Tuesday, July 30, 2013

L.A. Times Publishes Rabbi Adlerstein's Regurgitation of Counterfeit Papal 'Prayer'

When Malachi Martin devotees are confronted with his own indefensible words and deeds of treachery against the Church which he never retracted or made reparation for, they're wont to cry, "you're attacking a dead man who can't defend himself!"

This entry is on the topic of the fake papal 'prayer' which Malachi Martin put into the mouth of the dead Pope John XXIII, years after he had passed away and was unable to defend himself, and the disastrous effects that this fake 'prayer' has had in the 48 years since Malachi Martin first published it in the American Jewish Committee periodical, Commentary in January of 1965 under cloak of anonymity.

The L.A. Times recently published an editorial by Rabbis Abraham Cooper and Yitzchok Adlerstein of the Simon Weisenthal Center of Holocaustolatry titled, "John XXIII and John Paul II: Righteous popes." Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein's fanatical desire to kosher slaughter Catholicism is documented HERE and HERE.

Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein is also a professor at the nominally Catholic Loyola law school, where nominal Catholics learn the modern lawyers' racket which is really secular Talmudism, hence, among other reasons, Adlerstein's presence there.

From the L.A. Times editorial of Rabbis Abraham Cooper and Yitzchok Adlerstein we read:

Perhaps because of what he saw during the Holocaust, [Pope] John XXIII never lost an opportunity to modify church practices that nurtured anti-Semitism ... The pontiff decried theological anti-Semitism: "Across the centuries, our brother Abel was slain in blood which we drew...." he once prayed. "Forgive us, Lord, for the curse we falsely attributed to their name as Jews." ("John XXIII and John Paul II: Righteous popes," Rabbis Abraham Cooper and Yitzchok Adlerstein, L.A. Times, July 13, 2013)
These phrases are taken directly from the fake 'prayer' that Malachi Martin published in the American Jewish Committee publication, Commentary, January 1965 which read:

We are conscious today that many, many centuries of blindness have cloaked our eyes so that we can no longer see the beauty of Your Chosen People nor recognize in their faces the features of our privileged brethren. 
We realize that the mark of Cain stands upon our foreheads. Across the centuries our brother Abel has lain in the blood we drew, or shed tears we caused by forgetting Your love. 
Forgive us the curse we falsely attached to their name as Jews. Forgive us for crucifying You a second time in the flesh. For we know not what we did.

Now, this fake 'prayer' on its face constitutes a blood libel against Christians put in their own mouths, "... Across the centuries Abel has lain in the blood we drew ..." It also constitutes a curse upon Christians ("... the mark of Cain stands upon our foreheads..."), an idolatry of Judaic 'race' self-choseness (Your Chosen People ... our privileged brethren) and a misidentification of Christ with people who reject His teaching, messiahship and divinity ("Forgive us for crucifying You a second time in the flesh ..."), so it's easy to understand why the rabbis would want to keep this fake 'prayer' in circulation.

And indeed, that zealous helper of the rabbis, Malachi Martin also published a fake claim that Pope John XXIII intended for the 'prayer' to be recited in all of the churches of the world (see: "Vatican II and the Jews," Commentary, January 1965). While that extravagant goal was not reached, the 'prayer' has been recited in many churches throughout the world, even regularly in some areas such as in Poland. As we can see in the L.A. Times this ridiculous counterfeit 'prayer' still circulates widely even in the mainstream.

A paper has been published by the Council of Centers on Jewish-Christian Relations in which the author, a Rev. Dr. Murray Watson, reluctantly documents and acknowledges that the 'prayer,' which he views as a "beautiful and stirring" ... "[summation] of the repentance of post-Shoah Christianity," is indeed a counterfeit, but he nevertheless sees it as bearing good fruit by engendering other papal prayers and gestures of contrition to 'The Jews.'

