St John Capistrano - Anti-Semitic & inciting murder ?

[Petergee]

Traditional Catholic anti-Jewish attitudes, prior to Vatican II, may be defined in three separate categories, although their anti-Jewish expression was often overlapping. Reflections of these anti-Jewish attitudes were found not only in various Catholic Church edicts against Jews but also in many cases in the writings and teachings of Catholics who became Saints.

The three categories are:

a) God rewards those who believe in Him and follow Him. The Jews rejected God and committed Deicide. For this they are cursed by God, forced to wander the world like Cain, and God causes them to suffer.

The Catholic Church has always taught, and still teaches, that all men are guilty of deicide and suffer because of their sins. No “anti-semitism” here.

b) Jews and Judaism are a malignant and negative influence on Christians and Christianity.

Exactly the same as the Church has always taught and still teaches about** all **non-Christians, indeed all non-Catholics.

c) Jews remain Jews through blindness and flaws in their character. They can only find salvation and get to the world to come if they become Christians.

Exactly the same as the Church has always taught and still teaches about** all **non-Christians, indeed all non-Catholics.

The above three traditional Catholic attitudes formed the basis for much of the Catholic Church interaction with the Jews up until the 20th Century, and were the motivation for the acts of persecutions against the Jews by the Catholic Church.

You mean “by secular states”

Catholic Church laws

You mean “laws of secular States in which the majority of citizens were Catholics” but hey why should the facts interfere with your ignorant bigoted rant?

ordered Jews to wear special clothing marking them as Jews and ordered them to live in ghettos.

Jewish laws ordered Jews to wear special clothing and live in ghettos.

Jews were forbidden any and all social interaction with Catholics, be it at school, at work or in any social setting.

Jewish laws forbade most Jewish interactions with non-Jews. Secular and Christian laws forbade Christians from most interactions with any non-Christian, indeed any non-Catholic.

Jews were routinely murdered after being accused of killing Christian children to use their blood in their rituals, of desecrating the Eucharist, of poisoning wells and causing plague. Jews were routinely expelled from their homes, their property confiscated.

“Routinely” balderdash. Occasionally and illegally, and the offenders whhen caught were very harshly punished by Christian and secualr authorities and compensation/restitution to the Jewish victims was ordered.

Long before the third Reich, Jewish religious books were ordered burned by the Church.

If there ever was such an incident, it would be because the book taught that Catholicism is false, not because it happened to have been written by or belong to Jews.

Long before the Chinese cultural revolution Jews were seized from their homes, forced converted, forced to attend classes indoctrinating them in Catholicism… little Edgardo Mortara was forcibly removed and forcibly converted.

The Catholic Church has always taught that a forced conversion is invalid and must not be attempted.

Anti-Zionist attitudes by Traditional Catholics are often based on these perceptions of Jews. If Jews are rejected by God and meant to wander as a curse for killing Jesus, then it should not follow that God would lead them to be gathered triumphantly in Israel.

Catholics (and any sensible person) are not required to believe that anything that happens in history must be supported because God made it happen. Do you think that God led Mao zedong and his Marxist followers to gather triuphantly and conquer the world’s greatest nation and rule it for the past 60 years and so we are required to support the Chinese Marcxist government?

Likewise, Jews cannot be trusted to protect Christian interests in the Holy Land since they are undermining force.

The continued discrimination against Catholics in the Holy Land shows the truth of this.

Since Vatican II and the continuing dialog between the Church and Jewish groups, there has been a real change in such attitudes, both from a formal and from an informal point of view. The Church has condemned anti-Semitism,

as it always has

often shown itself to be sensitive to Jewish feelings and has established diplomatic relations with the State of Israel.

Sadly this extremely generous gesture on the part of the Vatican has been thrown back in its face by the disgraceful treatment of Christians in Israel. And please don’t give us the feeble (non-)excuse, “but the Moslems in neighbouring countries treat Christians even worse.”

 

[Shin]

Technically Catholics aren’t **required ** to pray to saints or recite litanies or possibly even to believe that they intercede.

All the above very good except this bit.

Prayers to the saints are part of the mass, the Church calendar contains feast day after feast day in honor of and venerating the saints, and yes you must believe in their intercession…

When a saint is canonized, the heroic virtues of the saint are proclaimed for our model, and we are required to honor those virtues and that person with the entire Church, whatever flaws that person might have – that person is in Heaven, and an exemplary model for us as Christians overall.

Litanies are part of the the divine liturgy.

