Monday, April 23, 2007

Some Insight from Benedict XVI's Elder Brother in the Faith, Rabbi Jacob Neusner

Following up on the previous blog entry I offer insight into Judaism from Rabbi Jacob Neusner whom Benedict XVI holds in such high regard.

Rabbi Neusner frankly states that Judaism traces it's roots to the Pharisees:

"The Pharisees are important for two reasons. First, the Gospels portray them as one of the principle opposition groups to Jesus. Second, Judaism as we know it generally traces its roots back to the Pharisees." (Jacob Neusner, Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1984], p.45)

Rabbi Neusner offers a clear insight into one of the myriad of reasons why I must state that JPII and Benedict XVI do not speak for me when they call the rabbis "our elder brothers in the faith":

The [Pharisaic-Rabbinic] schools believed that in heaven God and the angels studied Torah [ie. Talmud/Kabbalah] just as the rabbis did on earth. God donned phylacteries like a rabbi. He prayed in rabbinic mode ... He guided the affairs of the world according to the rules of the Torah, like the rabbi in his court. One exegesis of the Creation-legend taught that God had looked into the Torah and therefrom had created the world. Moreover, heaven was aware above of what the rabbis in particular thought, said, and did below. The myth of the Torah was multi-dimensional. It included the striking detail that whenever the most recent rabbi was destined to discover through proper exegesis of the tradition was as much of a part of the way revealed to Moses as was a sentence of Scripture itself. It was therefore possible to participate in the giving of the law, as it were, by appropriate, logical inquiry into the law. God himself, studying and living by Torah, was believed to subject himself to these same rules of logical inquiry, so if an earthly court overruled the testimony, delivered through some natural miracles, of the heavenly one, God would rejoice, crying out, "My sons have conquered me! My sons have conquered me!"

... The rabbi constituted the projection of the divine on earth. Honor was due him more than to the scroll of the Torah, for through his learning and logic he might alter the very content of Mosaic revelation. He was Torah, not merely because he lived by it, but because at his best he constituted as compelling an embodiment of the heavenly model as did a Torah scroll itself. (Jacob Neusner "The Phenomenon of the Rabbi in Late Antiquity: II The Ritual of 'Being a Rabbi' in Later Sasanian Babylonia," Numen, Vol.17, Fasc. 1. [Feb., 1970], pp.3-4)

Keep in mind that Neusner speaks here as a scholar, but he is also himself a Rabbi of Orthodox Judaism--the so-called "religion" which teaches this extreme foolishness--precisely what Christ referred to when He stated that the Pharisaic tradition "makes God's Word of no effect."

And lest someone dismiss this as the theory of some wacky rabbi, the Talmud in Bava Metzia 59b states that a majority vote of the rabbis must be accepted, even when God Himself holds the opposite view. This is the Gemara which Neusner references above:

"God smiled and said:'My sons have defeated Me, My sons have defeated Me!'" God's sons "defeated him" with their arguments. Rabbi Yehoshua was correct in his contention that a view confirmed by majority vote must be accepted, even where God Himself holds the opposite view. (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Bava Metzia 59b, Steinsaltz Edition [NY: Random House 1990], Vol. III p.237)

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Pope Engages The Rabbis in Dialectics Around Christ and the Gospel

EDITOR'S NOTE: Astute Popes of the past critically analyzed rabbinic texts and subjected them to public debate in which the perverse idiocy of the rabbinic tradition was laid bare for all to see as is to be expected in any fair debate on the matter. Modern Popes brush the ugliness of Judaism under the rug and engage the rabbis in dialectical pilpul around Christ and the Gospel. This is the era of Judaic domination in which we live: when the backwards tradition of rabbinic Judaism which maintains that a man must put his mouth on a baby's penis during the circumcision ritual in order for the circumcision to be valid is exalted while the liberating Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is subject to unrelenting Pharisaic scrutiny which the Pope responds to, not in the spirit with which Christ confronted the Pharisees but in the spirit of the Pharisees themselves--by engaging them in pilpul.

