The anguish of the jews

[DavidFilmer]

Your response outright stated that the Jews claimed blame for the death of Jesus.

OK, maybe I should have said that early Christians believed the Jews took responsibility (which is undeniable, and which I think was implied in context).

And I’m not sure if even THAT matters. Jesus would not have been executed apart from the Jewish leaders. That alone would be enough to peeve off later Christians, so the situation may have been the same even if Matthew had not written the passage in question. But we’ll never know.

 

[angell1]

Again, you’re gonna have to cite something if you want us to respond. That means a Pope AND a document (or, really, just a document - we can work out the Pope by knowing that alone).

Not everything a Pope does is doctrinal. We would need to know specifics in order to comment.

hmm, well, it doesn’t really seem to say.

but based on what you have studied about the subject, what would you consider doctrinal? and what conclusions can we draw from the whole issue, in your opinion?

I definitely see how they got to the point they did, but I don’t think it had to come to that. and I think that was the type of revenge Jesus was condemning

 

[DavidFilmer]

but based on what you have studied about the subject, what would you consider doctrinal?

Popes teach infallibly

…when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, (the Bishop of Rome) defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church. [Vatican-1. First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 4, 9]

But not all Catholic doctrine has been defined infallibly (in fact, most has not). Popes can promulgate doctrine without going as far as an ex Cathedra teaching.

But, if a Pope specifically addressed something to only one group of Catholics (such as a city) without making it clear that it was also intended for the whole Church, then no theologian would regard this as a statement of doctrine. Doctrine must apply to all Catholics. There is no such thing as Catholic doctrine which applies in one place but not in another.

That is why I’ve asked you to cite something. Taking the statement in context will reveal whether the Pope intended to teach to the entire Church.

An Ecumenical Council also promulgates doctrine (as well as law - law can change, but doctrine cannot). By its very nature, an Ecumenical Council intends to teach to all Catholics. There are MANY regional Councils, which do not promulgate Catholic doctrine.

If you can’t cite something, can you at least quote something? Or at least, specifically describe something?

 

[angell1]

Popes teach infallibly

But not all Catholic doctrine has been defined infallibly (in fact, most has not). Popes can promulgate doctrine without going as far as an ex Cathedra teaching.

But, if a Pope specifically addressed something to only one group of Catholics (such as a city) without making it clear that it was also intended for the whole Church, then no theologian would regard this as a statement of doctrine. Doctrine must apply to all Catholics. There is no such thing as Catholic doctrine which applies in one place but not in another.

That is why I’ve asked you to cite something. Taking the statement in context will reveal whether the Pope intended to teach to the entire Church.

An Ecumenical Council also promulgates doctrine (as well as law - law can change, but doctrine cannot). By its very nature, an Ecumenical Council intends to teach to all Catholics. There are MANY regional Councils, which do not promulgate Catholic doctrine.

If you can’t cite something, can you at least quote something? Or at least, specifically describe something?

well I can’t seem to reaccess the book at the moment, but it seems like many popes wrote letters to bishops giving instructions on how to deal with the jews. what i’m not sure about, and the book doesn’t really say is if it was meant for all bishops. it could be that it was for certain situations. and the bishops may also have misunderstood or implemented it the wrong way.

how can we say the church doesn’t err then if there is falible doctrine?

 

[DavidFilmer]

how can we say the church doesn’t err then if there is falible doctrine?

Again, I say that there is no such thing as a doctrine of the Church (regardless of infallible status) which is not proclaimed for the whole Church. And all doctrine (regardless of status) must teach about faith and morals.

If a Pope instructs the Bishop of Gotham to torture and execute all the Jews in his Diocese, this is not doctrine, for (at least) two reasons.

First, because it applies only to the Bishop of Gotham then it cannot be doctrine, unless the Pope further added, “and all Bishops around the world ought to do the same.”

