S
SempirVeritas
Guest
yea, but hopefully it will get chosen to start providing sources/bibliography… thats always a start 
- Status
D
Disinherited
Guest
Oh, theAtheist… you don’t understand. I don’t agree with Benedict XVI because his statemnets were in no way infallible. I know he said that and disagree because it runs counter with Churhc teaching of the past. There is something which is really off topic here and we’d better not go off it.
T
TheAtheist
Guest
I’ve seen Jesuit theologians claim that the old Jewish covenent has in fact not been superceded.
Funny that with Catholicism, for all the discussion coming from the Protestants regarding some sort of Monolith, you seem more like a big tent or bandwidth of opinion.
D
Disinherited
Guest
The Catholic encyclopedia is proof. I know all that the people of the Church did towards the Jews. Martinez was a bastard (no use of bad words intended) in every sense of the word. He abused his power, he abused religion but, with all respect to the Jews who died, his actions where not supported either by the Church or authorities.I’m presuming that the Catholic encyclopedia is an acceptable source as to Jews being placed in ghettos or being made to wear special clothing marking them as Jews or being denied basic rights and the motivations of the Church in these matters.
I also presume that the murderous Catholic pogroms against the Jews which began on March 15th 1391 and spread throughout Spain and names like Ferdinand Martinez are common knowledge to any student of the Spanish Inquisition.
Apparently, your requirement for proof concerns the limpieza de sangre or purity of blood statutes. However, let me assure you these statutes and the motivation for their enactment are niether secret or obscure. Just to check me out- may I suggest going to google and searching “Spain Jews purity of blood statutes” - I received 1,530,000 hits. Let me know if this is sufficient.
I’m reading the purity of blood statutes articles.
No! not that type of purity of blood!
AMong other things, you must note that when the authorities kicked out the Jews from France and Spain, they also kicked out the Muslims. Racism on the Muslims? No, they feared that their religion was dangerous (even though ironically, both the Jews and the Arabs have alot of conflict with each other).
Just one more thing: as Jharek said, we’re drawing a thin line here. Jews accuse us Catholics of antisemitism yet we accuse them of anticatholicism and for being greedy. The Jews ironically started to persecute the Catholics first, with the twisted influence of those evil Pharisees. Alot of evil people were catholic (Torquemada, Martinez, etc…) alot of even more evil people were lapsed Catholics (Hitler, Mussolini who pretended to be Catholic, etc…). Alot of evil people were Jewish: Vladimir Lenin, Karl Marx etc… although these didn’t use their religion to manipulate people, unlike the Pharisees.
Both sides did evil against each other and both sides must admit they did wrong. The Church for the actions of it’s Popes and the Jews for the actions of their leaders and Zionist philosophy.
D
Disinherited
Guest
Things are not like that with me.I’ve seen Jesuit theologians claim that the old Jewish covenent has in fact not been superceded.
Funny that with Catholicism, for all the discussion coming from the Protestants regarding some sort of Monolith, you seem more like a big tent or bandwidth of opinion.
T
TheAtheist
Guest
From a purely political perspective - if anyone had an axe to grind against Jesus of Nazareth it would have been that smaller group within the subsection of Pharisees and the Sadduccess as a whole.
The Pharisees as a collective held viewpoints much closer to Jesus’ own preaching. The Sadduccees on the other hand seemed (at least from my irreverential secularist viewpoint
) more concerned with holding power and advancing viewpoints that served to keep the High Priesthood within their collective reach.
Oh and as for the search for documentation - what about an interfaith dialogue website between Jews and Christians?
jcrelations.net/en/?item=797
The Pharisees as a collective held viewpoints much closer to Jesus’ own preaching. The Sadduccees on the other hand seemed (at least from my irreverential secularist viewpoint
) more concerned with holding power and advancing viewpoints that served to keep the High Priesthood within their collective reach.Oh and as for the search for documentation - what about an interfaith dialogue website between Jews and Christians?
jcrelations.net/en/?item=797
S
SempirVeritas
Guest
“What is hateful to you, dont do to others” - HillelFrom a purely political perspective - if anyone had an axe to grind against Jesus of Nazareth it would have been that smaller group within the subsection of Pharisees and the Sadduccess as a whole.