There will be no Christlike defense of the Gospel or rebuke of the rabbinic tradition from Pope Benedict XVI, a man whom papal Rabbi-Knight, David Rosen--whom Benedict himself appointed--described as being "aware of his special responsibility to reaffirm the Church's commitment to a more pro-Jewish attitude." No, Benedict VXI has nothing but respect for the depraved, so-called "religion," but in fact, corrupt racket of Judaism, which will certainly be evident in his "dialogical thinking" around Christ with Rabbi Neusner whom he can't seem to praise enough.

For your thoughtful comparison, here is how Pope Innocent IV described the rabbinic tradition of Judaism which Benedict XVI respects so highly:

The ... Jews ... omitting or scorning the Mosaic law and the prophets, follow certain traditions of their seniors concerning which the Lord rebukes them in the Gospel, saying: Why do you transgress the mandate of God and irritate Him by your traditions, teaching human doctrines and mandates? [Matthew 15;9]

Upon this sort of traditions, which in Hebrew are called the Talmud--and there is a great book among them exceeding the text of the Bible in length, in which are manifest blasphemies against God and Christ and the blessed Virgin, intricate fables, erroneous abuses, and unheard-of stupidities--they nourish and teach their sons and render them utterly alien from the doctrine of the law and the prophets, fearing lest, if they knew the truth, which is in the law and the prophets, and which testifies openly that the only begotten son of God will come in the flesh, they would be converted to the faith and humbly return to their Redeemer. And not content with these things, they make Christian women nurses of their sons in contumely of the Christian faith, with whom they commit many shameful things. On which account the faithful should be afraid lest they incur divine wrath while they unworthily allow them to perpetrate acts which bring confusion upon our faith. (Pope Innocent IV, May 9, 1244 Letter to King Louis IX of France)

Both popes speak of the same rabbinic, Talmudic tradition which contains the same manifest blasphemies against God and Christ and the blessed Virgin, intricate fables, erroneous abuses, and unheard-of stupidities as it did at the time of Innocent IV's writing (and which Talmud, incidentally, Rabbi Jacob Neusner refers to as "the founding document of Judaism" (Jacob Neusner, How the Talmud Works (Boston: Brill, 2002) ix). But one Pope confronts the rabbinic tradition with the single mind of Christ, the other with the dialectical mind of the rabbis.

Note that Pope Innocent IV makes a direct connection between the Talmudic, rabbinic tradition and the Pharisaic "tradition of the elders" which Christ execrated throughout the Gospels. Innocent IV also plainly states the fact that the rabbis render their followers utterly alien from the doctrine of the law and the prophets. Benedict XVI tells us that the rabbinic tradition of the elders is a valid interpretation of biblical scripture; is what Christianity has "sprung from;" and encourages Christians to establish stronger religious relations with it. Could there possibly be greater disparity between the thinking and actions of these two Popes? Which position more closely reflects that of Christ towards the tradition of the elders? I seem to recall that Christ told His disciples to beware the Pharisaic tradition of the elders--"the leaven of the Pharisees"--and that the Apostles understood "leaven" to mean the doctrine of the Pharisees (Matthew 16:12). But here is Pope Benedict telling us precisely the opposite.

Benedict's preaching of rabbis and popes who "love" and "respect" one another and each other's traditions is nothing short of occult alchemy. What fellowship hath light with darkness? What did Christ speak more harshly against than the Pharisees and their tradition--the tradition which Rabbi Jacob Neusner carries on today? Benedict and his "elder brothers in the faith" apparently figure these difficulties in the Gospel are nothing that can't be circumvented with a little pilpul. And they will likely bring confusion upon our faith to use Innocent IV's words, but not without incurring divine wrath. God is not mocked.

If the Pope had true Christian love for Rabbi Neusner he would correct his errors, not praise them, if not only for the sake of Rabbi Neusner's soul, for the sake of the millions of Christian souls who's faith he brings confusion upon by failing to do so.

After saints, most-quoted author in pope's new book is a U.S. rabbi

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- After the Gospel writers and the apostle Paul, the author most quoted in Pope Benedict XVI's new book is Rabbi Jacob Neusner, a U.S. professor of religion and theology.

