Blood Libel
#41
(11-29-2009, 01:34 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Obviously, as everyone should be justly held accountable (with room for the possibility of mercy of course). The point the Pope was making however, is that these actions weren't actually committed--that's why when he adds the part about one being caught in commission of the act, he says "which we do not believe."

My point is--and this goes to vps's point too--there's enough anti-Christian things in the Talmud or in historical events to make the point that Judaism as a religion is staunchly opposed TO Christianity (just as there is plenty of verifiable historical evidence that Islam historically tends to violence rather than peace) without having to grasp at accusations that are dubious at best--especially because that dubiousness is in large part caused by the fact that Christians were faking these things often enough for a Pope to have to point it out.

The case in question of little St Hugh of Lincoln and St Simon of Trent could hardly be described as being "dubious".
Reply
#42
(11-29-2009, 01:43 AM)Arun Wrote: The case in question of little St Hugh of Lincoln and St Simon of Trent could hardly be described as being "dubious".

I don't know much about  St. Hugh of Lincoln so I'll assume you are correct, but St. Simon of Trent's story does have a lot of doubt--so much so that bishop of Trent at the time of the incident investigated and said it didn't happen,as I posted in the other thread on him. The Pope at the time, Sixtus IV, after his investigation, suppressed any veneration of Simonino. Sixtus IV's track record also shows he was as far from a friend of anti-Christian Jews as one could be. It wasn't until 100 years later, that Pope Sixtus V un-suppressed it. Sixtus V of course was the Pope who put St. Robert Bellarmine's famous "Disputations" on the Index, tried to claim universal civil jurisdiction, and produced the infamous "Sistine Bible"--in other words, his judgment in matters religious and his access to the facts of this particular situation were both much less compared to those of Sixtus IV. So why choose this example in order to prove anti-Christan sentiments in the actual tenets of Judaism, when there are plenty of other more verifiable examples out there?

And even assuming both of these instances are perfectly verifiable, they couldn't reasonable be considered any more than isolated incidents in which certain Jews acted in a manner contrary the tenets of their religion. It would be no different than trying to say the Catholic religion tends to violence against Jews because of the case of the 12th century monk Radulph who incited Christians to murder Jews (as cited in Pope Benedict XIV's encyclical A Quo Primum 4).
Reply
#43
i didn'y say they weren't isolated; i merely contested your implicit denial of their occurence
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)