The Pharisees as a collective held viewpoints much closer to Jesus’ own preaching. The Sadduccees on the other hand seemed (at least from my irreverential secularist viewpoint
Oh and as for the search for documentation - what about an interfaith dialogue website between Jews and Christians?
jcrelations.net/en/?item=797
“Do unto others as you would have them do to you”= Jesus
Gentiles and Jews have a place in the world to come- Orthodox Judaism
Gentiles and Jews have a place in the world to come, “circumcision matters not”, etc,"" - Christianity/Paul…
4 basic tenants in acts 15 for gentiles
7 basic tenants in orthodox Judaism for gentiles.
Faith without works is dead: James
same on a conceptual level with Judaism… Faith, and works… (not gonna get into which comes first lol).
S
SempirVeritas
Guest
a few books that might help provide a perspective on Jesus vs Pharisees:
auburn.edu/~allenkc/falk1a.html (“Jesus the Pharisee, A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus”, by Harvey Falk, 1985)
youtu.be/0V4ldosXaSA might help sort of from a look at cultural history maybe?
auburn.edu/~allenkc/falk1a.html (“Jesus the Pharisee, A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus”, by Harvey Falk, 1985)
youtu.be/0V4ldosXaSA might help sort of from a look at cultural history maybe?
T
TheAtheist
Guest
Education is essential!
It all seemed quite simple to me once i figured out what the viewpoints of the Sadducees and Pharisees were and their respective roles in society. Mind you of course, i’m thinking about this in political terms with a 21st century mindset so it may not apply at all…
One group doesn’t believe in angels, resurrection of the body, and punishment/reward in the afterlife. It also happens to control the administration of the Temple and parts of the State with respect to the power of Herod. So you have both the civil/political authority and the major form of religious worship under your control.
The Other group believes in angels, resurrection of the body, and an afterlife. They also hold offices within the State and the Temple but are the minority party in terms of actual “office holding.”
Two factions vying for control with Herod, the Romans, and those crazy Zealots (not an adjective here, but an actual Nationalist Jewish group) breathing down their collective necks.
In comes Jesus of Nazareth during the turmoil.
He’s an effective speaker, he’s popular. If he were like John the Baptist living in the desert, he wouldn’t be much of a problem. He’s a loon in the desert.
Instead, he’s here…in the Capital. It doesn’t matter that the vast majority of Jews have never heard of this man - it matters that he’s winning hearts/minds within earshot of the Temple itself.
And the stunt with the Moneychangers in the Temple just causes even more trouble.
It looks rather obvious at this point where this is going to lead.
As a High Priest and Sadducees, there would be an impetus in not only stumping for one’s beliefs but also protecting one’s group interests (which convenient coincide with what one thinks is good for the nation).
In this sense - getting rid of Jesus of Nazareth can be seen as piety, as an act of patriotism, or a self-serving manuever - take your pick.
The preferred course of action would be to do it somehow and avoid the possibility of interference from the broader swath of Pharisees. Why? Because Jesus could have pulled what Saul/Paul of Tarsus did.
Addenum:
Heck - if I were the High Priest, i’d try to avoid having Jesus come to trial at all and “GitMo” (an Amercanism for those who aren’t - stick him in Guantanmo Bay/Military tribunal ie: take an extra-legal recourse to see him convicted) him if possible.
It all seemed quite simple to me once i figured out what the viewpoints of the Sadducees and Pharisees were and their respective roles in society. Mind you of course, i’m thinking about this in political terms with a 21st century mindset so it may not apply at all…
One group doesn’t believe in angels, resurrection of the body, and punishment/reward in the afterlife. It also happens to control the administration of the Temple and parts of the State with respect to the power of Herod. So you have both the civil/political authority and the major form of religious worship under your control.
The Other group believes in angels, resurrection of the body, and an afterlife. They also hold offices within the State and the Temple but are the minority party in terms of actual “office holding.”
Two factions vying for control with Herod, the Romans, and those crazy Zealots (not an adjective here, but an actual Nationalist Jewish group) breathing down their collective necks.
