J
John_Hiner
Guest
“Stigmtized” is a loaded word. How does Fr. Flannery determine that the allegations were incorrect?
Pax Christi nobiscum.
John Hiner
- Status
Pax Christi nobiscum.
John Hiner
M
Michael_Forrest
Guest
John,
I think most people would agree that it is wrong to completely broad-brush an entire people as “devotees of superstition, blasphemy and calumny…stealing Christian children and selling them to Arab slavers.”
For example, as much as Islam contains many serious errors and many of its adherents support violent extremism, it would also be wrong to completely broad-brush…stigmatize…all Muslims/Arabs as murderous extremists.
Also, at least according to my Webster’s, this is the definition of “stigmatize”:
If you are interested in the documentation and research, I would suggest picking up the book.
God bless.
I think most people would agree that it is wrong to completely broad-brush an entire people as “devotees of superstition, blasphemy and calumny…stealing Christian children and selling them to Arab slavers.”
For example, as much as Islam contains many serious errors and many of its adherents support violent extremism, it would also be wrong to completely broad-brush…stigmatize…all Muslims/Arabs as murderous extremists.
Also, at least according to my Webster’s, this is the definition of “stigmatize”:
- To describe or identify in opprobrious terms.
- A mark of shame or discredit
If you are interested in the documentation and research, I would suggest picking up the book.
God bless.
A
Antonius_Lupus
Guest
It is important to understand that what we consider antisemitic vituperativity in our age may not have been so in the time of the Early Church.There’s a site that lists church fathers and such from the third century on in a timeline. According to the timeline and quotes, antisemitism is part and parcel of the whole Catholic faith. VII has helped that perception, but how did the Church condone, support, and enthusiastically believe these vile things about Jews? (i.e. )Is that why so many Christians (more in Catholic Poland) turned in people in hiding during the Holocaust?
According to the Talmud (a collection of Jewish writings from c. 330 B.C.) the Jews of the Church Father’s day were active in persecuting Christians. Rabbi Akiva (I think) wrote that executing a Christian was tantamount to making a sacrifice to YHWH in the Temple.
For the Church Father’s, the hand of Satan was clearly in play in the Jewish community, so the use of “synagogue of satan” was not done in a malicious way, but rather in way that acknowledged the threat to the infant Church.
Furthermore, the terms “Christ killer” was again not used in an anti-semitic way but rather a matter-of-fact way. The Jews were instrumental in Christ’s death, but that was predicted by the Prophets. Remember that the Church Fathers (Justin Martyr comes to mind) knew full well the ancestry and ethnicity of Christ.
Also I urge you to check into the validity of this site you referred to.
Peace in Christ
J
John_Hiner
Guest
It would be wrong to *over *generalize in any category. However, if the category is correctly limited, then the generalization may be valid. Your assumption that an “entire people” are involved needs to be clarified.
First it may be an anachronism to project such “racism” onto the writings of St. Agobard. If the Saint was discussing the logical consequences of some coherent doctrine, and then by implication addressing his thoughts to those who live according to those implications, he would be discussing an analytic category and not a “people.”
Second it may be anachronistic to assume “radical individuality” in reading St. Agobard. It is possible that the group which the Saint was considering was in fact organized and acting corporately, in which case the choices and actions of duly recognized leaders may be attributed to the group corporately, even if many individuals formally associated with the group might dissent. For example, it is not an error to say that the United States invaded Iraq and is at war there, even though many citizens of the United States disagree with the action and have not personally participated in any way besides their usual formal connection with the US.
Third it may be anachronistic to impose “separatist ideas” on the writings of St. Agobard. It may be that the Saint accepted the argument made by the Church Fathers “that Christianity was not a new religion but the culmination of Judaism.” (See, the Crisis article). In which case the analysis may be more accurately read as considerations about a recalcitrant or rebelling subgroup of Israel, rather than as an alien people.
Each of these modern prejudices militates against justice in reading about these matters.
So, overall, the fact that statements are made categorically is not a sufficient objection to reject them, even though modern usage often seems to assume this. One is left with the work of considering the actual writings, with charity and generosity, rather than depending on a merely “formal deconstruction.”
