Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Pope's Diabolical Revolution in Catholic/Jewish Relations

There is nothing subtle about the "vicar of Christ" rehabilitating an eternally condemned, anti-Christ text. The Israeli priest below claims that Benedict quoted a Talmud teaching "which resonates deeply with the teaching of Jesus." This foul lie is refuted here:

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

The Talmud should not be burned or censored. It should be painstakingly, accurately translated and made readily available to scholars everywhere for the same level of critical analysis that all other religious texts are subjected to. The fraud documented here could only be put over on the completely ignorant.

Pope's 'Subtle Revolution' in Catholic/Jewish Relations

Zenit News Agency

Israeli Priest Comments on Pope Benedict's Address to Jewish Leaders in Paris, France.

JERUSALEM (Zenit) - Benedict XVI worked a "subtle revolution" with regard to relations with Jews during his trip to Paris earlier this month, simply by quoting the Talmud, says an Israeli priest.

Jesuit Father David Mark Neuhaus, the secretary-general of the Hebrew-speaking Catholic Vicariate in Israel, known also as the Association of St. James, explained this in an article posted on the Web site of the Hebrew-speaking Catholic Vicariate in Israel. Father Neuhaus also serves as the priest in charge of the Hebrew-speaking Catholic community in Haifa.

"We have become used to the friendly tone of papal statements and greetings of different Jewish communities as the Popes since the Second Vatican Council travel around the world," he said. "It should perhaps be pointed out though that in the recent meeting with the representatives of the Jewish community in France, the Holy Father worked another subtle revolution."

In the context on commenting on the importance of the Sabbath, the Pope said: "Does not the Talmud Yoma (85b) state: 'The Sabbath has been given to you, but you have not been given to the Sabbath?'"Father Neuhaus explained that the Church in France has a history of censoring the Talmud, the body of Jewish civil and ceremonial law.

"In 1239, Pope Gregory IX sent out a letter to the monarchs in Europe ordering them to confiscate the volumes of the Talmud from the Jewish communities that lived in their lands," the Jesuit wrote. "Accusations had been made that the Talmud contained blasphemies against Christian belief and constituted an obstacle to Jewish conversion to Christianity.

"Little action was taken by the European monarchs outside of France, although in many places censorship of the Talmud was imposed.In France, as a result of the Pope's letter condemning the Talmud, the first public disputation was staged between Jews and Christians between June 25 and 27, 1240, in Paris. Two years later, in June 1242, 24 wagonloads of books, including many precious handwritten volumes of the Talmud, were burnt.

"The French King, Louis IX, ordered further confiscations in 1247 and 1248 and future monarchs in France upheld the principle. A further book burning was held in Toulouse in 1319." The Jesuit asked, "Is it not then a subtle revolution that to the Holy Father not only warmly greets the Jewish community in Paris, but that he also quotes the same Babylonian Talmud? Is it not significant too that he quotes from a Talmudic teaching that resonates deeply with the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth?"


Anonymous said...

If Benedict is quoting from the Talmud, then that means he knows what's in the Talmud and does not disapprove. The Talmud contains vile calumnies against Christ our Lord and the Bless Mother. This is getting scary.

Anonymous said...

Nor is there anything subtle by putting "vicar of Christ" in parenthses. And I couldn't agree with you more!

God bless you, keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone ever considered that Benedict XVI is acting under duress? I'm certain that a theologian of Benedict XVI's breadth and depth knows precisely what the Talmud contains but is forced to endorse it to avoid a greater evil befalling the flock in some part of the world. Perhaps the recent, brutal, anti-Catholic violence in Orissa, India, although carried out by Hindus, was initially fomented by mossadniks. I'm not being charitable towards Benedict XVI; there's simply historic precedence for this. Other popes have been given their marching orders. Didn't Pius XII suppress Fr. Charles Coughlin? And, ultimately, didn't Pius XII side with atheistic communism? Wasn't Paul VI's In flagrante delicto -- his homosexuality (extensively covered in Randy Engels' "The Rite of Sodomy") -- used against him to shove the "spirit" of Vatican 2 down the faithful's throats? (I say "the spirit" because Sacrosanctum Consilium called for none of the changes people are forced to endure during Mass these days -- like communion under both kinds, communion in the hand, altar girls, versus populem worship, separation of altar and tabernacle, etc.). Don't forget that John Paul I (Albino Luciani) was made an example of for a reason. I'm certain his fate still resonates throughout the Roman Curia. The occupying forces will not let themselves be challenged so easily. Did it ever occur to anyone that John Paul II's famed utterance made during the early years of his pontificate -- "Be not afraid" -- was an attempt to talk himself out of his own fear? I'm certain Benedict XVI has been given ultimatums and I'm certain the fate of millions of Catholics throughout the world hangs in the balance. Do the Catholic thing and pray for him.

Anonymous said...

I do pray for the Holy Father everyday. But the Good Shepherd is supposed to lay down his life for his sheep. What good has keeping silent really done? How much worse could they do than what they did to the Christians in Russia under Communism? Tens of millions of dead Christians and most in the West know nothing about it.