There are people who will tell you there is no such thing as the revelation of the method, but that is exactly what we see here; 'yes, the revolution was subversive, but so what, look at the "good fruit" it bore.' In other words, the 'good' end justifies the subversive means. In addition, you're being subjected to conditioning via a narrative which has it that the Church and your ancestors were so channeled in traditions of "Jew hate" that it was only by subversiveness that they could be brought around to their present state of pholojudaic 'good,' which I attempted to illustrate HERE.

And so, getting back to Malachi Martin's devotees, yes, he is dead and unable to "defend himself" from responsibility for his own words and deeds, but I am alive and able to defend against his legacy of treacheries, which I will do so long as God permits me.

Also see:

The Self-Deception of Judaism and its Offshoot, Holocaustolatry

"Some events do take place that are not true; others are [true]--although they never happened."

Purim Shpiel 2009

The Pontificate of Benedict XVI began and ended with the 'You are Nazis' Meme

The File on Malachi Martin

Friday, July 26, 2013

Proof of Close Association Between Opus Dei and Cursillo Rainbow Movement Founders

The friendship between St. Josemaría Escrivá and Msgr. Juan Hervás as seen through their correspondence: A brief study of the relationship between Jose- maría Escrivá, founder of Opus Dei, and Juan Hervás Benet, Bishop of Ciudad Real and promoter of the Cursillos de Cristiandad (Short Courses of Christian- ity) is presented in this article.  


Washington State Archdiocese 'Noahide Law' Sermon

This sermon was published in a church bulletin covering two parishes in the Washington State Archdiocese. It accepts the talmudic 'Noahide Laws' as authentic and further takes for granted the rabbis' delusion that these rabbi-made laws are binding on all of humanity going even further to suggest that the 'Noahide laws' are spoken to every conscience by the voice of God.

"Fr. Dickey" sez:

Today we celebrate the First Sunday of Lent. It is significant in the opening reading that we hear about the covenant God made with Noah. Our Jewish brothers and sisters refer to this as the Noahide Covenant. This covenant does not just apply to Jews, but to the whole human race. You will remember That in the Bible Noah and his family were the sole survivors of the great flood. According To Jewish scholars, the Noahide Covenant has seven pillars. They include the prohibition of idolatry, murder, theft, sexual immorality and blasphemy. 
This Applies to us today. Sometimes people ask if there are moral rules that all humans must follow. We have an answer in the Noahide Covenant: It is wrong to kill, to take innocent human life. It is wrong to steal - to do violence to another human being by robbing his possessions. It is wrong to engage in sexual immorality. Do I need to go into details. 
These teachings are not new - They go back to Noah. The Covenant with Noah lives today in the voice of conscience. Just as God spoke to Noah, I speaks to us in our conscience. In recent weeks our bishops Catholics have been reminding us - and our fellow citizens as well - that conscience is real. In our conscience God speaks to us about the meaning of human life and human sexuality. Even if it means the end and imprisonment, our That bishops are telling we must not go against conscience. It is the voice of God. It is good to have that reminder, especially as we these begin forty days of Lent ...

Full sermon:


Thursday, July 11, 2013

The 'Noahide Laws:' The Rabbis' Double Standard that they call "Universalism"

Here's a 2002 talk given by The Chief Rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni which touches a number of matters which have been addressed here over the years. I haven't time or resources to write anything in-depth on this. The knowledge necessary to separate the facts from the deception have been freely given over the past 6 years of this journal's existence. And Rabbi Di Segni, true to rabbinic form, is indeed a deceiver, see HERE.

I will draw attention to what I believe is the most noteworthy point of this address which is that in explaining two possible approaches to Judeo-Christian dialogue, Di Segni suggests the eschatological approach as more fruitful path, that of ostensibly delaying resolution of insurmountable obstacles until the end of time. While this on its face appears to be a conciliatory gesture, there is much evidence as to how this gambit plays out in reality. Quite tellingly, Di Segni offers as an example the delay in resolution of the Israeli Palestinian conflict which any half-educated observer realizes is a time-buying operation during which the Israelis have walked away with nearly the entire cake.