Incidentally, this demand for charity in reading is rooted in the Faith. The antagonistic assumptions listed first, second, and third above are all anti-Catholic, and among those deep-rooted ideas that would need to be adjusted in reading history, if room is to be made for the True Church. It gives one pause to think how to respond to a priest who is un-generous to a Saint when reading his work. After all St. Agobard is an image of Christ. We might need to be more circumspect in accusing him of impurity, intemperance, or injustice.
Pax Christi nobiscum.
John Hiner
M
Michael_Forrest
Guest
John,
Why not pick up the book before making a judgment on Fr. Flannery?
I’m really not trying to be his apologist (sincerely). As I said, I haven’t even finished the book yet.
However, I don’t disagree with you that in an important sense, people need to be viewed from the context of their own time in history, culture, etc. Yet, that does not necessarily make what they have done “right” in the more objective, eternal sense, simply because it was more understandable under the circumstances in which they lived. And I’m sure you would agree that one need not attempt to defend every action of every Catholic saint, bishop or Pope in order to defend the good name of the Church.
Here, on a less serious issue, I think of a few Traditionalist friends who often defend their own lack of charity by appealing to St. Jerome’s reputation for irascibility, as if this had anything to do with the reason for his canonization. Or I think of those who defend the the Spanish Inquisition in a way that suggests we need to consider it objectively good and pure in all respects. There is a balance there to be found, I think, between understanding something fairly as a product of its time and recognizing the human limitations, fallibility of the Church’s members.
And here I consider among other things, the importance of evangelization. I believe there are two opposing extremes that greatly hinder evangelization (not that these are the only ones): An exaggerated, myopic criticism of all things Catholic that depicts the Church in such a way as to make it an object of derision vs. a well-meaning drive to explain everything as pure and good, not admitting any serious failings. We’re Catholic and so we will be…rightly or wrongly at times…held to a higher standard than simply “that was how things were back then.”
On a personal level, people naturally harden, turn cold and distrustful when a harm or wrong will not be forthrightly admitted. The same is true on a larger scale. While some people fretted about JPII’s apologies (and some people certainly did try to whip the Church over them), I have found an unusual softening in certain quarters because of this great gesture. Some walls have lowered a bit. I know it from personal experience in dealing with Jewish friends, some of whom I have had the honor to help into the Church over the past few years.
Regarding the broad-brushing, while I see your point to an extent, I don’t see how one easily gets around this statement by St. Agobard: “The Jews are cursed and covered with malediction, as by a cloak. The malediction has penetrated them as water in their entrails and oil in their bones…”
I think back, more recently, to even men like Abraham Lincoln. We see him in one sense as a hero against racism/slavery. And so he is. Truly. Yet, objectively speaking, he also held racist views himself…views that we would strongly and rightly object to today. To say so is not to accuse him of impurity, intemperance or injustice in a culpable way. Ditto for St. Agobard. That judgment is the Lord’s alone.
The Church is compared to a Mustard seed by our Lord and for good reason. It grows from something very small into a great tree in which birds may find sanctuary. On the issue of Jews, the Church is still growing and learning from the Holy Spirit. I found Pope Benedict’s “Many Religions, One Covenant” to be especially reflective of this reality. It is an interesting and exciting development and I welcome it.
Still, of course you are completely entitled to your opinion. I don’t begrudge you it and don’t intend to argue it further. I would, however, recommend that you read the book and then make your judgment.
Why not pick up the book before making a judgment on Fr. Flannery?
I’m really not trying to be his apologist (sincerely). As I said, I haven’t even finished the book yet.
However, I don’t disagree with you that in an important sense, people need to be viewed from the context of their own time in history, culture, etc. Yet, that does not necessarily make what they have done “right” in the more objective, eternal sense, simply because it was more understandable under the circumstances in which they lived. And I’m sure you would agree that one need not attempt to defend every action of every Catholic saint, bishop or Pope in order to defend the good name of the Church.
Here, on a less serious issue, I think of a few Traditionalist friends who often defend their own lack of charity by appealing to St. Jerome’s reputation for irascibility, as if this had anything to do with the reason for his canonization. Or I think of those who defend the the Spanish Inquisition in a way that suggests we need to consider it objectively good and pure in all respects. There is a balance there to be found, I think, between understanding something fairly as a product of its time and recognizing the human limitations, fallibility of the Church’s members.
