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

[johnstown_johnn]

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.

**You left out usury in the money exchanges (very germane). And YES there was a Temple coinage with which to purchase sacrificial creatures for the removal of past sins. As for the sacrificial animals they not only were overpriced (a monopoly at the Temple) they were NOT free of disqualifying blemishes in many sales. It was a general corruption of moneychanging and live purchases for burnt offerings. Once again…A Temple coinage/currency was mandatory. General currency was looked upon as secular (unclean). **

 

[RomanCrusader]

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.

My statement may be contrary to cushy pc “Catholicism”, but not real Catholicism.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

The perimeters set for vendors on Vatican property is the right of the Vatican.

Not too long ago (2007) 13 Austrian bishops were forbidden to visit the Wailing Wall closeup unless they either hid their crosses or took them off so they were not visible. This was the “authority” of the Israeli controllers. Yet, the bishops were NOT selling anything; were NOT going through a Catholic ritual nor were they proselytizing.

Isn’t this far more demeaning than moving vendors a hundred feet or so out of the traffic of pilgrims at Vatican Square?

ALL the vendors were moved…no exceptions.

 

[Valke2]

The perimeters set for vendors on Vatican property is the right of the Vatican.

Not too long ago (2007) 13 Austrian bishops were forbidden to visit the Wailing Wall closeup unless they either hid their crosses or took them off so they were not visible. This was the “authority” of the Israeli controllers. Yet, the bishops were NOT selling anything; were NOT going through a Catholic ritual nor were they proselytizing.

Isn’t this far more demeaning than moving vendors a hundred feet or so out of the traffic of pilgrims at Vatican Square?

ALL the vendors were moved…no exceptions.

I disagreed with what happened with the Bishops. That was wrong and not really germane to this thread. The small, and I emphasize small, protest that was made by a few of the Jewish vendors was based on: 1) their belief that there has been in existence for 500 years an oral contract permitting them to sell their wares; 2) the fact that this is essentially the number one trade for the jewish community in Rome and anything that adversely impacts this trade can have significanct negative effects on the community.

 

[RomanCrusader]

Figures my post gets deleted.

 

[iamrefreshed]

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.

The fact that they are Jewish has no bearing. The one non-Jew had to move as well.

I mock no one and I’m certainly not anti-semetic. In fact, as a catholic, I consider myself part Jewish.

BTW, this is an icon for sarcasm.

 

[Digitonomy]

The fact that they are Jewish has no bearing. The one non-Jew had to move as well.

Do you have another source that suggests the one non-Jewish vendor in Rome was working at the Vatican? Otherwise I’m skeptical the non-Jew is involved in the story at all.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Do you have another source that suggests the one non-Jewish vendor in Rome was working at the Vatican? Otherwise I’m skeptical the non-Jew is involved in the story at all.

Then be skeptical.

 

[Dale_M]

the article:

A week ago however, the Vatican City governor, Cardinal Giovanni Lajolo, banned all traders from the Baroque Bernini columnade, upsetting the Jewish sellers who claim to have been licensed by a Pope many hundreds of years before.

Yes, it is fairly vague since we don’t know how much warning was given to the traders. A year’s warning would have been nice, a few months notice would seem minimal, but we don’t know from the article how much in advance the traders were warned (if at all).

My first thought is that it was a bureaucratic policy tactlessly enacted. But there doesn’t seem to be a way of knowing.

 

[RomanCrusader]

I wonder what would happen if Catholic priests set up shop right by Israel’s wailing wall and tried to sell all sorts of trinkets. I daresay the Jews wouldn’t be thrilled…

 

[johnstown_johnn]

The small, and I emphasize small, protest that was made by a few of the Jewish vendors was based on:

1. their belief that there has been in existence for 500 years an oral contract permitting them to sell their wares;

** " …500 years an oral contract…

Valke, how high does this “ORAL CONTACT” fly? **

1. the fact that this is essentially the number one trade for the
   jewish community in Rome and anything that adversely impacts this trade can have significanct negative effects on the community.

**"…number one trade for the jewish community in Rome…" You’re not serious, right? The Jewish community in Rome has been in place during the time of Julius Caesar. The performing arts and fimmaking is basically a Jewish hegemony; as is the diamond and precious metals outlets. There are several well-known and popular Jewish restaurants in Rome…some go back hundreds of years.

So, how does the movement of a hundred feet farther away have such a “significant” negative effect on the community? Just a little hyperbole…right Valke? **