In Novermber 2010, I wrote:

... the fruits of the Pope's apocalyptic theology--praying for the end to come quickly so "The Jews" will convert--is of the same lunatic tree that bore "Pastors" John Hagee and Tim LaHaye's eschatology. What is Hagee and Benedict doing when they discourage evangelizing "Jews"? They've made the Gospel of no effect. They've neutralized the one thing that has the power to save their souls and impede their hostility against us. They're buying these "children of the covenant" time to build up Pharisaic Talmudism. How much time? All of it! For whatever time there is left until the end of time we're to refrain from "wounding" evangelization of "Jews" according to the Hagee-Ratzinger dispensation.

Think about this. This is as fraudulent and pernicious as the time-buying "Peace Process" by which an Israeli state steadily emerges on Palestinian land allegedly allocated for a Palestinian state. In that case the Israelis make an occasional token concession and feign a light at the end of a very long tunnel. Benedict's theology is a more plain raw deal than that; there's no concessions and the time-frame, by design, is until the end of time; we're to "deepen our religious relations" with people who're undermining our religion until there's no time left. What of the souls that will be lost, Christians, "Jews" and all, during this strange dispensation lasting until the eschaton? How do we begin to account for such a loss? It would be a spiritual catastrophe on a much greater scale than the temporal Palestinian catastrophe.

It's not Christian to await the conversion of a remnant of Jews in the last days and to disregard the spiritual welfare of real or counterfeit Jews until then. Any Christian who buys this message will have been converted themselves, and that would be a satanic masterstroke.


Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni
Itália (2002/01/17)

1. First of all, I would like to thank the organizers of this study session for the invitation which has been extended to me, and for the opportunity that has been created for a fertile exchange of ideas, taking a biblical image as its starting-point. This meeting is taking place at a site that I have never visited before, but about which I have heard much; for many years, I have had the privilege of working together with a group of priests who graduated from this school, on common goals aimed at making the Bible more accessible to people. I have thus had a chance to appreciate in them, not only a solid foundation of learning, but also a spirit of great openness and willingness for discussion. I think that these are the most gratifying results for any school, and I can only hope that an outlook which has proven so fruitful may continue for a long time to come. 
2. And now we come to our theme, which is Noah. One could certainly wonder what he could possibly have to do with universalism and with the relations between Jews and Christians. To start with, we could say that, at first glance, the only thing universal in the story of Noah is the Flood. The Bible recounts how humanity had arrived at such a point of degeneracy that God decided to destroy it completely, saving only one family—that of Noah, who had distinguished himself among his contemporaries by his righteous and proper behaviour. When everyone else perished, submerged in a flood, Noah saved himself, together with his family and every species of animal, in an ark. Therefore, all of humanity is descended from the family of Noah; because of this, all the nations are called, in rabbinic language, Noahides—children of Noah. Rabbinic interpretation pauses here, to reflect at length on the messages which the Biblical text offers about the person who would become our common patriarch, and about the story of how he was saved. When the text introduces Noah, it says of him that he was righteous and upright in his generation, and that he walked with God. The fact that the text specifies that he was righteous in his generation makes one think that, if that generation had been a bit more morally-advanced, perhaps Noah would not have stood out as an exceptionally righteous person. But at least he was for his own time. As for what we might term his “religiosity,” the text specifies that “Noah walked with God.” In order to understand the value and the limits of this expression, we must jump ahead a little. Concerning Abraham—the righteous man who appears ten generations after Noah—the text says that he received the divine command to proceed ahead of God. One story speaks of walking together with, the other of preceding. In practice, Noah did his duty and followed the rules honestly—but he did not push himself any further with any burst of enthusiasm. And again, still comparing him with Abraham: when it was announced to him that humanity would be destroyed and that he would need to build an ark to escape, Noah reacts as he always does, obeying without saying a word. When the imminent destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is announced to Abraham, he launches into an exhausting bargaining-session with God, seeking to save the sinful cities. There are those who are normal people, and those who are special. Abraham is the prototype of these “special people,” and Noah is the prototype of those who are honest but ordinary and not impulsive. The noteworthy fact is that, according to the Bible, it was enough to be ordinary and lacking in any particular enthusiasm in order to save oneself and found an entire new humanity.