 

[JonNC]

You seem to have misunderstood me. My point is that Luther, not just in a single “rant late in life” but in numerous and obviously well premeditated wriitings over a period of decades, urged his fellow Christians to kill Jews just because they were Jews. I am not aware of any Catholic who held any position of authority ever writing such a thing, which goes far beyond anti-Judaism (arguing that doctrines of Judaism are wrong) to anti-semitism (killing people just because they believe the doctrines of Judaism).

Over a period of decades? Perhaps a citation is appropriate here. Lutherans do not defend Luther’s anti-jewish sentiments and in fact condemn them, but your position requires citation, as that is not my understanding of the facts of history.

“When we are inclined to boast of our position we should remember that we are but Gentiles, while the Jews are of the lineage of Christ. We are aliens and in-laws; they are blood relatives, cousins, and brothers of our Lord. Therefore, if one is to boast of flesh and blood, the Jews are actually nearer to Christ than we are, as St. Paul says in Romans 9. God has also demonstrated this by his acts, for to no nation among the Gentiles has he granted so high an honor as he has to the Jews. For from among the Gentiles there have been raised up no patriarchs, no apostles, no prophets, indeed, very few genuine Christians either. And although the gospel has been proclaimed to all the world, yet He committed the Holy Scriptures, that is, the law and the prophets, to no nation except the Jews, as Paul says in Romans 3 and Psalm 147 , “He declares his word to Jacob, his statutes and ordinances to Israel. He has not dealt thus with any other nation; nor revealed his ordinances to them.
Luther

tquid.sharpens.org/luther_Jews.htm#b7

I have provided here a link, where James Swan provides quotes and references. I look forward to seeing yours.

Jon

 

[1234]

Kaninchen, who is E. MIchael Jones or whatever his name is?

The key to this historical testimony is in the following excerpt:

In May Capistrano returned to Breslau. On June 14th, the bishop, fearing innocent Jews might be implicated, asked Capistrano to investigate. Graetz’s attitude is indicated by his use of the term “fairy tale.” His sarcasm bespeaks an attempt to cover over sensational revelations that emerged during the trial but are unmentioned in his account. During the trial, a baptized Jewess, the wife of a citizen of Breslau, accused her father of engaging in a similar ritual 16 years earlier. **That Jew had bought consecrated hosts from a woman and had then taken them to a cellar in Lowenberg, where he tried to burn them. Three times he threw the hosts into the fire and three times they leaped out again, **until an old Jewess who had come to witness the desecration exclaimed that, having witnessed this miracle, she now believed in the God of the Christians. The Jews flew into a rage and murdered her on the spot. They then burned her body and buried it in the same place. The Jews then took the host, placed it on a small table, and cut it into four parts, causing it to bleed so profusely that neither table nor knife could be washed clean, so both had to be thrown into a nearby stream. The same woman also testified that a child had been murdered for ritual purposes in the cellar.

Hosts, consecrated or not, don’t leap out of he fire or bleed when cut.

The accusations of ritual slaughter and desecration of hosts are commonplace in this sort of literature. Once again, as Jews don’t believe that a host changes with any consecration of any type, but just remains what it is, there is no reason to desecrate it. They might as well have been cutting up saltines. Only people who believed magic about hosts-that they bleed, for example–would accuse the Jews of this sort of ‘desecration’.

Catholics have more at stake in defending Capistrano or or other saints or events in their past. Jews don’t have a stake in this. They were persecuted undeniably and they report their story as they understood it to happen. You can believe it or not. Their religion does not depend on their persecutors or their own defense. Jews don’t have saints. There is no one that they feel obliged to defend.

 

[chosen_people]

The Catholic Church has always taught, and still teaches, that all men are guilty of deicide and suffer because of their sins. No “anti-semitism” here. Exactly the same as the Church has always taught and still teaches about** all non-Christians, indeed all non-Catholics. Exactly the same as the Church has always taught and still teaches about all **non-Christians, indeed all non-Catholics. You mean “by secular states” You mean “laws of secular States in which the majority of citizens were Catholics” but hey why should the facts interfere with your ignorant bigoted rant? Jewish laws ordered Jews to wear special clothing and live in ghettos. Jewish laws forbade most Jewish interactions with non-Jews. Secular and Christian laws forbade Christians from most interactions with any non-Christian, indeed any non-Catholic. “Routinely” balderdash. Occasionally and illegally, and the offenders whhen caught were very harshly punished by Christian and secualr authorities and compensation/restitution to the Jewish victims was ordered. If there ever was such an incident, it would be because the book taught that Catholicism is false, not because it happened to have been written by or belong to Jews.The Catholic Church has always taught that a forced conversion is invalid and must not be attempted.