In his book, "Jesus of Nazareth," released April 16 in Italian, German and Polish, Pope Benedict joined the literary dialogue that Rabbi Neusner invented for himself in his 1993 book, "A Rabbi Talks With Jesus."

The pope said that Rabbi Neusner's "profound respect for the Christian faith and his faithfulness to Judaism led him to seek a dialogue with Jesus."

Imagining himself amid the crowd gathered on a Galilean hillside when Jesus gave his Sermon on the Mount, Rabbi Neusner "listens, confronts and speaks with Jesus himself," the pope wrote.

"In the end, he decides not to follow Jesus," the pope wrote. "He remains faithful to that which he calls the 'eternal Israel.'"

Pope Benedict said Rabbi Neusner makes painfully clear the differences between Christianity and Judaism, but "in a climate of great love: The rabbi accepts the otherness of the message of Jesus and takes his leave with a detachment that knows no hatred."

The pope praised Rabbi Neusner for taking the Gospel of Jesus seriously and, in fact, more seriously than many modern Christian scholars do.

Jesus is the Son of God, the unique savior, and not simply a social reformer, a liberal rabbi or the teacher of a new morality, the pope said.

Pope Benedict wrote that in trying to understand who Jesus was and his relationship with his Jewish faith and with the Torah, the law given to Moses, Rabbi Neusner's book "was of great help."

Rabbi Neusner, a prolific author and professor at Bard College in Annandale-on-Hudson, N.Y., told Catholic News Service in Rome that he did not want to talk about the pope's book until he had seen it. The English edition is scheduled for a May release.

In the introduction to the revised and expanded 2000 edition of his book, Rabbi Neusner wrote, "If I had been in the land of Israel in the first century, I would not have joined the circle of Jesus' disciples. ... If I heard what he said in the Sermon on the Mount, for good and substantive reasons I would not have followed him.

"Where Jesus diverges from the revelation by God to Moses at Mount Sinai, he is wrong and Moses is right," Rabbi Neusner wrote.

In Pope Benedict's treatment of the Sermon on the Mount, 18 of the 25 pages refer to Rabbi Neusner's book.

"More than any of the other interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount with which I am familiar, this debate between a believing Jew and Jesus, son of Abraham, conducted with respect and frankness, opened my eyes to the greatness of the word of Jesus and to the choice the Gospel places before us," the pope wrote.

Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna, presenting the pope's book at an April 13 Vatican conference, said reading Rabbi Neusner's book was "one of the reasons" Pope Benedict decided to write his.

"What Pope Benedict says about the book (by Rabbi Neusner) is so essential for understanding his own book about Jesus," the cardinal said.

"More than discussions about exegetical methods" used to understand what the Scriptures say about Jesus, Cardinal Schonborn said, the pope has "at heart the discussion with the rabbi."

"Rabbi Neusner is so important for the book of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI" precisely because he accepts what Jesus says about himself in the Gospels, the cardinal said.

German Father Joseph Sievers, director of the Cardinal Bea Center for Judaic Studies at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, where Rabbi Neusner has been a guest speaker, said the rabbi "takes very seriously the extraordinary claims of Jesus: He is not just a rabbi teaching the golden rule."

Both Rabbi Neusner and Pope Benedict, Father Sievers said, "have a high Christology," emphasizing the divinity of Christ even if Rabbi Neusner cannot accept Christ's claim.

"(Rabbi) Neusner, even when he spoke here, did not try to find easy solutions or to bridge gaps" between Christians and Jews, Father Sievers said.

In his book, Rabbi Neusner said he hoped to contribute to Christian-Jewish dialogue by taking Christian teaching and Jewish teaching seriously.

"It is one model for a starting point for dialogue -- to recognize differences and not try to make them disappear or to hide them," Father Sievers said.

Father Sievers said Pope Benedict's new book is a further sign that he "is strong on Judaism, he respects it and he knows the contemporary scholarship."

"Basically, he loves a good discussion and so does (Rabbi) Neusner," he said.