3. It is well-known that Jewish religious doctrine has built around the name of Noah and his descendants a doctrine of twofold laws and twofold salvation. None of humanity can escape from the yoke of the divine law, which is expressed in at least seven essential principles. These principles are expressed in rabbinic oral traditions which are based (more or less obviously) on scriptural references. However, within the human family there exists a particular group, that of the children of Israel, who also were originally Noahides, but who—by virtue of their descent from Jacob/Israel, the grandson of Abraham and the one who carries on after him—are set apart, inasmuch as they must observe a much more extensive set of rules, made up of other regulations as well, which deal in part with religious ceremonies. It is a status that we could define as priestly, a rôle of service: “a kingdom of priests and a people set apart”. The fact that some are priests, with special requirements and laws, and that others are not, does not preclude rewards and salvation for the latter. The great novelty of this rabbinic doctrine is that it is not necessary to subject oneself to the special doctrine of the Israelite priesthood to obtain the future rewards which are promised to the Israelites. Jewish universalism means two parallel roads toward salvation; it is sufficient that every person follow the road in which they find themselves at the moment of their birth, and that they respect its particular norms. A Noahide who follows the seven rules and recognizes their divine origin is defined as a “devout person [hasid] among the nations of the world,” and has a share in the world to come.

4. These rules are: the prohibition against any worship apart from monotheistic worship; the prohibition against blasphemy; the obligation to establish law-courts; the prohibition against murder, theft, adultery and incest; the prohibition against eating anything taken from a still-living animal. These express the respect which is required toward creation, toward other people, and in relation to God. If we transfer these principles from theory to reality, we can see:

- that the social portion of the seven laws is a patrimony common to all civilized humanity;
- that the sexual laws are more or less those paralleled in civil legislation, and are certainly prescribed in religious legislation;
- that the norm of respect for animals is rarely transgressed.

Blasphemy is certainly prohibited in organized religions. With regard to monotheistic worship, apparently there are not any doubts regarding the major religions. For Christians in particular, the fact that they acknowledge the sacredness of the Bible serves as a recognition of the divine origin of these norms. Having arrived at this point, it would seem that everyone, both observant Christians and Jews, can arrive, each by their own path, at the salvation that has been promised. That said, we could conclude there, but that is not exactly the way things are. It would be worthwhile to explain this, because clarifications on this problem will throw light upon the current difficulties in Jewish-Christian discussions, and will provide tools to define future scenarios.

5. At this point, a clarification is necessary regarding Jewish theology, in which the topic of monotheism and how it is lived out by Christianity poses an essential dilemma which is the subject of debate. What is being discussed is whether the divinity of Jesus might be compatible, for a non-Jew, with the idea of monotheism (for a Jew it absolutely is not compatible). As might be expected, the answer to this question in Jewish theology is not unanimous; there are those who firmly deny this possibility, and there are those who admit the possibility, under certain conditions. The consequence is that, according to a strict opinion, a Christian is perhaps not on the path leading to salvation.

