Monday, October 20, 2008

Robert Sungenis Writes ...

Robert Sungenis has written a response to my comments on Benedict XVI's recent Talmud reference in the following two blog postings:

Benedict Cites Talmud Approvingly, Suggests Jesus Acted in Accordance with it


Pope's Diabolical Revolution in Catholic/Jewish Relations


Robert Sungenis' response is here:

http://catholicintl.com/articles/Maurice_Pinay_writes.pdf

Robert Sungenis apparently believes that Benedict XVI was evangelizing a group of rabbis, European "Jewish" Congress members, and other Judaic power-brokers in his September 12, 2008 address to the "Jewish" community at Paris, France. I find this a strange conclusion to draw. These rabbis and EJC characters are so acutely sensitive and hysterically averse to true Christian evangelization of "Jews" that if Benedict actually was attempting to evangelize them it would certainly be detected and would not be tolerated for a second. These people can't even allow the minuscule traditional Catholic minority to pray for them in virtual seclusion on one day of the year.

If Sungenis wants others to believe as he does--that Benedict is evangelizing rabbis and their followers in the same spirit as Jesus Christ and St. Paul--he should offer some evidence that this is so. I haven't seen any. I have, in fact, amassed a mountain of evidence that the contrary is true--that not only is Benedict affirming the errors of the anti-Christ religion of Orthodox Judaism, he's also introducing these errors into the Christian fold; building deep relations between Catholics and "Jews."

But this is besides Benedict's sly misrepresentation of a Talmud passage which Sungenis apparently takes at face value. Sungenis writes:

"... the pope was quite correct in using the Talmud in his discussion with the Jews in France, for what he proposed to them from their own book about the Sabbath was precisely the same argument that Jesus used against the Pharisees. If, in some sections of the Talmud, it can be shown that the statements therein agree with godly principles and Christian truth, it is certainly appropriate to quote them to the people who believe they are authoritative, for you show them that even their own authority agrees with you."

This is a trap into which many investigators of rabbinic texts fall which is dismantled in Judaism Discovered. Benedict has presented only one side of a dialectical argument which does not represent the halachic synthesis. The Talmud passage that Benedict quoted is not authoritative as Sungenis assumes. The rabbis that Benedict addressed know this. Benedict himself cannot be unaware of it. The rabbis--from the time of Christ till the present day--run a Sabbath law tyranny that is as far from Jesus' Gospel teaching as black is from white. This is so patent that I can't believe it needs an explanation. Jesus and the Pharisees were conflicted on the man-made (NOT biblical) pharisaic Sabbath laws because their teachings were completely opposed. Rabbi-contrived Sabbath laws have only become more tyrannical since the time of Christ and they are authoritative.

No, Benedict was not evangelizing those rabbis. He was, as usual, creating confusion in the minds of his own followers by asserting a commonality which does not exist.

16 comments:

HallnOates said...

The pope was confirming the Judaics in their errors not rebuking them or evangelizing them. For crying out loud he referred to them in his address, "she respects the children of the Promise, the children of the Covenant, as her beloved brothers and sisters in the faith."

Earth to Sungenis.

Those who reject Christ, especially those whose "religion" is totally rooted in a rejection of Christ, are not children of the promise or the children of the Covenant.

Is Sungenis delusional?

Fisher said...

Let me turn your last statement around and alter it slightly, "Maurice":

As usual, "Pinay" is creating confusion in the minds of his own like-minded followers by making paranoid and gratuitous assertions.

Sungenis is right. You and your "the Jews are just pretenders" nuttery are wrong. Not all evangelization occurs with a hammer. And as you noted, these men are particularly sensitive. So, the evangelization is quite gentle, but present nonetheless.

Sungenis is hardly philo-semitic. The fact that you are criticizing him for being soft on Jews here speaks volumes.

Maurice Pinay said...

Sungenis is right.

***

What a powerful, well-reasoned argument.

***

You and your "the Jews are just pretenders" nuttery are wrong.

***

It is apparently an article of faith for you that the "Jews" of Miami, Brooklyn, Russia, Africa, and elsewhere are direct descendants of Jacob. Enjoy it, then. My faith is in Christ. From the Khazars I demand proofs, which they don't have.