I think it's time for the Pope to speak out and if he gets assassinated, then the next one must speak out, and if he gets assassinated, then the next one ... etc, etc, etc. Playing along with the powerful ones is costing untold millions of lives and souls. If it leads to Armaggedon, then bring it on. It can't get much worse.

Anonymous said...

If you keep looking for impeccability in a Pope, you're a) forgetting he's still a human being, and b) setting yourself up for a disappointment. You will not find impeccability. And the more you search for impeccability the more Protestant you'll become until your arguments against the Church are indistinguishable from those of the Seventh Day Adventists.

It's amazing how quickly you're willing to speak on behalf of the Holy Father's life (and on behalf of the lives of any other future Popes, for that matter). Only God can see the interior of a man. We can't. Firstly, the Holy See is judged by no one. If you can't handle that dogma, there are many Protestant denominations who'll gladly welcome you. Secondly, despite how depressing Papal judaizing can be, it really isn't new. When St. Peter judaized Christ did not revoke the keys from the first pope, nor did the apostles declare the See vacant. In fact, Christ never revoked the keys from Peter -- even after Peter denied him three times. So it appears that Christ was not a sedevacantist.

The First Vatican Council is clear on the dogma of Papal succession. Peter will have successors. The Council didn't guarantee they would be impeccable or to everyone's liking. Was the See vacant because Pius IX conceded the Papal States? Was the See vacant when Leo XIII wrote his encyclical Officio Sanctissimo which (along with Pius XII's encyclical Ci Resce) clearly laid the foundation for Dignitatis Humanae ?

Humanae Vitae is proof that even the worst Pope (so far) in the history of The Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Ghost. The consensus among the majority of theologians is that Humanae Vitae is clearly an infallible declaration -- produced from a Pope who has little sympathy directed towards him from Traditionalist/SSPX/sedevacantist circles. Yet Humanae Vitae serves as proof that the Holy Ghost is still in charge. Don't forget Christ's promise to His Church.

I'm certain many of the bishops listening to the rabbi speak at the scriptural synod will be very bored, perhaps annoyed, looking from time to time at their watch and wondering when it'll all be over so they can get some calamari fritti down the street. The bishops (as venal and weak as they may be) are most likely giving the squeaky door the grease. And if there are a few who are in thrall to the rabbi remember that bad bishops are the norm, not the exception. Bring on Armageddon, you say? Rather dramatic, don't you think? Now you're not just speaking for the Pope but for billions of other people as well.

Don't make the same mistakes as those you're up in arms about. Don't be Talmudic about the externals of the faith. I presume you don't like the New Mass. Okay. I don't like what Paul VI did, either, but at the end of the day, as a Catholic I concede that he had the power to bind and to loose. He changed many rites during his pontificate. Guess what? As supreme legislator he had the right to do so. You don't have to like it, but it was done. Remember, too, that the apostles did not have liturgical manuals. Moreover, there are many rites under the Catholic "umbrella" (Syriac, Malabar, etc.); they're not all identical. And however jarring the new rites might have been from the standpoint of liturgical development, the Holy See still had the right to promulgate and implement them. The legal precedent for such heteropraxis ironically can be traced to St. Pius V himself (although he admittedly had good reason for mandating one rite upon the Church at the time).

Hey, Ottaviani wasn't impeccable, either. In 1962, I believe, he authored the first internal document allowing pedophile priests to be moved around. But since he's a hero to Traditionalists because of his "Ottaviani Intervention," (which, by the way, only applied to the 1969 draft of the Novus Ordo Missae, and not the later 1970 version in which his concerns were addressed) that little fact isn't mentioned. Keep digging and you won't find impeccability -- not even in the SSPX. That's why Christ established The Church as the ordinary means of salvation -- because as Psalm 52:4 says "there is none that doth good, no not one." And if you think the homosexual shenanigans in the Church's seminaries are merely a 20th Century development or a result of Vatican II, you might want to read up on St. Peter Damian and his treatise "Liber Gomorrhianus."

Millions of Catholics were murdered by Communists. True. Millions of infants consigned to limbo as a result of abortion. True. The last time I checked, however, it was still a fallen world. Did not Christ submit himself to the unjust authority of an unjust ruler motivated by an unjust mob? It's telling that Christ referred to Peter as Satan only when Peter didn't want to hear about the crucifixion of Our Lord. Nor do any of us want to see the Church crucified, let alone from within. Pray, and be patient. The Resurrection followed the crucifixion. And don't forget that the particular judgement any Pope will face is certain to be far worse than any judgement you can pass.

Maurice Pinay said...

If you keep looking for impeccability in a Pope, you're a) forgetting he's still a human being, and b) setting yourself up for a disappointment.

This reasoning demonstrates a complete lack of proportion which is commonplace in the thinking of most people today.

To expect that the pope not collude with the keepers of the religious tradition which teaches that God incarnate was a bastard who led Israel astray and deserved to be executed because He contradicted their Pharisee spiritual forefathers is not anything even approaching expectations of perfection.