6. I can imagine what a Christian’s reaction would be when faced with that analysis. I can imagine it, because that sense of disbelief, of protest, of rebellion that a Christian feels is the same as that which Jews might feel when Christian authorities say to them that their faith is incomplete and cannot lead to salvation—except in mysterious ways known only to God. It is incomplete, because it has not been crowned by faith in salvation through Jesus. Many Jews protested last year when an official and particularly noteworthy Church document reasserted this concept. But the problem is not so much the Church’s conviction of the necessity for Jews to be saved by means of Jesus. The real issue is what is done with that conviction. If we were to apply the system of Noahide laws to the letter, we would have to do everything possible in order that the Noahides observe them—including the law dealing with the prohibition against worship of any other gods. Each person would have to become a missionary of the pure faith. And so we find ourselves at the current crux of our dialogue and discussions. What good is it for us to speak to each other? What really bothers Jews is what has been said in official Catholic documents: that the goal of dialogue is to convert one’s discussion-partner to one’s own faith. And what if we were to do exactly the same thing—if we used every opportunity for discussion to convince you that, yes, you are on the right track, but that you must “purify” your faith, by eliminating precisely that which for you is essential?

7. This, therefore, raises the question of whether there are alternatives to this dialogue between people who do not hear each other, which risks becoming disrespectful and not in keeping with the dignity of everyone involved. I can attempt to imagine two scenarios which are different but not necessarily contradictory. The first is of a primarily theological type, the second is predominantly political. The first solution relates to the possibility of elaborating, on both sides, a doctrine that we could appropriately call “parallel salvation”. Christians would have to come to a point where they could admit that Jews, by virtue of their original and irrevocable election, and of their possessing and observing the Torah, possess their own autonomous, complete and special path toward salvation—a path that has no need of Jesus. It is not enough to say (just as was recently said, with a praiseworthy attempt at doctrinal elaboration) that our “hope is not in vain” because it serves as a stimulus to Christians; no, what must be said is that we have value in and of ourselves, and that no one need justify our faith on the basis of any other faith. Concretely speaking, the consequence would be the end of every temptation on the part of Christians to transform dialogue into a system of gentle persuasion, alleviating Jewish mistrust. On the Jewish side, this movement would have to be matched by an affirmation of the principle that faith in Jesus (understood: on the part of Christians, not Jews) is not incompatible with the worship of the one and only God. This is a principle which has been accepted in authoritative traditions within Judaism, but which would have to become more prevalent and accepted by the majority. From this would have to follow, on the part of Jews, a greater understanding of Christian spirituality. Now then, anyone who has even a minimal experience of the ways in which theologies develop on both sides can understand the difficulties in achieving these results, at least in a short time and at the same pace.

8. And now the other scenario, which could be defined as a political one, and which essentially consists of a willingness for a type of moratorium, of a suspension and deferral to the inscrutable superior will until the end of time. Two great Jews, eleven centuries apart, and marshalled in opposing camps, have perhaps said the same thing. The first, Saul of Tarsus, the Apostle Paul, when faced with the fact of Israel’s unbelief (which to him was inexplicable) formulated in Romans 11:25 the idea of the stubbornness of Israel, which will last until all other peoples shall have arrived at salvation, and only then “will all Israel be saved”. The second, Moses Maimonides, in the rules he gives for kings in his treatise (Chapter 11), after having denounced the invalidity of faith in Jesus, nevertheless formulated an interpretation of the providential significance of the spread of Christianity, “to prepare the road for the king-Messiah, and to help the whole world become accustomed to serving God together, as it is said, ‘At that time I will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech, that all of them may call on the name of the LORD and serve him with one accord’” (Zeph. 3:9). Perhaps the parallel suggests the solution, which cannot be immediate but is eschatological. Each of us has the right to hope that the other will acknowledge that there is true faith in us, but we allow for that to unfold over a long period, which is beyond our control.

9. We have a dramatic and very current example of this, very near to us, which suggests some analogies for us: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Two peoples, two cultures who are fighting over the same land. For both sides, it is the same land that they desire, on the basis of history, faith and politics: from the sea to the Jordan, and perhaps beyond. From a political point of view, it has been said that the alternative to the violence and bloodshed could be the partitioning of the land. But that does not mean that one must surrender one’s memories, one’s dreams, or the sacredness of the land. It means only that the dream cannot be realized immediately. Many people do not tire of repeating that the priority must be a territorial surrender on the part of both sides. For dreams—and each side has a dream from their point of view—there is time.