Catholics (and any sensible person) are not required to believe that anything that happens in history must be supported because God made it happen. Do you think that God led Mao zedong and his Marxist followers to gather triuphantly and conquer the world’s greatest nation and rule it for the past 60 years and so we are required to support the Chinese Marcxist government? The continued discrimination against Catholics in the Holy Land shows the truth of this.
as it always has Sadly this extremely generous gesture on the part of the Vatican has been thrown back in its face by the disgraceful treatment of Christians in Israel. And please don’t give us the feeble (non-)excuse, “but the Moslems in neighbouring countries treat Christians even worse.”

Papal temporal power only ended on September 20th,1870 after being in effect for some one thousand years. I’m sure your local library or local University can guide you as to the history of the Papal States and their laws and treatment concerning Jews. It should also be remembered that the development of separation of Church and State is a relatively recent development.

Space prevents me from listing all the various anti-Jewish Catholic edicts and decrees. A good place to start is with the following Papal Bulls : Innocent III 1205 Etsi non displiceat; Honorius III 1218 In generali concilio;Paul IV 1555 Cum nimis absurdam; Pius V 1569 Habraeorum gens; Gregory XIII 1584 Sancta mater ecclesia (this of course is just a few examples and deals only with Papal Bulls).

I read with interest your justification for the burning of the Talmud. Notwithstanding the absence of most of the passages that anti-Semitic tracts have claimed are in the Talmud- may the same justification be used for burning other religions scriptures - for example if they paint Jews in an unflattering light? (the question is academic as such an act is forbidden under Israeli law).

I also noted your claim that Jews were not forced converted and crimes against Jews were severely punished and the victims compensated. Here are a few instances where this was not the case:
simpletoremember.com/articles/a/HistoryJewishPersecution/

I believe if you study the changes made in Vatican II you will discover that some of these changes dealt with attitudes toward Jews including the charge of Deicide.

As someone who did five reserve tours in Southern Lebanon giving physical protection and medical services to Christians who were being decimated by Arafat and the PLO during the first Israel-Lebanon war I am well aware of the persecution of Christians in the Middle East. In cases brought before me involving Islamic fundamentalists in groups like Al Quieda and the Moslem Brotherhood, it has also arisen how they terrorize and persecute Christians in Nazareth and villages with significant Christian populations. I am of course also well versed in Israeli laws which promise full religious freedom of worship and protection for members of the Christian religion and indeed of all religions. In my present capacity I have done my up most to implement those laws. While there have been discussions with the Catholic Church as to taxation and control of religious places holy to Catholics- your statement as to the “continued discrimination against Catholics” and the “disgraceful discrimination against Christians” in Israel is, as you put it, a “bigoted ignorant rant”.

 

[Kaninchen]

Kaninchen, who is E. MIchael Jones or whatever his name is?

A Catholic ‘thinker’ who believes Jews are very, very naughty and that Judaism is an evil religion - very popular with they guys at ‘StormFront’ and similar ‘Jews are not just very, very, very naughty but far more naughty than you could possibly imagine if you tried ever so, ever so hard’ organizations.

Rather like Catholic posters faced with somebody quoting favourably from a writer who thinks that Catholicism is part of a Satanic New World Order plot, one can either laugh or, well, laugh really because there’s nothing to be said to people who hold such views.

 

[Shin]

Hosts, consecrated or not, don’t leap out of he fire or bleed when cut.

The accusations of ritual slaughter and desecration of hosts are commonplace in this sort of literature. Once again, as Jews don’t believe that a host changes with any consecration of any type, but just remains what it is, there is no reason to desecrate it.

There are many impeccable witnesses to miracles of the above kind.

On the contrary, Jews who have something against Christians, just like anyone who has something against Christians, know to go after what those Christians value the most. As the Jews see worship of the Host as idolotry, they may consider it desecration of an idol.

Considering how casual your approach is to speaking about the Eucharist, you’re not helping your position.

You talk about anti-Jewish decrees, and your position obviously is, that everytime a decree took away power from the Jews in a particular country they did nothing to deserve this, and were innocent victims of irrational hatred no?

But history tells a different story. There are two sides to every perspective, and I feel that I know very well you are not open to even looking at the matter from more than a single one.

 

[1234]

There are many impeccable witnesses to miracles of the above kind.