In comes Jesus of Nazareth during the turmoil.
He’s an effective speaker, he’s popular. If he were like John the Baptist living in the desert, he wouldn’t be much of a problem. He’s a loon in the desert.
Instead, he’s here…in the Capital. It doesn’t matter that the vast majority of Jews have never heard of this man - it matters that he’s winning hearts/minds within earshot of the Temple itself.
And the stunt with the Moneychangers in the Temple just causes even more trouble.
It looks rather obvious at this point where this is going to lead.
As a High Priest and Sadducees, there would be an impetus in not only stumping for one’s beliefs but also protecting one’s group interests (which convenient coincide with what one thinks is good for the nation).
In this sense - getting rid of Jesus of Nazareth can be seen as piety, as an act of patriotism, or a self-serving manuever - take your pick.
The preferred course of action would be to do it somehow and avoid the possibility of interference from the broader swath of Pharisees. Why? Because Jesus could have pulled what Saul/Paul of Tarsus did.
I believe the above passage is somewhere in your book of Acts.
Addenum:
Heck - if I were the High Priest, i’d try to avoid having Jesus come to trial at all and “GitMo” (an Amercanism for those who aren’t - stick him in Guantanmo Bay/Military tribunal ie: take an extra-legal recourse to see him convicted) him if possible.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Disinherited,
You demand proof from Chosenpeople regarding past actions of Christians against the Jewish people. You need only look to the Vatican website and see apologies made for acts of the past committed by sons and daughters of the Church:
THE ROOTS OF ANTI-JUDAISM IN THE CHRISTIAN ENVIRONMENT
NOSTRA AETATE: A MILESTONE
Pier Francesco Fumagalli
. . . . .after two thousand years the Church faced with serenity the question of religious relations with the believers of different faiths, and in particular with Judaism, after so much incomprehension and persecutions of the past. . .
. . . . .the Church «reminds of the bond with which the people of the New Testament are spiritually tied to the descendants of Abraham» (Nostra Aetate 4). Then meticulously detailed are the spiritual treasures of the faith of Israel, which constitute the «great spiritual patrimony common to Christians and to Jews» and the latter are «the good olive on which the branches of the savage olive - who are the pagan people - were grafted» (cf. Romans 11, 17-24). . . . .
. . . . . .Finally, two points are repudiated which in the past were the roots of persecution: the accusation that the Jewish people were collectively and forever responsible of the death of Christ (the so-called deicide) and anti-Semitism. . . . .
International Theological Commission
MEMORY AND RECONCILIATION:
THE CHURCH AND THE FAULTS OF THE PAST
December 1999
PRELIMINARY NOTE
. . . . .1.3. John Paul II’s Requests for Forgiveness
Not only did John Paul II renew expressions of regret for the “sorrowful memories” that mark the history of the divisions among Christians, as Paul VI and the Second Vatican Council had done,(18) but he also extended a request for forgiveness to a multitude of historical events in which the Church, or individual groups of Christians, were implicated in different respects.(19) In the Apostolic Letter Tertio millennio adveniente,(20) the Pope expresses the hope that the Jubilee of 2000 might be the occasion for a purification of the memory of the Church from all forms of “counter-witness and scandal” which have occurred in the course of the past millennium.(21)
Link: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html#John%20Paul%20II%E2%80%99s%20Requests%20for%20Forgiveness
APOSTOLIC LETTER
TERTIO MILLENNIO ADVENIENTE
OF HIS HOLINESS
POPE JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS, CLERGY
AND LAY FAITHFUL
ON PREPARATION
FOR THE JUBILEE OF THE YEAR 2000
- . . . .the Church should become more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children, recalling all those times in history when they departed from the spirit of Christ and his Gospel and, instead of offering to the world the witness of a life inspired by the values of faith, indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of counter-witness and scandal.
- Among the sins which require a greater commitment to repentance and conversion should certainly be counted those which have been detrimental to the unity willed by God for his People. In the course of the thousand years now drawing to a close, even more than in the first millennium, ecclesial communion has been painfully wounded, a fact “for which, at times, men of both sides were to blame”.(17) Such wounds openly contradict the will of Christ and are a cause of scandal to the world.(18) These sins of the past unfortunately still burden us and remain ever present temptations. It is necessary to make amends for them, and earnestly to beseech Christ’s forgiveness. . . . .