Second, it is not a teaching about faith or morals. An immoral action or instruction is not the same as an immoral teaching. Unless the Pope appended his instructions with something like, “you can do this because it is morally OK to kill Jews” then it is not doctrine.

Jesus taught that our religious leaders may fall short of their own teaching, but we are to accept their authority regardless of their hypocrisy:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit on the Chair of Moses [we would say the Chair of Peter]. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. **But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. **[Matt 23:1-3]

This passage, BTW, is where the common phrase originates: You should practice what you preach. But failure to do so does not mitigate the teaching authority of the Church (either Jewish or Christian). Church leaders hold valid authority, recognized by Jesus, even if they are personally sinful.

 

[angell1]

Again, I say that there is no such thing as a doctrine of the Church (regardless of infallible status) which is not proclaimed for the whole Church. And all doctrine (regardless of status) must teach about faith and morals.

If a Pope instructs the Bishop of Gotham to torture and execute all the Jews in his Diocese, this is not doctrine, for (at least) two reasons.

First, because it applies only to the Bishop of Gotham then it cannot be doctrine, unless the Pope further added, “and all Bishops around the world ought to do the same.”

Second, it is not a teaching about faith or morals. An immoral action or instruction is not the same as an immoral teaching. Unless the Pope appended his instructions with something like, “you can do this because it is morally OK to kill Jews” then it is not doctrine.

Jesus taught that our religious leaders may fall short of their own teaching, but we are to accept their authority regardless of their hypocrisy:

This passage, BTW, is where the common phrase originates: You should practice what you preach. But failure to do so does not mitigate the teaching authority of the Church (either Jewish or Christian). Church leaders hold valid authority, recognized by Jesus, even if they are personally sinful.

ok, sorry for the silght delay, managed to dig up some stuff.

The evidence of Christians is to be accepted against Jews in every case, since Jews employ their own witnesses against Christians, and that those who prefer Jews to Christians in this matter are to lie under anathema, since Jews ought to be subject to Christians and to be supported by them on grounds of humanity alone.

1179 A.D., Third Lateran Council

Jews shall be compelled to make satisfaction to churches for tithes and offerings due to the churches, which the churches were accustomed to receive from Christians for houses and other possessions, before they passed by whatever title to the Jews.

A difference of dress distinguishes Jews or Saracens [Muslims] from Christians in some provinces, but in others a certain confusion has developed so that they are indistinguishable. Whence it sometimes happens that by mistake Christians join with Jewish or Saracen women, and Jews or Saracens with christian women. In order that the offence of such a damnable mixing may not spread further, under the excuse of a mistake of this kind, we decree that such persons of either sex, in every christian province and at all times, are to be distinguished in public from other people by the character of their dress.

They [Jews and Saracens] shall not appear in public at all on the days of lamentation and on passion Sunday.

It would be too absurd for a blasphemer of Christ to exercise power over Christians. We therefore renew in this canon, on account of the boldness of the offenders, what the council of Toledo providently decreed in this matter: we forbid Jews to be appointed to public offices, since under cover of them they are very hostile to Christians.

1215 A.D., Fourth Lateran Council

We command both diocesan bishops and secular powers to prohibit in every way Jews and other infidels from having Christians, male or female, in their households and service, or as nurses of their children; and Christians from joining with them in festivities, marriages, banquets or baths, or in much conversation, and from taking them as doctors or agents of marriages or officially appointed mediators of other contracts. They should not be given other public offices, or admitted to any academic degrees, or allowed to have on lease lands or other ecclesiastical rents. They are to be forbidden to buy ecclesiastical books, chalices, crosses and other ornaments of churches.

They are to be compelled, under severe penalties, to wear some garment whereby they can be clearly distinguished from Christians. In order to prevent too much intercourse, they should be made to dwell in areas, in the cities and towns, which are apart from the dwellings of Christians and as far distant as possible from churches. On Sundays and other solemn festivals they should not dare to have their shops open or to work in public.