And here I consider among other things, the importance of evangelization. I believe there are two opposing extremes that greatly hinder evangelization (not that these are the only ones): An exaggerated, myopic criticism of all things Catholic that depicts the Church in such a way as to make it an object of derision vs. a well-meaning drive to explain everything as pure and good, not admitting any serious failings. We’re Catholic and so we will be…rightly or wrongly at times…held to a higher standard than simply “that was how things were back then.”
On a personal level, people naturally harden, turn cold and distrustful when a harm or wrong will not be forthrightly admitted. The same is true on a larger scale. While some people fretted about JPII’s apologies (and some people certainly did try to whip the Church over them), I have found an unusual softening in certain quarters because of this great gesture. Some walls have lowered a bit. I know it from personal experience in dealing with Jewish friends, some of whom I have had the honor to help into the Church over the past few years.
Regarding the broad-brushing, while I see your point to an extent, I don’t see how one easily gets around this statement by St. Agobard: “The Jews are cursed and covered with malediction, as by a cloak. The malediction has penetrated them as water in their entrails and oil in their bones…”
I think back, more recently, to even men like Abraham Lincoln. We see him in one sense as a hero against racism/slavery. And so he is. Truly. Yet, objectively speaking, he also held racist views himself…views that we would strongly and rightly object to today. To say so is not to accuse him of impurity, intemperance or injustice in a culpable way. Ditto for St. Agobard. That judgment is the Lord’s alone.
The Church is compared to a Mustard seed by our Lord and for good reason. It grows from something very small into a great tree in which birds may find sanctuary. On the issue of Jews, the Church is still growing and learning from the Holy Spirit. I found Pope Benedict’s “Many Religions, One Covenant” to be especially reflective of this reality. It is an interesting and exciting development and I welcome it.
Still, of course you are completely entitled to your opinion. I don’t begrudge you it and don’t intend to argue it further. I would, however, recommend that you read the book and then make your judgment.
S
StRaphael
Guest
Having reflected on this for quite some time, I thought that The Angelic Doctor’s quote might be innocent. Lacking the context, I’m not totally sure, but there is a plausible explanation. He says, “It would be licit to hold Jews, because of their crimes, in perpetual servitude, and therefore the princes may regard the possessions of Jews as belonging to the State.” [St. Thomas Aquinas: De Regimine Judaeorum]
Now, maybe he is simply talking about individual contemporary Jewish criminals whose punishment should be lifelong servitude and the confiscation of their assets by the state, and not saying the Jews (all generations) should be lifelong servants.
Regarding deicide, Aquinas says: "Among the Jews some were elders, and others of lesser degree. Now according to the author of De Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., qu. lxvi, the elders, who were called “rulers, knew,” as did also the devils, “that He was the Christ promised in the Law: for they saw all the signs in Him which the prophets said would come to pass: but they did not know the mystery of His Godhead.” Consequently the Apostle says: “If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.” It must, however, be understood that their ignorance did not excuse them from crime, because it was, as it were, affected ignorance. For they saw manifest signs of His Godhead; yet they perverted them out of hatred and envy of Christ; neither would they believe His words, whereby He avowed that He was the Son of God. Hence He Himself says of them (John 15:22): “If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.” And afterwards He adds (John 15:24): “If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin.” And so the expression employed by Job (21:14) can be accepted on their behalf: “(Who) said to God: depart from us, we desire not the knowledge of Thy ways.”
But those of lesser degree–namely, the common folk–who had not grasped the mysteries of the Scriptures, did not fully comprehend that He was the Christ or the Son of God. For although some of them believed in Him, yet the multitude did not; and if they doubted sometimes whether He was the Christ, on account of the manifold signs and force of His teaching, as is stated John 7:31,41, nevertheless they were deceived afterwards by their rulers, so that they did not believe Him to be the Son of God or the Christ. Hence Peter said to them: “I know that you did it through ignorance, as did also your rulers”–namely, because they were seduced by the rulers."
Now, maybe he is simply talking about individual contemporary Jewish criminals whose punishment should be lifelong servitude and the confiscation of their assets by the state, and not saying the Jews (all generations) should be lifelong servants.