Friday, April 13, 2007

Judaic Papal Knight: "German" Pope Aware of "Special Responsibility to Reaffirm Church's Commitment to a More Pro-Jewish Attitude"

This is the type of thinking typical of today's Vatican knights:

[Rabbi, and Papal Knight, David] Rosen also said that as a German, Benedict was aware of his special responsibility to reaffirm the Church's commitment to a more pro-Jewish attitude as set down in the (sic) Nostra Etate (sic), the 1965 declaration on the relation (sic) of the Catholic Church to non-Christian religions. (Jerusalem Post, "Views mixed on pope's use of Auschwitz diary in Easter ritual")

Full Article

It seems hypocritical of Rabbi Knight Rosen to cite Nostra Aetate, the rabbinic document which presumes to absolve Judaics for the guilt of Deicide though their holy books state that Christ deserved to be executed, even as he holds all Germans responsible for "The Holocaust." Rosen appeals to the establishment promulgated dogma that Christians must do penance for the charge of Deicide, even as he enforces the charge of Judeocide against Germans and prescribes their penance.

Rosen speaks of a "special responsibility" of the German Pope to change the Church's attitude towards Judaics.

So, Judaics who did not take part in the execution of Christ, but who believe He deserved it anyway, share no guilt for that cosmic crime, but German Christians who did not take part in the Nazi atrocities and who denounce them at every opportunity have a "special responsibility" to not only do penance and pay reparations, but to radically change the 2000 year-old Gospel of Christ which is entirely unrelated to the Nazis to accommodate the desires of the rabbis. And for this hypocrisy and chutzpah; this direct attack against Christ and the Gospel, the rabbis are knighted by the Vatican.

If it's wrong to make solely ethnicity-based charges against Judaics, it's wrong to do so in the case of Germans. But that's a very unpopular truth to state today under the harsh mental tyranny of the Judaic Imperium.

Most mind-bombed goys will go along with Rabbi Knight Rosen's Talmudic logic. The Gospel account of the Pharisees' plotting of Christ's execution and the Jews' crying out for His blood needs to be blotted out, for "it could lead to another 'Holocaust' of 'The Jews'!" But are the rabbis concerned with what 60+ years of anti-German propaganda--which Rabbi Knight Rosen's comment about the "German" Pope and his "special responsibility" is just one example of--causes Germans? Not in the rabbis' twisted world of double standards. The fact that Germans are the most rapidly diminishing population in Europe is good news to them, but it's no reason to relent, quite obviously.

If Germans were to become completely extinct and every Christian were to forsake the priceless gift of truth and salvation of Calvary for the hellish fool's gold of Auschwitz, the "debt" would remain on the rabbis' ledger. Debts to the rabbis, whether real or fictional, are never paid.

Rabbi David Rosen is the President of IJCIC, the International Jewish Committee that represents World Jewry in its relations with other world Religions.

He is Director of the Department for Interreligious Affairs and Director of the Heilbrunn Institute for International Interreligious Understanding of the American Jewish Committee, and is an Honorary President of the International Council of Christians and Jews, and an International President of the World Conference of Religions for Peace.

In November 2005, Rabbi Rosen was named a papal Knight Commander of the Order of St Gregory the Great for his outstanding contributions to promoting Catholic-Jewish reconciliation.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

The Cardinal Bea Centre for Judaic Studies at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome

What is characterized by some as "'antisemitic' conspiracy theory" when it's written about at this blog is called "interfaith dialog" when it takes place between Cardinals and rabbis in Rome.

The Sephardic front is authoritatively represented by Maimonides, who ... [treats] all Christians as “idolaters” tout-court. Next to this negative vision of Christian theology, Maimonides does however give a more open and moderate assessment of the Messianic role of Christianity and Islam in the world. Here is for instance a passage of the Treatise on Kings, which does not appear in all editions (of the Mishneh Torah), because in most of them it is censored: “... all the words of Jesus of Nazareth and of the son of Ishmael [Mohammed] who came after him are aimed at paving the way to the King-Messiah and at preparing the whole world to serve God together, as it is written: ‘because I shall then transform the language of the peoples into a pure language, so that all shall invoke the Name of the Lord shall serve him in a sole unit [all together, in harmony]’ (Sof. 3,9)”. ...Maimonides lets Christianity and Islam, so to speak, do a “qualitative leap”: he includes the two religions within a sole providential plan that sees them as protagonists of a preparatory itinerary of humanity as a whole towards the [Judaic] Messianic event.