The political realism that almost everyone is preaching could perhaps provide a model for behaviour in the Jewish-Christian theological debate. Even if today there are no lives endangered by this debate (though perhaps some souls are endangered, in some of the more extreme perspectives), needs and responsibilities demand a different climate, without renouncing one’s own convictions, or the dream that perhaps at the end of time, one’s own faith will be the one and only. But in the meantime, it would mean removing this goal from the agenda and limiting the discussion to everything else, which is certainly no small amount.

10. By putting forth these two possible scenarios, we depart from the theoretical presupposition that the only problem of Jewish-Christian dialogue that remains is that of the conversion of the other. Despite notable progress, that is not the way things are, because there are always signs of standstills and of a reversal of direction, even on topics and problems that we should consider resolved like, for example, the question of preaching. Scarcely a week ago, from the most authoritative of sources, concepts and methods have reappeared which threaten to send us back to the past again. With regard to the Middle East conflict, there has once again been talk of the law of talion, whose logic, it was said, “is not suited to preparing paths of peace”. We are sensitive to this vocabulary, because the law of talion (which among other things is absent from rabbinic law) is a theological symbol of the false and unacceptable antithesis between a presumed “religion of love” and another which is, instead, focussed on revenge. As if this re-flowering of Marcionism were not enough, lately there has appeared the risky use of a theological category to interpret and judge political behaviour. If we speak of “a logic of talion” (a religious concept) in the context of the Middle East, we risk attributing to the opponents a fundamental religious and cultural defect, and this judgement certainly does nothing to facilitate “the paths of peace”.

11. To conclude, let us return to our ancestor Noah, whom we have left bobbing along on the water in an ark. We know how the story ends. Noah comes out of the ark, plants a vineyard, and what happens is well known. The man who was saved from the water is not saved from the wine. The man, ish, who had started off an ish tzaddik, a righteous man (Gen. 6:9) ends up as an ish ha’adamah, a man of the earth (Gen. 9:20). There is another Biblical character (Moses) who starts off by being saved from the water, drawn out of a boat made waterproof with the same materials used for Noah’s ark. And for him as well, there is a metamorphosis in his being an ish: from being ish mitzri, an Egyptian man (Exod. 2:19), to ish ha’elohim, a man of God (Deut. 33:1). If we are all children of a common ancestor, who is too human and questionable, we can also be disciples of special Teachers, like our Teacher Moses. For this reason, we appreciated the journey of the Pope to Sinai, as a reminder to Christianity of the Torah which was given to Moses from heaven. This is no small thing—a common element which we are to witness to the world, each one according to their own path. The Torah was given in the desert, in a land belonging to no one, with no water. The water of the Flood had submerged the whole world, bringing death with it, but we await the day when “the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea” (Is. 11:9). It is not difficult to define common goals: to respect human beings as images of the divine, to offer them dignity, solidarity and justice, to carry the sense of the sacred in the world. In the face of these goals, these little theological shoving-matches (which derive from the more or less unconscious desire to impose one’s own truth on others in a short time) truly appear as petty disputes.

As he left the ark, Noah received the assurance that humanity would never again be entirely destroyed by God. Now, however, this risk still exists—not destruction by a divine hand, but by a human hand, with no guarantees other than our responsibility, which we (especially as religions) cannot escape. Commitments and facts must come before forms and ceremonies. This is the authentic message of the prophets, which we recognize as a common source, and the comfort promised by the divine mercy will recall once more the waters of Noah, no longer as a sign of destruction, but as a sign of protection. As the prophet Isaiah says (54:9): “This is like the days of Noah to me: Just as I swore that the waters of Noah would never again go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you”.