Regarding deicide, Aquinas says: "Among the Jews some were elders, and others of lesser degree. Now according to the author of De Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., qu. lxvi, the elders, who were called “rulers, knew,” as did also the devils, “that He was the Christ promised in the Law: for they saw all the signs in Him which the prophets said would come to pass: but they did not know the mystery of His Godhead.” Consequently the Apostle says: “If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.” It must, however, be understood that their ignorance did not excuse them from crime, because it was, as it were, affected ignorance. For they saw manifest signs of His Godhead; yet they perverted them out of hatred and envy of Christ; neither would they believe His words, whereby He avowed that He was the Son of God. Hence He Himself says of them (John 15:22): “If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.” And afterwards He adds (John 15:24): “If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin.” And so the expression employed by Job (21:14) can be accepted on their behalf: “(Who) said to God: depart from us, we desire not the knowledge of Thy ways.”
But those of lesser degree–namely, the common folk–who had not grasped the mysteries of the Scriptures, did not fully comprehend that He was the Christ or the Son of God. For although some of them believed in Him, yet the multitude did not; and if they doubted sometimes whether He was the Christ, on account of the manifold signs and force of His teaching, as is stated John 7:31,41, nevertheless they were deceived afterwards by their rulers, so that they did not believe Him to be the Son of God or the Christ. Hence Peter said to them: “I know that you did it through ignorance, as did also your rulers”–namely, because they were seduced by the rulers."
C
chosen_people
Guest
This is the second time in this thread you have “explained” acts of persecutions against the Jews (which if it is not clear included murder,expulsions and forced conversions) by stating that it was in reaction to actions commited by the Jews.
M
Michael_Forrest
Guest
Dear Chosen,
I think I understand your reaction, but I’m not sure you are interpreting McLean correctly. I took what he wrote as an indictment of the kings he says did such things.
I took him to mean that he used Jews as scapegoats, taking the heat off of himself. The only thing I found unclear was whether he meant that no Jews were actually skimming money and the charges were completely manufactured (“found out” in his post meaning “made up”), or whether some Jews may in fact have skimmed money and simply provided a convenient excuse to shift burden from the King.
I don’t see either case as pinning the actual blame on Jews (which I take from your statement with the word “explain” in quotations). Certainly, all men have moral weaknesses regardless of their ethnicity and religion, and it strikes me as likely that at least some of the Jewish tax collectors misused their position to skim taxes at times. The same would be true of Gentiles…if they also collected taxes. But if there were only Jews in these positions by design, then it is easier for a ruler to blame the theivery completely on Jews and further to rile up the population against all Jews…giving him the leverage needed to confiscate all Jewish property and shift the attention to Jews (and away from himself) if he so desired. If this is what happened, it is a very efficient and despicable practice.
So I took what McLean wrote as an indictment of these rulers, not Jews.
But he can certainly clarify himself if he sees this post.
I think I understand your reaction, but I’m not sure you are interpreting McLean correctly. I took what he wrote as an indictment of the kings he says did such things.
I took him to mean that he used Jews as scapegoats, taking the heat off of himself. The only thing I found unclear was whether he meant that no Jews were actually skimming money and the charges were completely manufactured (“found out” in his post meaning “made up”), or whether some Jews may in fact have skimmed money and simply provided a convenient excuse to shift burden from the King.
I don’t see either case as pinning the actual blame on Jews (which I take from your statement with the word “explain” in quotations). Certainly, all men have moral weaknesses regardless of their ethnicity and religion, and it strikes me as likely that at least some of the Jewish tax collectors misused their position to skim taxes at times. The same would be true of Gentiles…if they also collected taxes. But if there were only Jews in these positions by design, then it is easier for a ruler to blame the theivery completely on Jews and further to rile up the population against all Jews…giving him the leverage needed to confiscate all Jewish property and shift the attention to Jews (and away from himself) if he so desired. If this is what happened, it is a very efficient and despicable practice.
So I took what McLean wrote as an indictment of these rulers, not Jews.
But he can certainly clarify himself if he sees this post.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And similarly, not all (not even a large percentage) of Christians have opposed the Jews.There’s a site that lists church fathers and such from the third century on in a timeline. According to the timeline and quotes, antisemitism is part and parcel of the whole Catholic faith. VII has helped that perception, but how did the Church condone, support, and enthusiastically believe these vile things about Jews? (i.e. Christ killers, collective guilt, synagogue of satan)
I am still seriously looking into Catholicism, but this is a real sticking point for me. Yes, many Jews rejected Christ and wanted him gone, but not all.
oneseeker
Of course, starting with the crucifixion of Jesus and the stoning of Stephen, I think it is fair to say that the Jews persecuted the early Church. This is just historical fact.
