite apparent that the Church has a LONG way to go to patch things up with our Jewish brethren.

 

[Valke2]

So then, this will be the standing policy in Jerusalem? If it is it does not bode well for all concerned. Outrage will be an ongoing mode. Israel and the christian world are going to be more distant than anytime in history.

This will be a whole new chapter.

somehow, I think your prediction is a little over dramatic. The bishops themselves were not as nearly upset as some of the posts here.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

somehow, I think your prediction is a little over dramatic. The bishops themselves were not as nearly upset as some of the posts here.

The bishops are not the foremost issue it is the Cross! The bishops in and of themselves were NOT the reason for being banned from the Wall–IT WAS THE CROSS. How can we lose sight of that is beyond comprehension. It looks like a refusal to delve into the depth of the reason.

The Cross = Christianity. Bishops come and go but the CROSS is from generation to generation.

If this is going to be the standing policy and be enforced then it looks very very dim.

 

[chosen_people]

The issue as to the cross only concerns wearing a cross in a Jewish place of worship where prayers are in progress.

 

[Kaninchen]

If the incident is not ameliorated by cooler heads it could be like a runaway train. Extremists must never make policy especially when dealing with pilgrimages.

My husband and I don’t make a habit of visiting Christian churches but, if you’re in Roma, Firenze, Venezia . . . or a number of great European cities, there they are, great monuments to European art and architecture . . .

One thing we do, however, is avoid times when there’s collective worship going on. Partly it’s that going to Christian places of worship isn’t exactly appropriate for a Jewish family but, to a considerable extent, I think it’s awareness that, at such times, they really do belong to those people for whom they are places of religious commitment, historic meaning and awe. They certainly don’t need a noisy Jewish family arguing the merits or demerits of the Renaissance or Baroque.

There is a problem with ‘musts’ and it’s that they conflict – some Christians may say that Jews must behave in a particular way, some Jews may say that Christians must behave in a particular way. That’s a wonderful way of achieving impasse and spiralling annoyance and allegation, a marvellous way of affirming stereotypes.

The thing is that we ‘ought’ to behave in various ways that honor each other’s religious meanings and emotional investment. Banning the bishops from wearing crosses was, I’d say, inappropriate (that’s particularly easy for a Jewess living in, largely secular, Western Europe to say, of course). On the other hand it’s inappropriate to forget the emotional investment Jews have with the Wall and the fact that some may be rather touchy about the Cross, associated by many with centuries of persecution, being displayed there. Please remember, Christians have hundreds of Cathedrals that celebrate your religious commitment and history, what do we have?

Jerusalem MUST be an Open City. Pope John paul firmly advocated that it be so and his advocacy is proven to be very farsighted.

The policies and politics of Israel are not one of my ‘subjects’ on message boards.

Shalom !

Aleichem Shalom

 

[Valke2]

The bishops are not the foremost issue it is the Cross!

For you. If you are so concerned that we embrace the cross, then remove the symbol from your sheilds and swords.

The Cross = Christianity. Bishops come and go but the CROSS is from generation to generation.

Again, there is nothing wrong with removing a religious symbol when entering the house of another faith. That’s my opinion. You can differ. But either way, it is not, I think, a sign that jews and christians are heading to war.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

The issue as to the cross only concerns wearing a cross in a Jewish place of worship where prayers are in progress.

The Wall is a tourist attraction and if a count could be made it would show the vast number of visitors to the Wall are Christians by far…more than Jews. So, it would be more candid then to seal off the Wall to “Jews Only” . This would NOT serve the best interest of the Israeli public relations though. It would be suicide.

But I am straying…if this is a place of restriction because of “Jewish site of worship” then Gentiles should be forbidden from even getting close. The Wall should be “Off Limits” to Christians and Gentiles. Gentiles then defile that site by their mere presence. They then are seen as “infidels” despoiling a holy place and at the same time exhibiting a hatred towards the Cross. If you hate the Cross; you hate us. It can’t be any plainer.

How can the Wall be a tourist attraction and at the same time be off limits to Christians wearing a CROSS ? The CROSS is NOT in defiance of the Wall it is the rabbis in defiance of the CROSS.

Either you close the Wall to Christian pilgrims or you leave it open to everyone. But the larger concern is that this can be a portent of a persecution in the Holy Land…and that is NOT a stretch. Persecutions all have a beginning, a starting point. This is how it develops.

 

[Valke2]

.

Either you close the Wall to Christian pilgrims or you leave it open to everyone. But the larger concern is that this can be a portent of a persecution in the Holy Land…and that is NOT a stretch. Persecutions all have a beginning, a starting point. This is how it develops.

It is open to everyone. Are you saying there should be no “dress code” or rules of conduct whatsoever? I can tell you right now that if it is 103 degrees and I want to enter St. Peter’s Basilica wearing short’s, I’m not getting in. Why is that?

If I want to enter a mosque, I have to remove my shoes. Should I be permitted to refuse?