... Maimonides’ ambivalent opinion – negatively on the theological level, but positively open in its Messianic perspective – appears to be the clearest and most straightforward affirmation of the involvement of Christianity in a providential role of a Messianic-providential type. And this opinion continues to represent a major stepping stone in the path that Christianity and Judaism make together, though along parallel and distinct planes. Maybe even the category of the “descendants of Noah,” which is admittedly rather inadequate and weak, may still be used to think of Christianity in Jewish terms and to reconcile conceptually (and not only conceptually) the two religions.(Rabbi Prof. Giuseppe Laras, Rome, 4th November 2004 at the Pontifical Gregorian University)

Does this sound familiar? It should, if you read the following essay entered on this blog a few months ago:

Monday, April 9, 2007

Rabbi Charged With Shoplifting To Meet Pope Benedict XVI

Rabbi Charged With Shoplifting To Meet Pope Benedict XVI

SAO PAULO, Brazil (AP) -- A rabbi who temporarily resigned last month as head of South America's largest Jewish Congregation after being arrested in Florida on shoplifting charges, said he will meet with Pope Benedict XVI when the pontiff visits in May.

Henry I. Sobel, who for more than 30 years led the Sao Paulo Jewish Congregation, was arrested in March on three counts of theft for allegedly stealing ties, with a total value of $680, from several upscale stores in Palm Beach, Fla. He was released after posting $3,000 bail.

Sobel, 63, told the Estado de S. Paulo newspaper, in an interview published Friday, that his meeting with the pope -- scheduled before the Palm Beach arrest -- had recently been confirmed.

Full Article:

Saturday, April 7, 2007

Kosher Catholicism

EDITOR'S NOTE: In Kosher Catholicism the crucifixion of God incarnate in Jesus Christ is relativised with, and reevaluated in light of, "The Holocaust" of god incarnate in "The Jews."

"God's theological rottweiler" and "panzer pope," Benedict VXI bows before the idol of Holocaustolatry.

And note that the scriptural references are punctuated with a citation of a "Holocaust" saint.

Jesus is condemned by the Sanhedrin

V/. Adoramus te, Christe, et benedicimus tibi.
R/. Quia per sanctam crucem tuam redemisti mundum.

From the Gospel according to Luke 22:66-71

When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people gathered together, both chief priests and scribes; and they led him away to their council, and they said, "If you are the Christ, tell us." But he said to them, "If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I ask you, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God." And they all said, "Are you the Son of God, then?" And he said to them, "You say that I am." And they said, "What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips."


The dawn of Good Friday is breaking from behind the Mount of Olives, after brightening the valleys of the desert of Judah. The seventy-one members of the Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish institution, are gathered in a semicircle around Jesus. The hearing is about to begin, and it will follow the the usual judiciary procedure: the identification of the defendant, the bringing of charges, the hearing of witnesses. The trial concerns a religious matter which falls within the competence of that tribunal. This is also clearly seen from the two principal questions: "Are you the Christ? … Are you the Son of God?."

Jesus' answer starts from an almost discouraging premise: "If I tell you, you will not believe; if I ask you, you will not answer." He knows, then, that incomprehension, suspicion and misunderstanding are in store for him. He can feel himself surrounded by a icy wall of distrust and hostility, all the more oppressive because it is erected around him by his own religious and national community. The Psalmist before him had experienced such disappointment: "If this had been done by an enemy, I could bear his taunts; if a rival had risen against me, I could hide from him. But it is you, my own companion, my intimate friend! How close was the friendship between us. We walked in together in harmony in the house of God"[6].

