Rome's Jewish vendors of souvenirs protest against their expulsion from Vatican

[Deusdonat]

How ironic! Last year 13 Austrian bishops were ordered to remove their crosses at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem and yet…they were not vendors!

Much ado about NOTHING.

That’s odd. When I was at the Western wall in 2003 I had a gold cross prominently displayed the entire time (as I did for the duration of my stay in Israel). I was not told to take it off or cover up. On the contrary, I was approached by about 15 women all wanting to fix me up with their daughters. I guess genetics trumps religion in their mindset…

 

[johnstown_johnn]

That’s odd. When I was at the Western wall in 2003 I had a gold cross prominently displayed the entire time (as I did for the duration of my stay in Israel). I was not told to take it off or cover up. On the contrary, I was approached by about 15 women all wanting to fix me up with their daughters. I guess genetics trumps religion in their mindset…

2003? Obviously, the accomodation towards the cross has deteriorated profoundly since. The Austrian bishop event was last year (2007).

The Jewish vendors have not experienced “retaliation” of any sort. Apparantly, many have overstepped the rules and conditions in Vatican Square. They are NOT victims in any way, shape or form.

 

[Digitonomy]

The Jewish vendors have not experienced “retaliation” of any sort. Apparantly, many have overstepped the rules and conditions in Vatican Square. They are NOT victims in any way, shape or form.

I haven’t seen any evidence to support your three claims. Can you fill us in on those details?

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Don’t have to; there is NO victimization. The vendors STILL peddle their wares just a hundred or so feet farther back…that’s all.

You tell us…Is the Vatican being discriminatory?

 

[Digitonomy]

You tell us…Is the Vatican being discriminatory?

Not that I can see. It seems very unlikely, but until we know more we can’t say with certainty.

As for your three claims,

1. The Jewish vendors have not experienced “retaliation” of any sort.

We don’t know that. Maybe some of them were selling offensive wares, and the Vatican retaliated by kicking them out. Maybe one of them had a run-in with a Swiss Guard, and the Vatican retaliated by ejecting the lot of them.

1. Many have overstepped the rules and conditions in Vatican Square.

As far as I can tell, you’re just making this up. We really don’t know. A security assessment may have determined that it would be prudent to eliminate any possibility of a vending cart stuffed with explosives.

1. They are NOT victims in any way, shape or form… The vendors STILL peddle their wares just a hundred or so feet farther back…that’s all.

They may be victims of circumstance. They may be victims of their own conduct. They may be victims of an obsessive bureaucrat that likes a smooth flow of foot traffic. Again, we just don’t know. I haven’t seen anything to substantiate your assertion that vendors are doing just as they always did right outside Vatican City.

It’s well and good to defend the Church from misrepresentation by outsiders, but it’s not wise to overstate your case, especially when there is no misrepresentation that I’ve observed.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

The “overstating” was done by the newspaper story.

The benefit of the doubt goes to the Vatican monitors and NOT newspaper reports.

There is no argument here since the issue is less than moot.

__
Praised be Jesus!

 

[Digitonomy]

The “overstating” was done by the newspaper story.

Again, if you could cite the specific line by the article’s author where he makes an overstatement, that would be helpful.
johnstown johnn:

The benefit of the doubt goes to the Vatican monitors and NOT newspaper reports.

I don’t see where there is any dispute between the newspaper report and Vatican authorities.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Again, if you could cite the specific line by the article’s author where he makes an overstatement, that would be helpful.I don’t see where there is any dispute between the newspaper report and Vatican authorities.

Basically, the item never should have been published in the first place…it had no merit.

You will get no argument from yours truly…there is NOTHING to debate…it was a non-issue from Day 1.

__
Praise to You Lord Jesus!

 

[Digitonomy]

Basically, the item never should have been published in the first place…it had no merit.

I for one found it an interesting window into the history of street vendors in Rome and the Vatican, and into a small section of the Roman Jewish population. Perhaps the editor of the European Jewish Press felt likewise.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I for one found it an interesting window into the history of street vendors in Rome and the Vatican, and into a small section of the Roman Jewish population. Perhaps the editor of the European Jewish Press felt likewise.