- Another painful chapter of history to which the sons and daughters of the Church must return with a spirit of repentance is that of the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to** intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of truth**. . . . .Yet the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church from the obligation to express profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and of humble meekness. From these painful moments of the past a lesson can be drawn for the future, leading all Christians to adhere fully to the sublime principle stated by the Council: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power”.(19)
Link: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_10111994_tertio-millennio-adveniente_en.html
Peace,
Anna
S
SempirVeritas
Guest
Okay, yes any racism or persecution is bad…
however,
so far, you have provided proof that the catholic church (and luther) have persecuted the Jews
check.
Now, some of the posters have made more specific claims of persecution.
so, the question remains
Did the church, as official, “nihil obistat” “ex cathedra” dogma- require, encourage, engage in persecution ?
or
did the church only unofficially persecute them- aka “few bad apples within the organization vs bad organization”
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
SempirVeritas,
Would a Pope issue an official apology for unofficial persecution? That really wouldn’t make much sense.
I don’t think you can really make a case for the Church “unofficially” persecuting the Jews, especially in light of the infallible teachings of LUMEN GENTIUM.
(Emphasis is mine)
**DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964 **
“. . . . .This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. . . . .”
Link: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
Peace,
Anna
S
SempirVeritas
Guest
I see people apologize for actions of others, even if those actions are not sanctioned by the person apologized- or the organization.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
SempirVeritas,
What is that supposed to mean?
Of course the Roman Pontiff was apologizing for actions he did not sanction. If the Church did not participate in the persecution of the Jews, there would be no need for the Pope to apologize for past actions of the sons and daughters of the Church.
I would suggest the possibility that your understanding of Catholic dogma is not correct, especially in light of LUMEN GENTIUM, which I posted previously. The religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.
**DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964 **
“. . . . .This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. . . . .”
Link: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
In the spirit of the OP, which asks why Christians are “into Judaism,” I would urge you to read history of the Holocaust from not only the Catholic perspective, but from the Jewish perspective as well. Here is a link to Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html#N_29_. Of course you are free to offer any refutations for the claims in this article. Though this would probably be better served on a new thread.
There is no way to deny Christian persecution of the Jews over much of the last 2000 years. This inescapable tragedy was enough to bring Pope John Paul II to extend a very public apology to the Jewish people for persecutions of the past. I admire him greatly for this and wish more Protestant leaders would follow in his footsteps.
Understanding Judaism is important in understanding Christianity. After all, Christ was a Jewish Rabbi and His Disciples were Jews. Christ fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. God remains faithful to His Covenants both Old and New. The Jews are still God’s chosen people.
Peace,
Anna
V
valentino
Guest
They are just christians trying to know more about their roots.Any student of Catholism has to read and study the OT.It tells where the 10 commandments came from,ect.However to be a Catholic you don’t have to know this history the Church gives us the rules we mustt follow to be a good Catholic.Since those people don’t have a good understanding of the NT they think the OT laws still apply.Everyone interprets scriptures in his or her own way more or less unless you are Catholic.They don’t seeem to understtand or believe that all the issues that they arre concerned with have been talked about ,discussed ,prayed about all down through the centuries and have all already been decided upon.They bring up an issue and since they don’t know how to interpret it they believe its never really beeen discussed before.They don’t understand the Church’s interpretations because they don’t see that the bible has to be read as a total book not just verse by verse.
S
SempirVeritas
Guest
guess your not seeing what i was asking.
Ive read holocaust history from lots of sides…
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
You’re right. I don’t see what you are asking.
You’ve avoided any direct responses to my posts to you.
So, what specifically are you asking?
Anna
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I also am missing the point? I’m not understaing the Holocaust statement?
The CC has no doctine which persecutes the Jews. The basic misunderstanding by large is Christian. JP-II opens up dialogue by Catholics on a friendship basis, as equals. Benedict further defined where the Catholic Church stands in regard to Judaism with his statements during Holy Week. last week.