Over time, however, this diminished, and I think that Christianity as a whole has ceased its reciprocal antagonism. Isolated pockets of lunacy still exist, however, and we must work to eliminate prejudice wherever it is found.
Conscious that I have been grafted in, I personally have no problem recognizing and respecting the place of the natural branches.
C
chosen_people
Guest
Even given that “the Jews” (as you put it- not “some Jews”) persecuted some early Christians (no doubt the Roman’s lions eating the Christians who did not enjoy the “privi lege” of not participating in religious ceremonies deifying the emperor were in fact circumcised Jewish lions) what is your point? That two thousand years of persecution, murder expulsions and forced conversions, is therefore justified as “payback”. Oh sorry- how did you put it? “reciprocal antagonism”.
M
Malcolm_McLean
Guest
One possibility is that the acts just happened. The other possibility is that they had a cause, or explanation. We could look to the stars, or the anger of God, or say that the events were intended to anticipate the Nazi Holocaust - all things which have been suggested seriously by some commentators - or we could look to more rational explanations. It is hard to see how those more rational explanations could exclude behaviour.
However my explanation was as much in terms of the policy of Christian kings anxious to keep their thrones as in terms of Jewish behaviour, though one cannot entirely separate the two. Liberals tend to like a Disneyfied sort of history if which a few events are isolated and presented as examples of the horrors of the past. However the genuine article isn’t always as convenient.
C
chosen_people
Guest
Of course they didn’t just happen. They are a result of thousands of years of teaching generation after generation of little catholic boys and girls that the Jews are murderers guilty of deicide and that they are eternally cursed and they and anyone who does not believe in the “one true faith” are forever damned. Hitler, a Catholic, in his early speeches (1920’s) often refered to Yehoshua bar Yosef driving the “money lenders” (read:Jews) from the temple. His edicts enclosing Jews in ghettoes, forcing them to wear a yellow star of david to identify themselves as Jews, stripping them of all legal and civil rights, were merely the revival of Catholic church edicts against the Jews. Mass murder of Jews (apparently its not murder if its a Jew), expulsions and forced conversions are not “a few isolated events” but daily and yearly ones throughout Jewish history. Around this time of year the local priest would be organizing his “passion play” for easter after which his good parishoners, properly whipped up against those “evil Jews”, would rampage through the Jewish houses murdering, looting and rapeing. Of course if you wanted a little extra effect you could always start a blood libel that the Jews killed a little christian boy to use his blood to make passover matza or that the Jews poisoned the village well. I doubt “Disney” will be makeing the movie. Oh wait. I forgot. The Jews brought it on themselves by their “jewish behaviour”.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Given your location, I think I can understand your reaction, but you have greatly misinterpreted my comments and overreacted. I was afraid this would happen, and I almost didn’t post in this thread. Sheesh.
First, did you notice the last line of my post? If you are not a Christian, then perhaps this means nothing to you but I was referring to the fact that Paul writes that we Gentiles have been grafted in to a faith that was not naturally ours. This is by God’s mercy. I believe that the Jews are still God’s chosen people because His covenant was forever.
Second, my use of the term “the Jews” was not intended to label an entire race of people, but the leaders of the people who said: “You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” (John 11:50) The high priest spoke prophetically when he uttered those words. Since Jesus and all of his disciples were themselves Jews, my use of the term could not be construed to mean “all Jews”. Here are a few examples of the Apostle John’s use of the term:
*]John 8:48
The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”
*]John 8:52
At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death.
*]John 8:57
“You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
*]John 9:18
The Jews still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man’s parents.
*]John 9:22
His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for already the Jews had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ would be put out of the synagogue.