Finally, let’s list the times the Church has dictated how Jews must dress in public and the times Jews have dictated how non-jews must dress.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

It is open to everyone. Are you saying there should be no “dress code” or rules of conduct whatsoever? I can tell you right now that if it is 103 degrees and I want to enter St. Peter’s Basilica wearing short’s, I’m not getting in. Why is that?

If I want to enter a mosque, I have to remove my shoes. Should I be permitted to refuse?

Finally, let’s list the times the Church has dictated how Jews must dress in public and the times Jews have dictated how non-jews must dress.

Your post above is void of spiritual insight; it is absolutely a shallow external perception…“dress codes”, and modes of attire . The object of the distasteful treatment was a SPIRITUAL persecution and had no semblance whatsoever to style of dress. It is about the Cross. It is nothing but a religious banning.

Removing your shoes to visit the mosque is not like leaving your identity on the outside. I visited the Dome of the Rock, and I know, firsthand, that my group was a Catholic one and many wore outward pins or medals signifying their Faith. The priests also were never confronted. The Dome was hospitable to us whereas the Wall was adversarial to the Austrian bishops. That demand of the rabbi was to disown their God and deny who they are. .

At the Wall the clothes were NOT the focus of contention…it was the Cross…therein lies the point you refuse to recognize. Attempting to make this insult into a secular thing is off topic. It is NOT an EXTERNAL antagonism…it is an INTERNAL attack on Christians because the Cross represents who we are BEYOND our streetclothes.

Spiritual matters transcend the secular . When the Cross is an insult to you then the wearers are also unwelcomed; if the Cross is offensive then so are we. If the Cross is hated for Who it represents then you hate us.

If you hate Jesus, you hate us. That is reality. If you hate the Son of God; you also hate His Father and the Holy Spirit. That hatred expands to Jesus’ disciples, His Most Holy Mother and all the saints before us.

This outrageous ban never should have been allowed and worse yet, never should have been enforced. It was a very, very revealing look into the hearts of those responsible.

 

[peary]

Your post above is void of spiritual insight; it is absolutely a shallow external perception…“dress codes”, and modes of attire . The object of the distasteful treatment was a SPIRITUAL persecution and had no semblance whatsoever to style of dress. It is about the Cross. It is nothing but a religious banning.

Removing your shoes to visit the mosque is not like leaving your identity on the outside. I visited the Dome of the Rock, and I know, firsthand, that my group was a Catholic one and many wore outward pins or medals signifying their Faith. The priests also were never confronted. The Dome was hospitable to us whereas the Wall was adversarial to the Austrian bishops. That demand of the rabbi was to disown their God and deny who they are. .

At the Wall the clothes were NOT the focus of contention…it was the Cross…therein lies the point you refuse to recognize. Attempting to make this insult into a secular thing is off topic. It is NOT an EXTERNAL antagonism…it is an INTERNAL attack on Christians because the Cross represents who we are BEYOND our streetclothes.

Spiritual matters transcend the secular . When the Cross is an insult to you then the wearers are also unwelcomed; if the Cross is offensive then so are we. If the Cross is hated for Who it represents then you hate us.

If you hate Jesus, you hate us. That is reality. If you hate the Son of God; you also hate His Father and the Holy Spirit. That hatred expands to Jesus’ disciples, His Most Holy Mother and all the saints before us.

This outrageous ban never should have been allowed and worse yet, never should have been enforced. It was a very, very revealing look into the hearts of those responsible.

WELL SAID!

 

[RomanCrusader]

On the other hand it’s inappropriate to forget the emotional investment Jews have with the Wall and the fact that some may be rather touchy about the Cross, associated by many with centuries of persecution, being displayed there. Please remember, Christians have hundreds of Cathedrals that celebrate your religious commitment and history, what do we have?

Can you or Valke go a whole conversation without bringing up “persecution”?

Jews persecuted Christians as well. Please stop pretending your people are always the victim, because they aren’t. Jews have been persecuted just like every other group of people on earth, and they have persecuted other groups of people too.

 

[peary]

Can you or Valke go a whole conversation without bringing up “persecution”?

Jews persecuted Christians as well. Please stop pretending your people are always the victim, because they aren’t. Jews have been persecuted just like every other group of people on earth, and they have persecuted other groups of people too.

Orthodox Jews consider Christians the same way as Muslims do - as “Cross worshippers”, hence, infidels. They won’t go as far as some radical Muslims want to go in ridding the earth of infidels, but the thought of worshipping the Cross is what they disdain.

 

[Lev23]

Jews have been persecuted just like every other group of people on earth, and they have persecuted other groups of people too.

No other people have had the “final solution” attempted on them and their land more than Israel.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

No other people have had the “final solution” attempted on them and their land more than Israel.

So?
Does this trump all other persecutions?
Does this give them some “special” rights?

 

[peary]

So?
Does this trump all other persecutions?
Does this give them some “special” rights?

**Are they still God’s Chosen People or aren’t they? If not, when did they cease being God’s Chosen People?

If they are God’s Chosen People in the world, then they would have ‘special’ rights.