***

Not all evangelization occurs with a hammer. And as you noted, these men are particularly sensitive. So, the evangelization is quite gentle, but present nonetheless.

***

The Pharisees were quite sensitive to criticism, so much so that they would commonly stone Christian evangelists who spoke against them. I take it that you would have recommended that Jesus and the Apostles use a more "gentle" approach to "evangelism" in the style of Benedict XVI. Just think how different the Gospel would have been! Rather similar to the chronicles of Benedict and the rabbis that I've documented here I'd bet. By the way, how many "Jews" has Benedict converted?

***

Sungenis is hardly philo-semitic.

***

Who said that he is?

***

The fact that you are criticizing him for being soft on Jews here speaks volumes.

***

The fact that you're claiming I've criticized Sungenis for being "soft on 'Jews'" when I have not speaks volumes.

Anonymous said...

Benedict XVI's visits to the synagogues are viewed as victories for Pharisaic Judaism by the latter-day Pharisees themselves. The symbolism conveyed is clear: the pope sees nothing demonstrably evil about a synagogue. In his approval for the visit, Mr. Sungenis splits hairs as part of the Vatican dialectic of appealing to all sides in any controversy. That the supposedly anti-Judaism Sungenis is supportive of the pope's scandalous synagogue ecumenism is a case in point. The rabbis approve it and Sungenis approves it. As for Mr. Sungenis' idea that there is some good in the Talmud, would he regard it as appropriate for the pope to enter Nazi party headquarters and quote the "good parts" of Mein Kampf in order to lead neo-Nazis to Christ? There was a reason why, for nearly 2,000 years, no pope entered a synagogue. Those who claim to be traditional and who applaud the shattering of this tradition by JP-II and Benedict, would seem to have a serious case of a double-mind.

Fisher said...

Please, "Maurice". Your response is disingenuous. You don't like the fact that Sungenis defended the Holy Father in regard to his interaction with the Jews.

You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that they **are** Jews for pete's sake. You're an extremist nut. And Sungenis is to be applauded for defending the Holy Father and avoiding your extremist nuttery, imo.

Now, I'll leave you to tell us about how you and your extremist friends are the only ones who really see what's going on here....

Good grief.

But by all mean, keep tilting at those windmills, "Maurice." There might be a Jew (oops, I mean KHAZAR!) under one of them!

Maurice Pinay said...

You and your "the Jews are just pretenders" nuttery are wrong ... You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that they **are** Jews for pete's sake. You're an extremist nut.

***

Ad hominem is apparently this fellow's argument of first and last resort in defense of his faith in the Talmudic "children of Israel."

Just think what good all this zeal could do if it was tempered with a bit of logic and directed towards defense of the Gospel.

Anonymous said...

Dear Maurice,

I am grateful for the information you present on your blog which is why I visit it regularly. The point you've made in this commentary section is not lost on me: namely, that present day Khazars and their power base are those who "say they are jews and are not, but are the synagogue of satan," (Apocalypse 2:9). Although that is a valid point, it's equally valid to say, as the poster, "fisher," does above, that they are jews (i.e., they are outside the church, they reject Jesus Christ as the messiah, they maintain a legalism and a racism that is certainly malicious, unenlightened anti-Gospel behavior, etc.). One could even call Muslims crypto-jews to an extent.

Now, I am a traditionalist. However, I do not applaud conciliar pastoral strategy. By the same token, objectively the Church has the right to alter its pastoral strategy. We can see this germinating in Pius XI's public address to Belgian pilgrims in 1938 when he said: "Mark well that in the Catholic Mass, Abraham is our Patriarch and forefather . . . Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we [Christians] are all Semites."

I would like to point you to the Magisterium's declaration from 2000, DOMINUS IESUS, authored by John Paul II, and undersigned by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. The document is completely orthodox (of the Roman Catholic variety, that is ) and, indeed, its subtitle sums up it's content: "ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH." The entire document can be read on the Vatican's website at:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

Considering that our current Pope signed his name to that document, Sungenis' comment could be considered valid as well. And one could agree with Sungenis' point without necessarily becoming a victim of the "double mind" (even unconsciously). You ask, "How many jews has Benedict XVI converted?" I don't know. How many jews did St. Pius V convert? I don't know. How many jews did St. John Chrysostom convert? I don't know. Do you really think the khazars are going to advertise (or allow to be advertised) conversions from judaism/khazarism to Catholicism?