Translation from the original Italian by Father Murray Watson, revised by the Author
(SIDIC, Roma)

Mgr. Oesterreicher on Malachi Martin and the Fraudulent "Prayer for 'The Jews"

Mgr. John Oesterreicher was one of the three Judaic fellows of evidently conflicted interests [also Gregory Baum and Bruno Hussar] who Cardinal Augustin Bea arranged to draft the Judaic portion of the Second Vatican Council document, Nostra Aetate joining with the input and cloak and dagger exploits of neo-bolshevik figures such as Rabbi Abraham Heschel and his helper Malachi Martin. In fact, Oesterreicher was involved in preliminary efforts to the actual drafting of Nostra Aetate.

As such, Mgr. Oesterreicher speaks with some authority on the characters and intrigue surrounding this document and what it stands for, as Cardinal Willebrands says in his foreword to Oesterreicher's book on the topic quoted below, "It is well known that [Mgr. Oesterreicher] had an important role to play in the drafting of Nostra Aetate, and I dare say he remains the foremost witness of this exciting episode of modern history."

One of the most remarkable events in this "exciting episode of modern history" is the outrageous "Prayer for 'The Jews" which appeared in the American Jewish Committee publication, Commentary, January 1965. Here is what one of the foremost witnesses on the matter, Mgr. John Oesterreicher testified under the heading, Fraud and Other Problems:

The most alarming examples of "disclosures" which, for want of better information, are accepted by many as authentic reports, are The Pilgrim by M. Serafian, and an article on the history of the Declaration on the Jews, entitled "Vatican II and the Jews" (Commentary, January 1965) by the same author. He is an ex-Jesuit, Malachi Martin, this time using another pseudonym, F.E. Cartus. The article contains a prayer ascribed to Pope John that has had wide currency, though everyone who knew the Pope's mind and style is convinced that it was fabricated. Moreover, Mr. Martin has in all these years refused to offer any proof of the prayers authenticity, a photocopy of the original, for instance. Nor did he reveal how he came into possession of the alleged prayer of Pope John.

This is the prayer that Mr. Martin maintains was found after the Pope's death, without telling us by whom:

We are conscious today that many, many centuries of blindness have cloaked our eyes so that we can no longer see the beauty of Your Chosen People nor recognize in their faces the features of our privileged brethren. 
We realize that the mark of Cain stands upon our foreheads. Across the centuries our brother Abel has lain in the blood we drew, or shed tears we caused by forgetting Your love. 
Forgive us the curse we falsely attached to their name as Jews. Forgive us for crucifying You a second time in the flesh. For we know not what we did. 
(John M. Oesterreicher, The New Encounter, p.155 Philosophical Library Inc. 1986)

I might add to Mgr. Oesterreicher's observation that this prayer does match the preposterous thinking and style of the author of The Pilgrim, Malachi Martin, in its fanatical zeal to heap a blood libel upon today's Christians and their predecessors of "many, many centuries" HERE.

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

The file on Maximilian Krah

The file on Purim

The file on Benjamin Netanyahu

Netanyahu: Gaza Death Camp Operating "at Full Strength"

Netanyahu's Messianic Fanaticism Precipitating False-Messiah Catastrophe

Netanyahu: "The Rebbe said to me ..." and to every 'Jewish' child from age 5

The Rabbinic Foundation of Netanyahu's Messianic Lunacy Further Revealed

Netanyahu's 'Justice' Minister: Talmudic Law Should Be Binding In Israeli State

Netanyahu reported to say legal system based on Talmud

Netanyahu's Synagogue-and-State Authoritarian Orthodox Judaic Hierarchy

Netanyahu Mocks the World

Netanyahu Gifts Pope with his Racial Supremacist Father's Race War Book

Netanyahu gives Obama the Book of Esther. Biblical parable for nuclear Iran?

Francis and Netanyahu's Counterfeit Jesus Pilpul

Madman's Hava Megillah Caught on Camera

John Hagee spews Netanyahu's Purim spiel

"Netanyahu is More Powerful than the President." "The Congress has Sold Out to AIPAC"

Rabbi Netanyahu

Netanyahu: 'We should attack Iran with "subversive" U.S. television programming"

Pope Benedict XVI's hasbara mission