I believe most of us agree this is right. I can’t say what other Christian denominations will do. Some listen to the Pope, others have no regard for him. This fact does nothing to better serve Christianity or mankind.
Though the Catholic Church has continued to grow, problem is radical Christian thinking opposed to the CC has also sprouted up here and there. Other denominations use this thinking and apply and adopts bits and pieces as their own where they can.
For example the idea that Pope isn’t a valid Pope is an idea which evolved from the Jesuits in the late 70’s early 80’s when they had a issue with JP-II. Or TLM and Vatican I followers. Now that they are back in communion with Rome this theory is taken to yet another extreme by Protestant extreme sects who claim the Pope is the Anti-Christ.
Here you gain perspective how Christianity shoots itself in the foot. No different that with Judaism in ths regard. There is just some extreme thinking with these people which I refuse to buy into to.
No matter how you slice the bread, God has not abandoned Israel, nor have the better thinking Christians done anything but reach out to help them. If the history of Israel indicates nothing else it indicates God is interceeding on the Jews behalf still to date.
Man just hasn’t evolved far enough, especially in the area of non violence and peace and love and respect, to understand much of this as of yet. We are still insistant and killing and enslaving each other in the social/political realm and forcing our beliefs down each others throats.
Here’s the real question, why would anyone listen to Christianity when we can’t agree among ouselves. We look as foolish as the entire US looks in the political realm. Joke of the world we have become.
On can’t help but be concerned for Israel and Christianity. Or worry about the future of our children, grandchildren and theirs.
All interrelated issues, with Judaism, Islam, Catholics/Christians etc. If one is to believe the Kingdom of Jesus Christ must prevail on Earth for their to be world peace? We are failing miserably.
Sorry I’m very tired today
God Bless, Gary
S
SempirVeritas
Guest
go back to page 5, read through some of Chosen ppls claims as to the EXTENT of persecution. chosen ppl makes alot of specific arguments.
Yes the church has apologized for the actions of its members in the past. /agree
There are two types of catholic persecution- there would theoretically be
“what canon law authorizes”
“what some rogue bishop authorizes”
so my question was primarily aimed at chosen. I wanted to know which charge was he making against the church was he saying
“canon law authorized the persecution of the Jews by church members”
OR
“Some rogue bishop got fed up and then authorized (WITHOUT the blessing of canon law) acts of persecution against the Jews”
Now, I could apologize for both of them “Im sorry for the actions of catholics in the past” but IM trying to get more specific “are you sorry for what canon law allowed, or sorry for what a rogue bishop did, or both”
SHould chosen of said “canon law allowed for persection” or “ex cathedra rulings” allowed for persectution- I was asking for a SPECIFIC source- which SPECIFIC article of canon law, or which SPECIFIC papl bull or whatever- authorized it.
Yes the church has apologized for the actions of its members in the past. /agree
There are two types of catholic persecution- there would theoretically be
“what canon law authorizes”
“what some rogue bishop authorizes”
so my question was primarily aimed at chosen. I wanted to know which charge was he making against the church was he saying
“canon law authorized the persecution of the Jews by church members”
OR
“Some rogue bishop got fed up and then authorized (WITHOUT the blessing of canon law) acts of persecution against the Jews”
Now, I could apologize for both of them “Im sorry for the actions of catholics in the past” but IM trying to get more specific “are you sorry for what canon law allowed, or sorry for what a rogue bishop did, or both”
SHould chosen of said “canon law allowed for persection” or “ex cathedra rulings” allowed for persectution- I was asking for a SPECIFIC source- which SPECIFIC article of canon law, or which SPECIFIC papl bull or whatever- authorized it.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
SempirVeritas,
I find your insistence upon such a question to Chosenpeople highly offensive. The fact is that there have been periods of great persecution of the Jews by Christians, from both Catholics and Protestants.
To insist that any Jew produce evidence of Catholic canon law or ex cathedra rulings regarding persecution endured by the Jewish people is absolutely absurd. This kind of thinking only produces more divisions and does nothing to demonstrate the love of Christ.
Did Pope John Paul II ask for such a thing when he apologized to the Jewish people?
Anna
- Status