It's been frequently asserted that at the most recent synod/conference to consider the beatification of Pius XII not one Catholic Bishop came to the defense of Pius XII against the rabbinic charge that he didn't do enough to help the jews. Other than this assertion, does anyone know that this was objectively the case? Was anyone here present? Did every Bishop whimper, cower, agree, and/or say nothing? If, indeed, the khazars control the media, would you not agree, Maurice, that any vocalized episcopal defense of Pius XII (even by one Bishop) would be censored and dumped into the memory-hole?

In the end, in addition to using logic to defend the Gospel, why not temper that logic with faith? Christ said the "gates of hell will not prevail" against the Church. If we believe that as children, then all assaults against the Church will fail (even if they come from within -- as they did with Judas). Do I think you are doing a great service to Catholics? Absolutely. Do I think we should be on guard against all that you have exposed. Of course. All I'm asking is that you open your heart to the long view -- and in the long run Jesus Christ wins and the Talmudists lose. Taking the long view is not an excuse to take no action or lower our guard. It is, however, a clarion call to prayer and a reminder that since we are not God, we cannot ascertain the inner depths of this -- or any other -- Pope.

Maurice Pinay said...

... they are jews (i.e., they are outside the church, they reject Jesus Christ as the messiah, they maintain a legalism and a racism that is certainly malicious, unenlightened anti-Gospel behavior, etc.). One could even call Muslims crypto-jews to an extent.

***

I don't subscribe to this vague, multidimensional, fluid, use of the term "Jew." It's almost always possible to communicate more clearly on these topics using more precise, stable terms than "Jew." The rabbis thrive in environments of vagueness. Further, their illegitimate claims are verified by allowing them the title, "Jew."

***

We can see this germinating in Pius XI's public address to Belgian pilgrims in 1938 when he said: "Mark well that in the Catholic Mass, Abraham is our Patriarch and forefather . . . Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we [Christians] are all Semites."

***

There is nothing new about the teaching that Christians are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Pius XI's use of the term "semite" in this context is innovative, however, and likely a reference to the strange, psuedo-scientific term "anti-semitism" coined by the change agent, Wilhelm Marr. Pius XI's use of this nonsensical language in a public address does not compel me to accept it or the baggage attached to it.

***

Considering that our current Pope signed his name to [Dominus Iesus], Sungenis' comment could be considered valid as well. And one could agree with Sungenis' point without necessarily becoming a victim of the "double mind" (even unconsciously).

***

The notion that Benedict evangelizes rabbis (which Dominus Iesus contains no evidence of, nor have I seen any other evidence anywhere else) while simultaneously confirming them in their errors most definitely is double-minded. I'm unconvinced by Benedict's seemingly orthodox statements when his statements coming from the other side of his mouth, and more importantly, his actions, mock the seemingly orthodox statements.

***

You ask, "How many jews has Benedict XVI converted?" I don't know. How many jews did St. Pius V convert? I don't know. How many jews did St. John Chrysostom convert?

***

Sungenis compared Benedict's philorabbinic "evangelism" to Jesus and St. Paul who did convert many Jews, not St. Pius V or St. John Chrysostom. Nevertheless, if these two men didn't convert even one "Jew" between them it wouldn't be because they didn't try to, which is more than can be said for Benedict as far as I am aware. If you have evidence of Benedict seeking the conversion of even one Judaic person I'd like to see it.

***

All I'm asking is that you open your heart to the long view -- and in the long run Jesus Christ wins and the Talmudists lose. Taking the long view is not an excuse to take no action or lower our guard. It is, however, a clarion call to prayer and a reminder that since we are not God, we cannot ascertain the inner depths of this -- or any other -- Pope.

***

Thanks just the same, but my heart is not closed, I don't believe that the rabbis will prevail, I pray regularly and recommend that others do as well, I don't believe I'm God and I haven't claimed to know the inner depths of Benedict's soul.

I am, however, a rational being who is able to gather evidence and interpret it in keeping with the teaching of Jesus that by their fruits you will know them. Benedict is as knowable as anyone in this regard. Evidently, he bears bad fruit.