* * *

And yet, despite that incomprehension, Jesus does not hesitate to proclaim the mystery within him, a mystery which from that moment on will be revealed as in an epiphany. Using the language of scripture, he acknowledges that he is "the Son of man, seated at the right hand of the power of God." The messianic glory awaited by Israel is now manifested in this prisoner. Indeed, it is the Son of God who now, paradoxically, appears in the guise of one accused. Jesus' response -- "I am" --, which at first sight seems like the confession of a crime, is in reality a solemn profession of his divinity. In the Bible, the words "I am" are the name and title of God himself[7].

The accusation, which will end in a death sentence, thus becomes a revelation, and also our own profession of faith in Christ, the Son of God. That defendant, humiliated by a disdainful court, by the sumptuous courtroom, by a sentence already sealed, reminds us of our own duty to bear witness to the truth. A witness which must be forcefully rendered even when there is a powerful temptation to hide, to give up, to go along with the prevailing opinion. In the words of a young Jewish woman destined to die in a concentration camp[8]: "each new horror or crime, we must oppose with a new fragment of truth and goodness which we have gained in ourselves. We can suffer, but we must not surrender".

Pater noster, qui es in cælis:
sanctificetur nomen tuum;
adveniat regnum tuum;
fiat voluntas tua, sicut in cælo, et in terra.
Panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis hodie;
et dimitte nobis debita nostra,
sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris;
et ne nos inducas in tentationem;
sed libera nos a malo.

O quam tristis et afflicta
fuit illa benedica
mater Unigeniti!

[6] Psalm 55(54): 12-15.
[7] Cf. Exodus 3:14.
[8] Etty Hillesum, Diary 1941-1943 (3 July 1943).

Benedict's Kosher Via Crucis

Pope makes Nazi atrocities part of Stations of the Cross

Pope speaks of Nazi atrocities in Easter ritual
By Malcolm Moore in Rome
April 7, 2007 Daily Telegraph (UK)

The Pope shocked many Catholics last night with a dramatically revised version of the Stations of the Cross, one of the central rituals of the Easter ceremony. The ceremony, also known as the Via Crucis, recreates Jesus's path on the day of his death from the Antonia fortress to Golgotha, where he was crucified.

The Pope carried the cross for the first and last of the 14 stops on a candle-lit procession around the Coliseum in Rome. However, this year the Pope chose to change both the route and the content of the ceremony. The Vatican said the changes were designed to reflect the gospels more truly and to link Jesus's suffering with the suffering of mankind today.

One of the boldest changes came on the third stop, where Jesus is given up to Pontius Pilate by the Sanhedrin, a council of Jews. The Pope recalled the sentence that was passed over the Jews by the Nazis, and their suffering in concentration camps. He quoted Etty Hilesum, a Dutch Jew, who was executed in Auschwitz in 1943, saying: "We must oppose every new horror and crime with a new piece of the truth and goodness. We may suffer, but we must not succumb."

Monsignor Gianfranco Ravasi, the prefect of the Ambrosian Library in Milan and a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, was asked by the Pope to update the ceremony. He said: "I did not want the ceremony just to be a simple recollection of a past event. I wanted worshippers to feel and live through the raw and bitter reality like a neighbour."

The new changes also included cutting the stop where Jesus drops the Cross, as well as a reference to St Veronica, who mopped Jesus's brow. St Veronica is merely apocryphal and not mentioned in the gospels.

However, a reference to Judas Iscariot was inserted for the first time because, in the words of Mgr Ravasi, "dawn follows night, out of darkness comes light, and after betrayal comes penitence." Later, on the ninth stop, where Jesus met a group of women, the Pope spoke out against the suffering of "violated" women. He recalled the women "who have been subjected to tribal practices", the mothers in crisis and alone, "the Jewish or Palestinian mothers and those in all lands ravaged by war, the widows and old ladies forgotten by their children".The ceremony ended with St Matthew's Passion by Bach.

also see:

Kosher Catholicism

Sunday, April 1, 2007

Pontifical Household Preacher: A Revelation and Obfuscation

EDITOR'S NOTE: Fr. Cantalamessa balances the former central ontological event of Western history, the crucifixion of God incarnate at Calvary, with it's modern, dark age replacement, "The Shoah."