Notice in these passages, John, obviously a Jew himself, uses the term “the Jews” to denote those who opposed Jesus. These are “the Jews” who sought Christ’s death and to whom I was referring. Again, my deepest apologies if I gave any other impression. I thought I was using the term in a manner supported by scripture. :yup:
Third, I acknowledged that Jewish persecution of the Church diminished over time. Do you not acknowledge that persecution of Jews by Christians (and please make a distinction between Christians and all other non-Christian Gentiles) has also diminished over time? Nazi Germany was not acting according to Christian principles for all their Lutheran heritage. Pope Pius XII sought to shelter Jews during the Holocaust and numerous other “righteous Gentiles” (ie, Schindler) have been honored in your own country. Christianity is not an anti-Jewish religion; the New Testament reveals what the Old Testament conceals. We worship the messiah your prophets foretold. That he was also the son of God was the part that caught everyone by surprise.
Finally, I never said that “payback” was justified. Given human nature, some aspects were understandable, however. But I want to stress, just because I understand it does not mean I condone it.
Shalom.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
First, on behalf of all my Catholic brothers and sisters throughout the world and especially those here in this forum, I repent for all these sins and any others committed in the name of Christ against you and your people, and I humbly ask your forgiveness.
Second, the Catechism of the Catholic Church declares:
Peace upon Jerusalem.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
C
chosen_people
Guest
Randy Shalom
No need for any apology. This is a discussion forum and you should free to express your ideas. It is I who owe you an appology if I misinterpreted something you wrote.
Concerning Hitler, who was Catholic by the way not Luthern, see my post to Malcom Mclean above #32.
As to the role of the Catholic Church during the Holocaust my complaints are not so much with what was done or not done during that period but with the events before and after. The Holocaust was the culmination of two thousand years of Christian antisemitism against the Jews. The mass murder of one half of all European Jews in the short span of six years required the cooperation not only of the German people but of the entire world. Father Coughlin’s hate radio helped foster an enviroment that closed the doors of North America to the Jews wishing to flee europe before the war. The allies would not authorize one single bomber with one single bomb to put Aushwitz out of commission even for one single day.
The Catholic Church which helped save thousands of Jewish children from death than impeded their return to their Jewish famalies (the most infamous case is the finaly brothers case).
I cannot agree that Catholic scriptures and dogmas do not foster antisemitism. It is ironic that you quoted John:
8:44 “You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies”.
No need for any apology. This is a discussion forum and you should free to express your ideas. It is I who owe you an appology if I misinterpreted something you wrote.
Concerning Hitler, who was Catholic by the way not Luthern, see my post to Malcom Mclean above #32.
As to the role of the Catholic Church during the Holocaust my complaints are not so much with what was done or not done during that period but with the events before and after. The Holocaust was the culmination of two thousand years of Christian antisemitism against the Jews. The mass murder of one half of all European Jews in the short span of six years required the cooperation not only of the German people but of the entire world. Father Coughlin’s hate radio helped foster an enviroment that closed the doors of North America to the Jews wishing to flee europe before the war. The allies would not authorize one single bomber with one single bomb to put Aushwitz out of commission even for one single day.
The Catholic Church which helped save thousands of Jewish children from death than impeded their return to their Jewish famalies (the most infamous case is the finaly brothers case).
I cannot agree that Catholic scriptures and dogmas do not foster antisemitism. It is ironic that you quoted John:
8:44 “You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies”.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Well, I certainly wanted to apologize if any unintended offense was given. Clarification definitely seemed to be in order.
Yes, I was aware that Hitler was a nominal Catholic, but my goodness, he doesn’t seem to have lived out the faith in any form that I would recognize! My comment regarding Lutheranism was simply to point out that Germany was the birth place of the Protestant Reformation. Therefore, some of those who were active participants in the Holocaust were Lutheran while some of its victims were Catholic priests. You may know the name of Fr. Maximillian Kolbe, for example. Of course, Deitrich Bonhoffer, a Protestant pastor, was also martyred during that time.
As for the Finaly case (and others), could you confirm from your vantage point the following news item?
If true, I am again pleased to see that your country recognized another Catholic, Germaine, Ribiere as a “righteous gentile”.
nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word011405.htm
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Concerning my quote from John, well, Jesus was having a rough time with the Sanhedrin! But there is more to the New Testament than that, of course. Consider this lengthy passage from the Book of Romans written by Saul of Tarsus (and don’t miss Part 2):
I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3"Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"a]? 4And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-28199b”)] 5So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.c]
7What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day."d] 9And David says:
"May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever."e]
**Ingrafted Branches **
11Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!
13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
(cont.)
I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3"Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"a]? 4And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-28199b”)] 5So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.c]
7What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day."d] 9And David says:
"May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever."e]
**Ingrafted Branches **
11Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!