Anonymous said...

I simply contend that whether he bears bad fruit won't be knowable immediately. "Evidently, he bears bad fruit," you say. Based on whose timeline? Yours or The Church's? Whatever perturbations we observe now might take on a different meaning when looked at from the purview of history. Much depends on perspective and focus.

A case in point would be the remarkable and groundbreaking speech given by Bartholomew I, the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople delivered in the Sistine Chapel on 18 October 2008 in which he said: "We regard this as a manifestation of the work of the Holy Spirit leading our Churches to a closer and deeper relationship with each other, an important step towards the restoration of our full communion." and "Therefore, in having today the privilege to address Your Synod our hopes are raised that the day will come when our two Churches will fully converge on the role of primacy and synodality in the Church’s life, to which our common Theological Commission is devoting its study at the present time."

It would have been unheard of, let's say 100 years ago, to think that the Orthodox would even begin to contemplate accepting Petrine primacy and talk about pursuing "full communion." During Paul VI's pontificate some Catholics were pulling their hair out that he met with the then ecumenical patriarch Athenogoras I and prayed with him. "Communicatio in Sacris!" they all cried. And look at what's happening roughly forty years later. The Ravenna document was another big step, but a possible end to the Great Schism in the foreseeable future is a development of tremendous importance. It is not bad fruit by any means. The same criticisms that you make regarding Benedict XVI were made against Paul VI in his gestures to the Orthodox. And Paul VI's actions were seen as inscrutable at the time, too.

If you don't like Benedict's pastoral approach, you are more than entitled to vociferously disagree. But your approach and his are different. For what it's worth, in his 9 October 2008 homily delivered during the Mass Benedict XVI celebrated for the 50th anniversary of Pius XII's death, the reigning Pontiff thoroughly defended Pius XII stating that the late pontiff carried out: "“an intense campaign of charity in favor of the persecuted, without any distinction in terms of religion, ethnicity, nationality, or political affiliation.”

Maurice Pinay said...

Jesus also said that good fruit does not come from a bad tree. A few decades is more than long enough to assess Benedict's policies, teachings and actions which are in many cases self-evidently wrong and preposterous.

It is self-evidently wrong for Benedict to acknowledge and validate Rabbi She'ar-Yashuv Cohen, a teacher of anti-Bible, anti-Christ, genocidal, messianic-Zionist Orthodox Judaism by inviting him to teach about the Bible--which he is an expert at nullifying--at a bishops synod. It would be absurd to wait centuries to asses the fruits of this act which is self-evidently wrong, flagrant disregard for Jesus' teaching.

I am not waiting a minute, much less a century to see whether "good fruit" comes from this self-evidently wrong act. I concede that the entire scope of Benedict's damage may take a century or more to accurately and fully assess. I pray that God may intervene in the meantime, but I am not convinced that we're worthy of such an intervention at present.

There is a basis for true ecumenism with the Eastern Orthodox who were once part of the Church and believe 99% of what the Church teaches although there is cause for suspicion that what's happening is not true ecumenism.

There is no basis for ecumenism with Bible-nullifying Orthodox Judaism which was born in complete, violent opposition to Christianity and is principally directed towards the overthrow and replacement of Christianity through subversive methods. "Judeo-Christian" "ecumenism" is self-evidently baseless, absurd and scandalous. Good fruit does not come from a bad tree.

Anonymous said...

The late, great Cardinal Ciappi would agree with many of your points. You may not be aware of it, but there are those in the Curia who feel the same as you do. However, you underestimate Benedict XVI by suggesting that any rabbi, however expert at nullifying the Gospel they may appear to be, could hypnotize the Pontiff into nullifying the Bible. Spe Salvi and Deus Caritas Est are evidence of this. Aldous Huxley observed that "to be more against the devil than for God is exceedingly dangerous. Every crusader is apt to go mad. He is haunted by the wickedness which he attributes to his enemies; it becomes in some sort a part of him." Indeed, if you want to see the double-mind at work everywhere you most probably will.

Maurice Pinay said...

You may not be aware of it, but there are those in the Curia who feel the same as you do.

***

I am open to the possibility that these weasel words are true, but I see no evidence of it. What evidence is this claim based on?