1431-45 A.D., Council of Basel

sounds pretty universal and authoritative to me. and seems like there was definitely a moral component because jews were thought to be inferior and deserving of subjection and slavery for their betrayal of Christ.

 

[CarmelJerome]

As a consequence of the devil - driven paganism of Naziism, the Church was, in the decade leading up to WWII and in the decades since, attempting to understand both the common patrimony and also the sources of antagonism and injustice towards Jews. The book referred to was published at the outset of a period in which blaming the Church, or even non-affiliated Christian beliefs, became much easier than sorting through thorny historical realities. The tendency at the time was to regard the whole Jewish community through history through the lens of the Holocaust, a crime perpetrated by a regime in which servitude to Christ was incompatible with service to the New Order, which was racial, statist and pagan. Also, the people at the time had no historical memory of just how precarious and new a thing Christian society was or how many practices post - Templar Judaism came to share with the pagan society. For many reasons we have in our minds a picture of a powerful wealthy Church tormenting a small and harmless minority for the sake of vengeance; the majority of Christians in history would have seen, by contrast, a people practicing various types of divination and even sorcery while saying that the Savior of the world and His blessed Mother were really a bast are and a prostitute who deceived people and we’re now in Hell on boiling excrement. Moreover they would have been very aware, for centuries, of the looming wealth and power of Islamic nations, every ready to use mutual hostility to Christian people’s for advantage.
Nor were pees and princes in Christendom always responsive to Church instruction one way or the other; popes might urge stricter or more lenient measures towards Jewish populations and be opposed in one direction or the other; the people might be more inflamed, or, on the contrary, themselves be more interested in compromising faith for the sake of political or social advantage.
The anti-Semitism of the present has much more to do with 19th and 20th century forms of nationalism & empire than any of the ancient antecedents in Church history - something which is inconvenient for people who are too eager to repent for sins they did not commit or for people who need to see the epitome of evil in the Church.

 

[angell1]

As a consequence of the devil - driven paganism of Naziism, the Church was, in the decade leading up to WWII and in the decades since, attempting to understand both the common patrimony and also the sources of antagonism and injustice towards Jews. The book referred to was published at the outset of a period in which blaming the Church, or even non-affiliated Christian beliefs, became much easier than sorting through thorny historical realities. The tendency at the time was to regard the whole Jewish community through history through the lens of the Holocaust, a crime perpetrated by a regime in which servitude to Christ was incompatible with service to the New Order, which was racial, statist and pagan. Also, the people at the time had no historical memory of just how precarious and new a thing Christian society was or how many practices post - Templar Judaism came to share with the pagan society. For many reasons we have in our minds a picture of a powerful wealthy Church tormenting a small and harmless minority for the sake of vengeance; the majority of Christians in history would have seen, by contrast, a people practicing various types of divination and even sorcery while saying that the Savior of the world and His blessed Mother were really a bast are and a prostitute who deceived people and we’re now in Hell on boiling excrement. Moreover they would have been very aware, for centuries, of the looming wealth and power of Islamic nations, every ready to use mutual hostility to Christian people’s for advantage.
Nor were pees and princes in Christendom always responsive to Church instruction one way or the other; popes might urge stricter or more lenient measures towards Jewish populations and be opposed in one direction or the other; the people might be more inflamed, or, on the contrary, themselves be more interested in compromising faith for the sake of political or social advantage.
The anti-Semitism of the present has much more to do with 19th and 20th century forms of nationalism & empire than any of the ancient antecedents in Church history - something which is inconvenient for people who are too eager to repent for sins they did not commit or for people who need to see the epitome of evil in the Church.

yes, I understand where yoère coming from, I did get that impression too in certain aspects of all this.

what i’m now trying to understand is how the above papal decrees were not considered moral teaching?

especialy when it basically says that Christians were superios and jews should be subject based on humanity