13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
**All Israel Will Be Saved **
25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27And this isf] my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."g]
28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may nowh] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
**Doxology **
33Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and*(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-28228i”)] knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
34"Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?"j]
35"Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay him?"k]
36For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.
+++
You see? Saul says, “All Israel will be saved.” Yes, there is a “hardening in part” at present…not all recognized the Messiah at the time or today, but God will make these things clear in the last day.
Saul/Paul is chastising the Roman Christians for thinking of themselves more highly than they should with respect to their older “brothers”, the Jews! He was teaching them to be humble because it was only by God’s mercy that some of Israel had rejected the messiah thus allowing the Gentiles to be grafted in to the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
I hope I have explained this adequately and with respect for your faith. If you feel that there are any anti-Semitic passages in the New Testament that you’d like to discuss, by all means, please share them with me so that I can reflect upon them.
I’d be very interested to learn your perspective and share mine with you!
25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27And this isf] my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."g]
28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may nowh] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
**Doxology **
33Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and*(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-28228i”)] knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
34"Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?"j]
35"Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay him?"k]
36For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.
+++
You see? Saul says, “All Israel will be saved.” Yes, there is a “hardening in part” at present…not all recognized the Messiah at the time or today, but God will make these things clear in the last day.
Saul/Paul is chastising the Roman Christians for thinking of themselves more highly than they should with respect to their older “brothers”, the Jews! He was teaching them to be humble because it was only by God’s mercy that some of Israel had rejected the messiah thus allowing the Gentiles to be grafted in to the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
I hope I have explained this adequately and with respect for your faith. If you feel that there are any anti-Semitic passages in the New Testament that you’d like to discuss, by all means, please share them with me so that I can reflect upon them.
I’d be very interested to learn your perspective and share mine with you!
M
Michael_Forrest
Guest
Chosen,
First, let me reassure you, I am not your adversary in this discussion (not that you thought so, but I offer this just to be sure).
I am very skeptical of how far this discussion can go before turning unproductive and ugly. Forums are notoriously limited and prone to misunderstanding on even less highly-charged issues.
I believe a good deal of trust and respect is necessary before deeply engaging in such a discussion. A relationship is best established. And it is better to discuss privately, rather than publicly. These venues almost inevitably bring out pride…turning discussion into jousts to win. That doesn’t serve anyone. It doesn’t serve God.
But I will offer a few thoughts and if you would like to converse privately, we can exchange email addresses and possibly see where it goes from there later. Fair enough?
I would recommend picking up Roy Schoeman’s book, Salvation is From the Jews. Roy is a Jewish believer in Christ who became Catholic many years ago. He documents at length Hitler’s paganism (in fact, Nazism in general). It is not fair to lay blame for him on the Catholic Church anymore than it is fair to lay the blame for Lenin, Trotsky (and Communism) on Judaism. These men all rejected their faith and therefore their faith cannot legitimately be blamed for their atrocities and excesses.
I fear that the can you are opening has many worms that can burrow as deeply against Jews as Christians. It is seriously wrong in either direction and I hope you will agree and stop going down that road in this discussion. I can almost guarantee that only evil will come of it.
To be clear, I do not dispute that Catholics have done abominable things to Jews. I am reading the book The Anguish of the Jews by Fr. Flannery that documents many ulgy things. Although, in most cases, it appears that these things were done for secular reasons unrelated to the faith…sometimes abusing the faith to find justification.
However, there have certainly been Christians who persecuted Jews using Christianity as a justification. For instance, your understanding of Coughlin is correct to the best of my knowledge, although in fairness, he was eventually shut down by the Church (and the govt.). (Still, this is not to say that it was soon enough.)
However, I believe it is necessary to introduce valid distinctions into the repertoire. Something (or someone) may be anti-Judaism without being anti-Semitic. Something (or someone) may be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic (although I readily agree that far too many people hide behind opposition to Zionism, when they are actually anti-Semitic).
And it is certainly true that anti-Semites will be anti-Judaism and anti-Zionist. So there may often be cross-over. I think it is also important to define what we mean by “anti-Judaism”.