"There's no business like Shoah business," they say. Today, Christians can't even reflect upon Christ's sacrifice on the cross during Holy Week without being reminded of "The Shoah."

Within his sermon Fr. Cantalamessa makes somewhat of a revelation regarding the Judaic tradition of Christ's crucifixion, but then leads his listeners/readers towards safe, kosher conclusions.

Father Cantalamessa on the Passion of Christ

"We Are All Responsible for Jesus' Death"

ROME, MARCH 30, 2007 ( Here is a translation of a commentary by the Pontifical Household preacher, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, on the readings for this Sunday's liturgy.

* * *

A Historical Look at the Passion of Christ
Palm Sunday
Isaiah 50:4-7; Philippians 2:6-11; Luke 22:14-23, 56

On Palm Sunday we will hear in its entirety St. Luke's account of the Passion. Let us pose the crucial question, that question which the Gospels were written to answer: How is it that a man like this ended up on the cross? What were the motives of those responsible for Jesus' death?

According to a theory that began to circulate last century, after the tragedy of the Shoah, the responsibility for Christ's death falls principally -- indeed perhaps even exclusively -- on Pilate and the Roman authorities, whose motivation was of a more political than religious nature. The Gospels supposedly vindicated Pilate and accused the Jewish leaders of Christ's death in order to reassure the Roman authorities about the Christians and to court their friendship.

This thesis was born from a concern which today we all share: to eradicate every pretext for the anti-Semitism that has caused much suffering for the Jewish people at the hands of Christians. But the gravest mistake that can be made for a just cause is to defend it with erroneous arguments. The fight against anti-Semitism should be put on a more solid foundation than a debatable (and debated) interpretation of the Gospel accounts of the Passion.

I wonder when "the fight against anti-semitism" will take into consideration the role the rabbis and their traditions have played in creating "anti-semitism." The Vatican has spent the past 60 years hosting some of the most vile haters of the Gospel who've ever lived such as Jules Isaac and his "teaching of contempt" thesis happily recieved by John XXIII, and even knighting some of these anti-Christs as recently as this past month.

The thesis Fr. Cantalamessa references is not "debatable," as Cantalamessa diplomatically, or rather, equivocatingly puts it (Jules Isaac and his ilk are certainly not so diplomatic). It's utter nonsense. And if Fr. Catalamessa was sincere in his desire to eradicate every true "pretext for anti-semitism" he would suggest that the same critical analysis which the Gospel has undergone be conducted on the "holy" texts of rabbinic Judaism. Only then will the true cause for "anti-semitism" begin to be understood and thereby eradicated.

That the Jewish people as such are innocent of Christ's death rests on a biblical certainty that Christians have in common with Jews but that for centuries was strangely forgotten. "The son shall not be charged with the guilt of his father, nor shall the father be charged with the guilt of his son" (Ezekiel 18:20). Church teaching knows only one sin that is transmitted from father to son, original sin, no other.

The Church has never taught that the sin of the crucifixion is genetically transmitted. But it is undeniable that those who uphold the spiritual and ideological tradition of the Pharisees who conspired to execute Christ--a tradition which to this day maintains that Christ got what He deserved at Calvary (as Fr. Cantelamessa will somewhat reveal in a following paragraph)--are cursed. How could it be otherwise? What blessing from God could come upon a tradition which revels in the execution of His Son? That's crazy talk.

Having made it clear that I reject anti-Semitism, I would like to explain why it is not possible to accept the complete innocence of the Jewish authorities in Christ's death and along with it the claim about the purely political nature of Christ's condemnation ...

From the reports about Jesus' death present in the Talmud and in other Jewish sources (however late and historically contradictory), one thing emerges: The Jewish tradition never denied the participation of the religious leaders of the time in Christ's condemnation. They did not defend themselves by denying the deed, but, if anything, they denied that the deed, from the Jewish perspective, constituted a crime and that Christ's condemnation was an unjust condemnation.