On the contrary, Jews who have something against Christians, just like anyone who has something against Christians, know to go after what those Christians value the most. As the Jews see worship of the Host as idolotry, they may consider it desecration of an idol.

Considering how casual your approach is to speaking about the Eucharist, you’re not helping your position.

You talk about anti-Jewish decrees, and your position obviously is, that everytime a decree took away power from the Jews in a particular country they did nothing to deserve this, and were innocent victims of irrational hatred no?

But history tells a different story. There are two sides to every perspective, and I feel that I know very well you are not open to even looking at the matter from more than a single one.

Sources, please for those “impeccable witnesses”.

Bear in mind that there are very few recent accounts of Jewish riual slaughter, desecrating the host bleeding hosts, jumping hosts, etc. Most of t hese events happened in the 18th century and earlier in Germany, Poland and other countries in eastern Europe that are deeply anti-Semitic.

 

[chosen_people]

There are many impeccable witnesses to miracles of the above kind.

On the contrary, Jews who have something against Christians, just like anyone who has something against Christians, know to go after what those Christians value the most. As the Jews see worship of the Host as idolotry, they may consider it desecration of an idol.

Considering how casual your approach is to speaking about the Eucharist, you’re not helping your position.

You talk about anti-Jewish decrees, and your position obviously is, that everytime a decree took away power from the Jews in a particular country they did nothing to deserve this, and were innocent victims of irrational hatred no?

But history tells a different story. There are two sides to every perspective, and I feel that I know very well you are not open to even looking at the matter from more than a single one.

Please explain whether any or all of the following acts were justified and why:
religioustolerance.org/jud_pers1.htm
religioustolerance.org/jud_pers1.htm
religioustolerance.org/jud_pers1.htm
religioustolerance.org/jud_pers2.htm
religioustolerance.org/jud_blib.htm

 

[Petergee]

Papal temporal power only ended on September 20th,1870 after being in effect for some one thousand years.

Papal temporal power continues to this day. Though the relevance of this to the subject escapes me.

I’m sure your local library or local University can guide you as to the history of the Papal States and their laws and treatment concerning Jews.

Your point seems to be “because a secular state ruled by popes passed laws discriminating against non-Catholics including Jews who practised Judaism, therefore Catholicism taught anti-semitism”. A total non-sequitur for several reasons which should be clear even to you just by saying it.

It should also be remembered that the development of separation of Church and State is a relatively recent development.

Well yes, 2000 years ago is pretty recent in the scheme of things. Religious authority was always identical to State authority until the first pope followed Christ’s command to separate God from Caesar. A principle the Catholic Church has always stoutly upheld despite often violent opposition by secular and non-Catholic forces.

Space prevents me from listing all the various anti-Jewish Catholic edicts and decrees. A good place to start is with the following Papal Bulls : Innocent III 1205 Etsi non displiceat; Honorius III 1218 In generali concilio;Paul IV 1555 Cum nimis absurdam; Pius V 1569 Habraeorum gens; Gregory XIII 1584 Sancta mater ecclesia (this of course is just a few examples and deals only with Papal Bulls).

I’ll say it one more time: Anti-Judaism is not anti-semitism.

I read with interest your justification for the burning of the Talmud. Notwithstanding the absence of most of the passages that anti-Semitic tracts have claimed are in the Talmud-

I never claimed any such thing and I certainly never quoted any anti semitic tracts.

may the same justification be used for burning other religions scriptures - for example if they paint Jews in an unflattering light? (the question is academic as such an act is forbidden under Israeli law).

I see. You reject my argument that the Catholic Church is not responsible for what secular majority-Christian states do, but in the same breath you claim that because a secular majority-Jewish state which didn’t exist until 60 years ago has a law against burning non-Jewish holy books, then no Jew in the past 4000 years can have ever done such a thing. The hypocrisy just reeks.

I also noted your claim that Jews were not forced converted and crimes against Jews were severely punished and the victims compensated.

I note again your habit of lying about hwat I said to create a straw man. I did not say that no Jew was ever forcibly converted. I said that if he were it would have been contrary to Church law and invalid.

I believe if you study the changes made in Vatican II you will discover that some of these changes dealt with attitudes toward Jews including the charge of Deicide.

I believe if you study Catholic doctrine you will see that the Church has never charged Jews alone with deicide.

As someone who did five reserve tours in Southern Lebanon giving physical protection and medical services to Christians who were being decimated by Arafat and the PLO … blah blah blah …“bigoted ignorant rant”.

Yep just as I asked you not to, the only excuse you can come up with is “The Moslems treat you even worse so don’t complain how we treat you”.