As all of Christ’s Apostles were Jews (as was Jesus himself and almost all of his followers until later on), I do not agree that the New Testament is “anti-Semitic.” I don’t think that makes any sense. Was Jesus sometimes harsh with Jews who did not believe in Him? Yes. But again, Jesus is Jewish.
In the end, doesn’t that come down to whether or not Jesus was Who He said He was? If he was Who He said He was, then those Jews who rejected Him made a horrible mistake. If he wasn’t, then Jesus and all his followers have made a terrible mistake (whether ethically Jewish or gentile).
Yet, even here, distinctions must be made (and are made by the Church). See if this makes sense to you, coming from a Catholic perspective:
Of course we believe that Jesus is the Messiah. And as such, we believe that it is a serious error to reject Him. Yet, the culpability of one who knew and heard Jesus Himself would be far different than a Jew today who never knew Him and who may only have learned from the worst of His followers.
God alone judges the heart. He alone will judge who goes to heaven and who does not.
The Catholic Church believes that Jews are still very much loved by God and that they are in a very real sense, our “elder brothers.”
First, let me reassure you, I am not your adversary in this discussion (not that you thought so, but I offer this just to be sure).
I am very skeptical of how far this discussion can go before turning unproductive and ugly. Forums are notoriously limited and prone to misunderstanding on even less highly-charged issues.
I believe a good deal of trust and respect is necessary before deeply engaging in such a discussion. A relationship is best established. And it is better to discuss privately, rather than publicly. These venues almost inevitably bring out pride…turning discussion into jousts to win. That doesn’t serve anyone. It doesn’t serve God.
But I will offer a few thoughts and if you would like to converse privately, we can exchange email addresses and possibly see where it goes from there later. Fair enough?
I would recommend picking up Roy Schoeman’s book, Salvation is From the Jews. Roy is a Jewish believer in Christ who became Catholic many years ago. He documents at length Hitler’s paganism (in fact, Nazism in general). It is not fair to lay blame for him on the Catholic Church anymore than it is fair to lay the blame for Lenin, Trotsky (and Communism) on Judaism. These men all rejected their faith and therefore their faith cannot legitimately be blamed for their atrocities and excesses.
I fear that the can you are opening has many worms that can burrow as deeply against Jews as Christians. It is seriously wrong in either direction and I hope you will agree and stop going down that road in this discussion. I can almost guarantee that only evil will come of it.
To be clear, I do not dispute that Catholics have done abominable things to Jews. I am reading the book The Anguish of the Jews by Fr. Flannery that documents many ulgy things. Although, in most cases, it appears that these things were done for secular reasons unrelated to the faith…sometimes abusing the faith to find justification.
However, there have certainly been Christians who persecuted Jews using Christianity as a justification. For instance, your understanding of Coughlin is correct to the best of my knowledge, although in fairness, he was eventually shut down by the Church (and the govt.). (Still, this is not to say that it was soon enough.)
However, I believe it is necessary to introduce valid distinctions into the repertoire. Something (or someone) may be anti-Judaism without being anti-Semitic. Something (or someone) may be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic (although I readily agree that far too many people hide behind opposition to Zionism, when they are actually anti-Semitic).
And it is certainly true that anti-Semites will be anti-Judaism and anti-Zionist. So there may often be cross-over. I think it is also important to define what we mean by “anti-Judaism”.
As all of Christ’s Apostles were Jews (as was Jesus himself and almost all of his followers until later on), I do not agree that the New Testament is “anti-Semitic.” I don’t think that makes any sense. Was Jesus sometimes harsh with Jews who did not believe in Him? Yes. But again, Jesus is Jewish.
In the end, doesn’t that come down to whether or not Jesus was Who He said He was? If he was Who He said He was, then those Jews who rejected Him made a horrible mistake. If he wasn’t, then Jesus and all his followers have made a terrible mistake (whether ethically Jewish or gentile).
Yet, even here, distinctions must be made (and are made by the Church). See if this makes sense to you, coming from a Catholic perspective:
Of course we believe that Jesus is the Messiah. And as such, we believe that it is a serious error to reject Him. Yet, the culpability of one who knew and heard Jesus Himself would be far different than a Jew today who never knew Him and who may only have learned from the worst of His followers.
God alone judges the heart. He alone will judge who goes to heaven and who does not.
The Catholic Church believes that Jews are still very much loved by God and that they are in a very real sense, our “elder brothers.”
- Status