Tackling taboos on Jews and Christians, the cross and deicide [John Allen]

[Catholic_Press]

[Note: There were two Vatican stories this week with wide implications, and which one strikes people as the bigger deal may say something about their sense of the burning issues facing the church in the early 21st century. In Ireland, a 1997 Vatican letter came to light which is being touted in some quarters as proof of a Vatican-orchestrated cover-up of priestly sexual abuse. In Egypt, the prestigious Al-Azhar University announced it has suspended a long-standing dialogue with the Vatican in protest over recent comments from Pope Benedict XVI requesting greater protection for the country’s Coptic Christian minority. My take on the Vatican letter can be found at Is Vatican letter on abuse a 'smoking gun'? | National Catholic Reporter”]Is Vatican letter on abuse a ‘smoking gun’?, while my news item on the Al-Azhar story is at Major Islamic university in Egypt suspends ties with Vatican.]

---

                                    By NCR Staff

read more

More…

 

[Timothy17]

This isn’t right.

The pre-text - the necessary mentality required before entering all of this - is that God isn’t watching, listening, etc. It doesn’t take much effort of mind to reckon that God quite likely does not approve of this (i.e., an Orthodox Jew defending the Jewish reaction to the Messiah as being intended by God.),

" In a sense that Weiler carefully unpacks, he says “the Jews” did indeed put Jesus to death, and they were doing exactly what the Lord expected."
There are two errors mixed into this little sentence. The first is that “the Jews,” themselves, put Jesus to death - they did not, the Romans did, at their (the Jews) instigation. Second is that they were doing “what the Lord expected,” and again, no, they were unwittingly fulfilling prophecy - a massive difference : the one pitched would have it that the Jews were doing God’s Will when they provoked His death, which is a very Orthodox Jewish opinion (they were not, which is the very contradiction that necessitates, and ultimately justifies, the New and Ever-Lasting Covenant).

The man is rigidly Orthodox Jewish. Please understand that means he cannot possibly favour Christianity, except by - as the article quite accidentally alludes - placing it on the same platform as, for example, “gay rights.” The man is striving for a kind of Babylon A.D 2011. He wants every confusion and contradiction to be at the fore, and seeing as he specializes in the law, that’s not potentially *a little *self-serving.

Pax,
Tim