***

... you underestimate Benedict XVI by suggesting that any rabbi, however expert at nullifying the Gospel they may appear to be, could hypnotize the Pontiff into nullifying the Bible.

***

I haven't suggested that a rabbi will hypnotize Benedict into doing anything. I have observed that Benedict himself mocks the Bible in word and deed on a weekly basis by his validation of the modern day Pharisees and their Bible-nullifying anti-Christ religion, much to the grave scandalization of the Church and all the world. Countless souls are being terribly misled by this insanity and that is the greatest concern which you seem not to account for at all.

***

Every crusader is apt to go mad.

***

Nonsense. I am much less a "crusader" than Jesus, the Apostles, the Church Fathers, popes and saints who were quite harsh in their condemnations of Pharisaic evil.

On the contrary, every follower of double-minded men is apt to go mad, if they aren't already.

***

... if you want to see the double-mind at work everywhere you most probably will.

***

If it's not double-minded for the "vicar of Christ" to validate an anti-Christ expert on nullification of the Bible by inviting him to teach the Bible to Christians, then nothing is.

No, I don't want to see the double-mind at work as you insinuate. I want to see Jesus' teaching at work.

Anonymous said...

Weasel words, you say? Do you really think that every member of the Vatican hierarchy is rabbi-whipped? In the interest of fairness you really should read the following article:


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1030971.html

Maurice Pinay said...

Weasel words, you say?

***

"There are those who feel that ..." are textbook weasel words. If there's a basis for the statement then name the bishops.

***

Do you really think that every member of the Vatican hierarchy is rabbi-whipped?

***

Backup. You claimed that "there are those in the Curia who feel the same as you do." I believe that Judeo-Catholic relations are a monumental fraud and should be ended immediately and all related developments should be repudiated, overturned and replaced by initiatives based in traditional Catholic teaching on Judaism augmented by recent developments in Judaism investigation. What evidence have you seen that any living bishop believes this?

***

In the interest of fairness you really should read the following article:


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1030971.html


***

We've been hoodwinked into a debate over how good a pope was for "The Jews" as a matter of criteria for sainthood!?! I suppose that if it's determined that Pius XII was "good for 'The Jews'" that he should be a saint and if not his legacy should be forever blackened. Whether he actually was saintly doesn't enter the discussion. I'd be impressed if the Vatican defended the Gospel as strongly as it defends Pius XII's record vis. "The Jews."

Personally, I've never viewed the man as particularly saintly. And I'm interested in questions that the rabbis and the establishment press have framed out of the discussion, such as, did Pius XII do anything more for the Christians of Russia than he did for "The Jews"? And, for that matter, what did Judaic power organizations do for Christians in Russia? Are they not quite silent on that matter even to this day? Were there not a great many of their fellows involved directly and indirectly in the slaughter and in the cover up? How have these people become the arbiters of anything relating to ethics and morality?

Fisher said...

"Maurice" sez:

"Just think what good all this zeal could do if it was tempered with a bit of logic and directed towards defense of the Gospel."

To engage you with a full-blown refutation of your hateful propaganda and paranoia makes about as much sense as arguing with lunatic Raelian cultists (http://www.carm.org/rael/falsifiable.htm) who are convinced that an alien ship is going to bring them to heaven. Or perhaps more like arguing with those who believe the lunar landing was a hoax or that the Holocaust never happened. It's a waste of time and only gives legitimacy to extremist nuttery.

People who write the kinds of things you write should only be publicly denounced for the extremist bigots, pseudo-scholars and hate-mongers that you are. And if anyone should then seek out such individuals for their "facts", then they deserve what they get.

You are more in need of prayer (or perhaps an exorcism) than a debate, "Maurice."

Maurice Pinay said...

You are more in need of prayer (or perhaps an exorcism) than a debate, "Maurice."

***

Since this fellow relies completely on ad hominem argumentation and is either unwilling or unable to put forth a reasonable argument, I wonder what makes him think his opinion on my ability to debate, the state of my soul or any given topic has any value. He apparently expects to be acknowledged based upon his prodigious use of smears ("extremist," "paranoid," "nutter," "bigot," "pseudo-scholar," "hate-monger").

Whatever god it is he prays to--apparently, one that requires faith in rabbinic genes--I hope he leaves me out of it.