As they say, “To each his own.”

 

[OriginalJS]

This souvenir selling is a joke. Years ago near the Vatican my mother-in-law bought a rather expensive crucifix from a vendor who said he would take it to be blessed by the Pope and that she could pick it up that afternoon. She knew the Pope was not in Rome at the time but went along with the ruse.

This is unlike the cleansing of the temple where worshippers were buying animals to be offered as sacrifices and money changers were necessary to facilitate the exchanges. To me this would be like selling holy water in St. Peters.

 

[Valke2]

I do not know if this applies, but Jesus chasing out the traders from the temple comes to mind.

I thought he chased out money changers. Am I wrong or are you just changing the language a bit to make it seem applicable to this situation?

 

[Valke2]

Poor, poor downtrodden vendors must move a couple of hundred feet so they can’t pester pilgrims!

That typical anti-semitic attitude by catholics!

No. Typical anti-semetic behavior might be taking an article that discusses a change in relationship between jewish vendors and the Vatican after 500 years, and after about 5 minutes of discussion, start mocking Jews for their actions.

 

[jimmy]

I thought he chased out money changers. Am I wrong or are you just changing the language a bit to make it seem applicable to this situation?

I think it is the same idea. I think Jesus was chasing out people who were selling things in the temple. I think that would be the same thing as in this situation. If I am wrong about this hopefully someone will correct me.

 

[Valke2]

I think it is the same idea. I think Jesus was chasing out people who were selling things in the temple. I think that would be the same thing as in this situation. If I am wrong about this hopefully someone will correct me.

Money changers were not selling anything. People from all over would come to the Temple, and they would need to buy sacrifices. They would take their coins and go to the money changer to exchange it for the currency of Jerusalem. I believe this was the case.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Money changers were not selling anything. People from all over would come to the Temple, and they would need to buy sacrifices. They would take their coins and go to the money changer to exchange it for the currency of Jerusalem. I believe this was the case.

It was not just money changers Valke it was vendors that sold various live sacrificial creatures such as doves and lambs near at hand.

The money changing by itself was usurious from Roman coinage to Temple coins. The faithful were fleeced in the monetary exchange and therefore corruption was positioned near the entrance to the Holy of Holies.

Jesus said, “My Father’s House is a House of prayer and you have made it into a den of thieves…”

The exchange was NOT from Roman to a Jerusalem currency but rather a Roman-to-the-TEMPLE currency.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I have a strong sense that their expulsion from the Vatican perimeters have NOTHING to do with they being Jewish.

Maybe, just maybe, the Vatican doesn’t care Who they do or do not pray to… they just don’t want junk being sold in Saint Peter’s Square!

 

[Valke2]

It was not just money changers Valke it was vendors that sold various live sacrificial creatures such as doves and lambs near at hand.

The money changing by itself was usurious from Roman coinage to Temple coins. The faithful were fleeced in the monetary exchange and therefore corruption was positioned near the entrance to the Holy of Holies.

Jesus said, “My Father’s House is a House of prayer and you have made it into a den of thieves…”

The exchange was NOT from Roman to a Jerusalem currency but rather a Roman-to-the-TEMPLE currency.

WHy would Jesus be upset about the selling of sacrifical animals? This was a practice that he must have grown up with and it was a necessary practice. I didn’t know there was Temple currency. I just assumed it was the local coin that was being exchanged for.

 

[RomanCrusader]

Like all non-Catholic religions, Judaism is false and not of God. Thus its products should never be sold in the Holy Realm of Vatican City.

 

[Digitonomy]

Like all non-Catholic religions, Judaism is false and not of God. Thus its products should never be sold in the Holy Realm of Vatican City.

Leaving aside your statement contrary to Catholic teaching, I suspect little if any of the goods sold were “Judaism’s products,” but rather Catholic products that happened to be sold by Jews.