To expect that the pope not call such people "brothers in the faith" with whom we should have "religions relations" doesn't even approach expectations of impeccability.

Don't be Talmudic about the externals of the faith.

Who are you addressing here? Me? If so, you haven't understood a word written here, if that's your assessment of this blog. The pope is trashing the very Gospel--the words of Jesus Christ Himself--he makes a mockery of it with his treachery with the rabbis.

The Gospel is not an external.

The aforementioned theories that the pope is acting under duress grew tiresome 30 years ago. A few years ago they were saying that JPII was pressured by Ratzinger. Now that Ratzinger is pope, he's the victim ...

Anonymous said...

In reading the wonderful book JUDAISM DISCOVERED (not just for of its content but for the style of its composition which I find mesmerizingly sublime, like prose poetry), I have begun to wonder to myself if the "papal infallibility" thingy isn't a little bit Talmudic. For example, Mr. Hoffman points out on p. 201 that, "every G-d fearing Jew subjected his personal and communal affairs to the guidance of his Rav..." Am I on the right track, is there somethign Judaic about the Pope's infallibility?

Maurice Pinay said...

To the people who are caught in the mind trap of sedevacantist debate--both for and against--I'm making clear once again that I am not involved in it.

Anonymous said...


Rather than my thinking demonstrating "a complete lack of proportion which is commonplace in the thinking of most people today" I was merely trying to demonstrate how historically Papal judaizing is not something new. I was most certainly not defending it. And I, of course, do not regard the gospel as something remotely external to the Faith. My remark preceded comments about liturgical rites. I was not addressing you specifically, but was writing merely extemporaneously. As I indicated, Papal judaizing is nothing new, nor is the attempt to sanitize the Talmud. Michael Hoffman has made available a wonderful CD, "The Catholic Church and the Talmud in the Renaissance," that touches upon that point. Although you might grow tired of the "papal duress" theories, there is evidence to support it. Perhaps you'll recall Benedict XVI's Regensburg address? It was a masterful condemnation of Islam expressed in a very measured, almost coded, fashion. There was intelligence in its delivery and composition. I'd like to think that Benedict XVI was floating a trial balloon to see what the reaction would be and how far he could go. He found out. If I recall correctly, I believe a nun was murdered as a result of that speech. The response from Ignatius IV, Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, dated 17 September 2006 was hostile to the Pope and quite conciliatory and obsequious to Islam. This is no surprise since the Eastern patriarchs have historically tended to curry favor with the reigning temporal power structures, but this was most certainly heightened by the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church is far more vulnerable to Islamic violence. Similarly, do you think for a moment that the Pope is unaware of the temporal power wielded by the historical enemies of the Church? I'm certain Pius XII got the point when the atomic bomb was dropped on the Catholic Cathedral in Urakami, Japan (both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were overwhelmingly Roman Catholic). The golem couldn't have been any less subtle, could it? But if you're the Pope you're certainly going to think twice before you take steps that could lead to the destruction of entire populations. You see, the enemies of The Church have no problems fantasizing about such scenarios; they have no morality which binds their egotistical insanity. For better or worse, Catholics do. I wish I still had the printout I made of it, but I remember a statement issued by the Vatican early in Benedict XVI's pontificate that began something like "The Holy See will not be dictated to by . . . " and it was in context to an earlier remark the Pope made condemning the war in Iraq which seemed to be a subtle backhanded critique of Israel; the Israeli response prompted the Vatican's reply. Like I said, I wish I had kept it. Anyway, these are little things the Church's enemies don't forget. Now, I'm not for a moment foolish enough to think this was some dramatic point in Benedict's papacy -- indeed his judaizing preceded that remark, but I'm certain he was "scolded" for that in some measure. I'm certain Benedict XVI knows the temporal power the Church's enemies yield (and I'm certain they've blackmailed more than a few bishops as well -- it is, as you know, their modus operandi) and he knows what their potential response could be. It's very easy to demand that the Pope be a martyr for the faith when you're sitting in an easy chair writing a blog entry, but it takes on an entirely different dimension when you are the Pope in question and the lives of your flock are in the balance or if there's a scimitar or sharpened matzoh at your throat. Now, if the Papacy has become anything like the American presidency (which it seemingly has) you can't even get close to that position unless the puppetmasters know you're going to do their will (at least in the external forum). You can't even become mayor in a small municipality unless you agree behind closed doors to use certain contractors for public work projects! Should things be this way? Of course not. Yet that's the way they are. Crises in The Church sometimes aren't resolved in a lifetime. I'm not trying to be so philosophical about this that I'm ignoring the threat. Indeed, I believe the USCCB should be handed a document from the faithful warning them that any attempt to incorporate the Noachide laws into catechetical texts will be met with public protests. Maybe Catholics should hire private investigators, get the dirt on their bishops, and threaten to air the episcopal dirty laundry if the Noachide laws aren't formally condemned. Maybe it's time to pull the same crap the Church's enemies do (beat them to the punch, so to speak). In the meantime, all I'm saying is to have faith in Christ's promise to His Church. Dominus vobiscum.