That's a mild way of putting it. The fact is that the "great sages" who wrote the Talmud take full responsibility for Christ's execution, absolving the Romans completely, claiming that Christ got what He deserved for "leading Israel astray" (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 43a) They go on to relay a story of a necromancer who raises a repentant Jesus from the grave who proclaims, "Seek their (the Israelites') welfare, seek not their harm. Whoever touches them is as though he touches the apple of his [God's] eye!" and who states that His punishment for ridiculing the Pharisees is eternal damnation in boiling excrement. (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Gittin, 57a)

This juvenile idiocy is what the tradition of our "elder brothers in the faith" teaches about the Messiah, Jesus Christ. This is the "great religion" of Judaism which Christianity has "sprung from," if one takes the Vatican prelates at their word.

Those who uphold this tradition are not cursed, then? If the claim that Christ deserved to be executed and punished in hell in boiling excrement doesn't merit a curse, what does? Oh, "anti-semitism," of course! It's the same message the Talmudic "sages" audaciously put in the mouth of a repentant Jesus Christ--"the Jews" are the apple of God's eye just for having been born; everyone should seek their welfare; anyone who mocks the rabbis is punished in boiling excrement. Yesterday the rabbis put that message in Christ's mouth. Today, Vatican prelates join them.

It seems to me that this is a very real teaching of contempt. And this barely scratches the surface. When will the role which teachings such as these about Christ and His followers have played in creating "anti-semitism" be addressed? When will the yeshivas be reciprocally opened up to scholars such as Michael A. Hoffman who are well prepared to truthfully lecture Judaic children on the very real Judaic teaching of contempt and it's implications throughout history? Is the Vatican pushing for such a thing? Absolutely not.

In the past [the Passion has] often been used (in the theatric representations of the Passion, for example) in an inappropriate manner, with a forced anti-Semitism.

This is something that everyone today firmly rejects, even if something still remains to be done about eliminating from the Christian celebration of the Passion everything that could still offend the sensibility of our Jewish brothers.

So the Vatican is only getting started making changes to the Christian celebration of the Passion according to the sensibilities of our "Jewish brothers" who uphold their tradition that Christ deserved to be executed and is being punished eternally in boiling excrement for the "crime" of chastising the Pharisees. That's a "fair" deal ...

If only Fr. Cantalamessa were so concerned about Judaic blasphemy against Jesus Christ as he is "blasphemy" against "the Jews."

Jesus was and remains, despite everything, the greatest gift of Judaism to the world ...

Judaism's "gifts" to the world have been things like racial supremacism, double standards, usury, circumvention of the sabbatical year and the jubilee, the transmission of the occult traditions of Babylon into the West, dialectical reasoning, etc., etc. Jesus Christ has no part in Judaism, a "religion" which teaches that He deserved to be executed.

And this trendy notion that Jesus was "given to us" by the Jews smacks of naturalism. God gave Himself to us in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. All the glory is due to Him.

... a gift for which the Jews have paid a high price ...

Christ's disciples certainly paid a price high enough as to merit mention, but doing so risks depreciating the "unique" suffering of the "Jews," hence it's absence in Fr. Cantalamessa's sermon.

This sermon by Fr. Catalamessa will likely come across as "tough talk" to many people, particularly relative to the disgraceful subservience to the rabbis displayed by JPII. But this, in my opinion, is only an effort to manage the response to uncomfortable facts which are increasingly being revealed about the Judaic tradition today. It may also be meant to gauge the people's reaction to the revelation which will likely be as insignificant as the reaction to the joint document produced last week by the Papal Commission for Religious Relations with the "Jews" and the Chief Rabbinate of "Israel" promoting the Noahide Laws and creating a fictional "Christian" basis for them.

If that is so, one should only expect the treachery to escalate.

One last thought regarding the title of Fr. Cantalamessa's sermon, "We Are All Responsible for Jesus' Death." This slogan often seems intended to imply that all of mankind is equally culpable for Christ's crucifixion. This notion is not only absurd on it's face, it contradicts the words of Christ Himself spoken to Pilate: "... he that hath delivered me to thee, hath the greater sin." Here is a scripture which in our time has been "strangely forgotten," to borrow Fr. Cantalamessa's phrase. Fr. Cantalamessa and his "Jewish brothers" apparently would like it to stay that way.

Full sermon: