The site visitor's words are in bold.
do you recognize as the current Pope?
First, hi, Mr. XXX! Nice to "meet" you : ) I'm a non-sedevacantist Catholic
-- i.e, I'm Catholic, period, and I recognize Benedict XVI as our Holy Father
(and, boy, did I breathe a sigh of relief when he was elected!)
I was at your website, but couldn't find that.
I did see something that really caught my attention:
Might I recommend a book from Roy Schoeman, that might address some of your
information on that page? It is called "Salvation is From the Jews" and can
be found at
I'd like to know what you think about that website.
I haven't read Mr. Schoeman's book, but remember having read about it at
Seattle Catholic a while back -- an article which is linked to at his site
now, I see. Because I haven't read his book, and have only just now skimmed
his website, I can't really say too much either way. I can say, though, that
one thing that worries me is this: there seems to be a conflation of the
Old Testament religion, which is usually called "Judaism," with post-Temple
rabbinism, when, in fact, they are two different religions. It's one thing
to say "Jesus was a Jew," "salvation is from the Jews," and "Jesus practiced
Judaism" if by "Jew" one means a member of one of the 12 Tribes of Israel,
and by "Judaism," one means the Old Testament religion. But what is always
ignored are the Talmud, Kabbalism, what the Noahide laws truly mean, etc.
-- and it is these things that constitute "Judaism" today (all the reformed
stuff aside). There's Torah, and then there's Torah seen through the Talmud
-- i.e., Torah negated. There's "Oh, yes, Jesus was a Jew" -- and there's
the fact that post-Temple Judaism is explicitly, vehemently antichrist. I
guess my point is that saying "Jesus was a Jew," "salvation is from the Jews,"
and so on, is true as far as it goes, and is misleading insofar as that's
where the sentences stop.
Because Mr. Schoeman is a Catholic, I am assuming that by "Judaism" he means
the Old Testament religion, and in that case there's no argument. But when
the uninformed reader hears "Jesus practiced Judaism," he'd then expect to
find Jesus believing what the typical Orthodox rabbi does today, and that
simply isn't true. Jesus wasn't a Talmudist. He doesn't think His Mother
was a whore, He knows He isn't boiling in excrement in Hell, He knows it's
wrong to steal from the goyim, etc.
What I worry about, in other words, is perpetuating the ignorance of what
post-Temple Judaism is, and I believe, as a fellow Catholic, that our not
having a true understanding will leave members of our Church wide open for
the wiles of the antichrist to come. The "Judaizing" of Christianity was
the very first heresy, and I think it will be the last before Our Lord comes
again, if you know what I mean. There is a deep Mystery here, a most fascinating
and frightening Mystery, and it's being played out on the world stage all
the time. Our ignorance of History -- and our fear of speaking the Truth
in all charity and humility -- will be the death of souls.
I'd also like to learn a little bit more about you personally. My name
is XXX, and I'm a convert from Judaism to Catholicism. My grandmother on
my father's side came from Ireland (she was Catholic), and my paternal
grandfather came from Germany (he was Lutheran). My mother's side of the
family is Jewish, and she is 2nd generation American born. My ancestors on
her side are German and Russian. I am proud of both sides of my family, and
of all of every part of my heritage. Likewise, I truly feel embraced and
respected for who I am and where I come from in the Catholic Church.
You and I have the Irish in common! I'm Irish on my Mom's side, but my Dad
is 100% Italian -- first generation -- and it's his side of the family I
tend to think of first when I think of my ethnicity. Like you, I'm proud
of my heritage, too. People need roots -- a hard thing to hang on to in America.
I lament the deracination, the lumping of people together into an amorphous
mass lacking in all vitality. I love all the different ethnic foods and
aesthetics and lore, and find it sad that now we're all just a bunch of monotone
consumers --- thinking, doing, buying the same things, all wondering how
Jack-o's trial will turn out LOL Sad, sad, sad...
Most of all, though, you and I have the "Catholic" in common! Christ makes
brothers and sisters of all who love Him. The rest is, ultimately, politics
-- but this is the beauty of the Church. Her Sacraments work together to
make brothers of all men who say yes, while Her social teaching -- esp.
subsidiarity -- works to preserve our beautiful differences.
Please tell me about your background and heritage. Were you baptized in
the Catholic Church as an infant? When did you first receive the sacraments?
What types of feelings, or events in your life do you attribute to leading
you to and/or away from the Roman Catholic Church?
I was baptized as a baby, but -- in spite of being Italian-Irish -- was raised
outside the Church. I was sent to Protestant schools (I think Vatican II
made my parents lose interest; my older brother and sister both went to Catholic
schools, etc.). I later became an agnostic, had a wild teenage-hood and young
adulthood, but found Christ in my early 30s (or maybe He found me LOL). I'm
42 now (I keep wanting to say 43 for some reason. Strange.). Anyway, I was
confirmed in the Novus Ordo rite (sadly), but now attend only the ancient,
so-called "Tridentine" Mass (indult/F.S.S.P. -- though I have no problems
with the S.S.P.X. whatsoever).
What made me turn to Christ was -- well, ultimately it was grace, of course.
On a temporal level, I was (still am in some ways) a very philosophical,
semi-artistic, neurotic depressive type who pretty much went through Hell
most of my adult life. I was always a Truth-seeker. And the search paid off
somehow. There was no one moment, but series of moments -- times when I would
be so overwhelmed with "knowing" that it was almost unbearable. A priest
once told me I had the gift of tears, if you know what I mean. I just fell
in love with Jesus. Then I had to find out how to worship Him. I always had
a Catholic imagination, and was intelligent enough to know that the Catholic
Church was the oldest form of Christianity, so it was toward the One True
Church that I looked. I did the E.W.T.N./Catholic Answers standard route,
but kept studying and came to see serious problems with the post-conciliar
changes with regard to the liturgy, sacramental rites, and the way in which
our Faith is presented by too many of our hierarchs. So, I sort of had to
find my footing once again, this time by studying what the Church had always
taught, by reading more about our History, by reading older papal encyclicals
and such. And now I'm a "trad" who prays very hard that our Holy Father begins
the restoration. There's so much work for us Catholics to do! So much for
us to learn (or re-learn) and pass on!
So, there's my story!
Again, it was nice to "meet" you! I will try to find Mr. Schoeman's book
at our library. I am sure I could get a hold of it via interlibrary loan
at the least : ) God's blessings to you and your family!
for answering my questions. I have to admit that I am surprised you are loyal
to magisterial authority, given the content on your Jewish relations page.
Re-hi! What on those pages indicates a lack of loyalty to the infallible
teachings of the Church?
My assumption was that if you were onboard with Rome and the Pope, then
you're onboard with Nostra Aetate. Nostra Aetate is no hollow apology or
attempt at appeasement to get the Jews off the Churchs back.
To the contrary, it is, in part, a veritable retooling of theology and the
way the Church thinks about who She is in relationship to the Jews, as well
as other certain religions, which contain elements of truth.
Point one: The Church's teachings are eternal, Truth doesn't change. Our
understanding may grow in complexity and clarity, but contradiction has no
place here. From Pastor Aeternus, section De Romani Pontificis
Infallibili Magisterio of Vatican I: "For the Holy Spirit was promised
to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make
known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously
guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted
by the Apostles." If Jews were not fulfilling the obligations of being in
a saving covenant when St. Justin Martyr was "dialoguing" with Trypho, they're
not fulfilling those obligations now. If, as Romans 11:28 says, Jews "are
most dear for the sake of the fathers" (and this doesn't get into the whole
intermarriage and Khazaria concepts), then it's also true that, as the same
verse says, Jews "as concerning the gospel, indeed, they are enemies for
your sake." Truth can't contradict Truth, and one can't parcel out the Bible
in bits, picking and choosing as if at a cafeteria.
Point two: Nostra Aetate is not the revolutionary document people want to
make it out to be. Here's the section on Judaism, in total, with my comments:
4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers
the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's
Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving design,
the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the
Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in
Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch's
call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed
by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore,
cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through
the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient
Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that
well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots,
the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our
Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)
Marcionism was defeated as a heresy long ago. Nothing new is being taught
here. St. Augustine long ago said that "The New Testament lies hidden in
the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New." The mistake that people
make here is in thinking that "the people with whom God in His inexpressible
mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant" are the same as Talmudists. The people
of the Old Covenant had priestly authority, offered various korbanot, and
faithfully awaited the Messias -- the Messias Whom faithful Israel accepted.
Of the same "root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been
grafted the wild shoots," Scripture says this in Romans 11:16-24: "For if
the firstfruit be holy, so is the lump also: and if the root be holy, so
are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken, and thou, being
a wild olive, art ingrafted in them, and art made partaker of the root, and
of the fatness of the olive tree, Boast not against the branches. But if
thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then:
The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well: because of
unbelief they were broken off. But thou standest by faith: be not highminded,
but fear. 'Thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear'.. We see
here that he who standeth by faith may fall from it; and therefore must live
in fear, and not in the vain presumption and security of modern sectaries.
For if God hath not spared the natural branches, fear lest perhaps he also
spare not thee. See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them
indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God,
if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they
also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is
able to graft them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the wild olive tree,
which is natural to thee; and, contrary to nature, were grafted into the
good olive tree; how much more shall they that are the natural branches,
be grafted into their own olive tree?"
There's no use pretending, as so many post-conciliar hierarchs do, that there
are two saving Covenants in existence, that Christians and Talmudists are
working side by side as a blended Light unto the Nations, and so forth. There
is one Way, and that Way is Christ.
The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen:
"theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the
worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ
according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also
recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as
most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world,
sprang from the Jewish people.
Romans 9 continues with verses 6-10:
"Not as though the word of God hath miscarried. For all are not Israelites
that are of Israel: Neither are all they that are the seed of Abraham, children;
but in Isaac shall thy seed be called: That is to say, not they that are
the children of the flesh, are the children of God; buy they, that are the
children of the promise, are accounted for the seed. For this is the word
of promise: According to this time will I come; and Sara shall have a son.
And not only she. But when Rebecca also had conceived at once, of Isaac our
Galatians 4: 21-31 makes clear the traditional understanding of any use of
the phrase "elder brother" vis a vis the physical descendants of Father Abraham:
"Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, have you not read the law?
For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, and
the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman, was born according
to the flesh: but he of the free woman, was by promise. Which things are
said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from mount
Sina, engendering unto bondage; which is Agar: For Sina is a mountain in
Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage
with her children. But that Jerusalem, which is above, is free: which is
our mother. For it is written: Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not: break
forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for many are the children of the
desolate, more than of her that hath a husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac
was, are the children of promise. But as then he, that was born according
to the flesh, persecuted him that was after the spirit; so also it is now.
But what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the
son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So
then, brethren, we are not the children of the bondwoman, but of the free:
by the freedom wherewith Christ has made us free."
As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her
visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed
not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most
dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes
or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company
with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known
to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice
and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).(12)
God does not repent of His Covenant and did not break it. The unfaithful
of Israel failed (and fail) to live up to the obligations of that Covenant,
and God made a New Covenant -- fulfilled the Old Covenant -- with the faithful
of Israel. Jeremias 31:31-34:
"Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel, and with the house of Juda: Not according to the
covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by
the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt: the covenant which they
made void, and I had dominion over them, saith the Lord. But this shall be
the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days,
saith the Lord: I will give my law in their bowels, and I will write it in
their heart: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."
Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great,
this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding
and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies
as well as of fraternal dialogues.
Nothing wrong with "dialogue" in the typical use of the word. Mutual
understanding is always good. Respect for all human beings has always been
True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for
the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged
against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews
From the 16th c. Catechism of the Council of Trent: "In this guilt [of the
death of Christ] are involved all those who fall frequently into sin; for,
as our sins consigned Christ the Lord to the death of the cross, most certainly
those who wallow in sin and iniquity crucify to themselves again the Son
of God, as far as in them lies, and make a mockery of Him. This guilt seems
more enormous in us than in the Jews, since according to the testimony of
the same Apostle: If they had known it, they would never have crucified the
Lord of glory; while we, on the contrary, professing to know Him, yet denying
Him by our actions, seem in some sort to lay violent hands on him."
The idea that you can't blame Joe the Bagel Salesman for personally killing
Christ is not some new teaching, and it astounds me that people go on as
if it is. What is also true, though, is that if Joe practices classical
post-Temple Judaism, then he worships in a religion that exults in the death
of Christ, that teaches Christ deserved to die, that Nero was a hero, that
Christ's mother is a whore, that Jesus is boiling in excrement in Hell, that
the goyim are cattle, etc.
Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented
as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.
All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching
of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the
truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.
Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church,
mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political
reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions,
displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.
This is nothing new either, depending on how "Jew" is defined. If "being
Jewish" is defined as a biological matter, as it is in the Talmud, by Hitler,
and by Eretz Israel's "Law of Return." then the idea that "Jews" are not
under a curse is true. If "being Jewish" is a matter of religion, as I believe
it is and as the Church had always taught, then it's not quite true -- or
not fully true. One who worships in a religion that explicitly and forcefully
rejects Christ is cursed -- but that same person can walk away from that
at any moment. It's a curse he brings on himself, not some unjust, inescapable
thing that comes from the Heavens with no rhyme or reason.
Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His
passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite
love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden
of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of
God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.
And it is this teaching that is being lost, especially with documents like
"Reflections on Covenant and Mission" from the USCCB -- a work that has lines
Aetate Catholic recognition of the permanence of the Jewish peoples
covenant relationship to God has led to a new positive regard for the
post-biblical or rabbinic Jewish tradition that is unprecedented in Christian
history" and "According to Roman Catholic teaching, both the Church and the
Jewish people abide in covenant with God." -- totally ignoring that though
GOD did not break the Covenant, the faithless of Israel did, and that a New
Covenant was made and that there is no salvation outside of Christ, Whose
Mystical Body is the Church. The text is correct only insofar as it goes
-- but it leaves out the rest of the story, thereby leading to false conclusions
such as dual covenants, and the idea that the Gospel doesn't need to be preached
"From the point
of view of the Catholic Church, Judaism is a religion that springs from divine
revelation." -- totally ignoring that the Old Testament religion is radically
different from post-Temple Judaism, an Historical fact summarized by the
Jewish Encyclopedia: "... and with the destruction of the Temple the Sadducees
disappeared altogether, leaving the regulation of all Jewish affairs in the
hands of the Pharisees. Henceforth Jewish life was regulated by the teachings
of the Pharisees; the whole history of Judaism was reconstructed from the
Pharisaic point of view, and a new aspect was given to the Sanhedrin of the
past. A new chain of tradition supplanted the older, priestly tradition.
Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and the life and thought of the
Jew for all the future.";
"Thus, while the
Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process
of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell
in a saving covenant with God." Utter heresy insofar as it intimates that
what post-Temple Jews are doing is perfectly fine. It's utterely uncharitable
to deprive Jews of the Gospel message.
Anyway, there it
is. Nostra Aetate, the document that is supposed to have "changed everything."
I don't get it, but the newspapers insist it's true.
As for the Jews, the reference is explicitly to Judaism of "our time,"
not what you call a "conflation" or an "explicitly, vehemently anti-Christ"
Are you saying that Judaism is no longer anti-Christ? The Mel Gibson debacle
is a little too fresh in my mind to believe that! (Before you pull Rabbi
Lapin out of a box, be assured that he's pro-Evangelical Dispensationalist,
but very anti-Catholic. I can show you his writings. He can cope with Christians
who are hyper-Zionist and who will send money to Eretz Israel, but he considers
"medieval Christianity" -- i.e., Catholicism -- to be one long "anti-semitic"
nightmare. Insofar as post-conciliar hierarchs leave Catholicism behind,
they are deemed kosher, too.)
Were not the Chosen People throughout the Old Testament a constant "prodigal
people," like the Prodigal Son? Was not their waffling in their earliest
practices, and lack of faith as a People Israel, something that in Sacred
Scripture God called into question and rebuked, over and over?
Definitely. But the Church is "the people of God" now, as Nostra Aetate would
say (did say), and our lack of fidelity to the Church's eternal teachings
is what God is punishing us for now.
They were and still are a microcosm of the HUMAN condition and God's special
love for ALL of His people. They are not a degenerate, evil race.
Unlike racists and Talmudists, I don't believe that Jews are a "race" at
all. They are an ethnic group, like Italians and Lebanese and the Swiss.
Most of them are also tied together by religion, even if a watered-down version
of it such that the only things remaining of that religion for most of them
(who think of themselves as "secular" or "Reformed") are a sort of particularism
and Zionism. Some put aside even the particularism and Zionism, and others
away from all religious aspects entirely, calling themselves "Hebrews" instead
so as to make clear they've cut all ties to Judaism (the religion).
If one can move past this fact, and accept that the Jews, as the People
of Israel, live in our time, one might realize that post-conciliar attitudes
toward Jews are to be reverential, full of respect, and even grateful. It
is not only "enlightened," or modern thinking that calls for
this attitude of more than just tolerance, but the Deposit of Faith within
the Church Herself, i.e. the teaching to Catholics that anti-Semitism in
all its forms are wrong.
I imagine you didn't intend it, but what you wrote is blasphemous (and "racist"
if one considers Jews a "race.").
1 : expressing
or having a quality of reverence <reverential awe>
2 : inspiring reverence
1 : honor or respect
felt or shown : DEFERENCE; especially : profound adoring awed respect
2 : a gesture of respect (as a bow)
3 : the state of being revered
4 : one held in reverence used as a title for a clergyman
: respect and esteem
due a superior or an elder; also : affected or ingratiating regard for another's
show "profound adoring awed respect" for those who believe that Jesus Christ
-- the Messias and King of Kings, the Creator of the Sun, Moon, and Stars
-- is boiling in excrement in Hell? We should consider them our "superiors"?
That is madness. It is the Pharisees who should show "profound adoring awed
respect" for Christ, and who should enter into His Church with gratitude
and humility, becoming one with His Body and not aspiring to be a chosen
sub-set of the Chosen (who are chosen not because of who their biological
mothers are, but because of grace-inspired humility, and whose chosen-ness
is not a license to steal and lie and lord over the out-group, but a yoke
of service and love). Galatians 3:26-29 "For you are all the children of
God by faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized
in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there
is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all
one in Christ Jesus. And if you be Christ's, then are you the
seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise."
I will not bow to a Jew, and I do not want a Jew to bow to me. But I will
preach Christ so we can bow together as brothers and sisters before Christ,
"That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven,
on earth, and under the earth: And that every tongue should confess that
the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:10-1).
"More than just tolerance"? If we were any more "tolerant," there'd be no
Finally, how are you defining "anti-semitism" here? As things are, it can
mean anything from making a Catholic movie about Christ's Passion, being
against Zionism (a sentiment in which practically every 19th c. rabbi shared),
being against some of the policies of Eretz Israel, knowing and pointing
out what the Talmud teaches, mentioning uncomfortable facts of History --
or even raising questions about certain aspects of History, knowing that
Jews (as opposed to Catholic Hebrews, for ex.) are not in a "saving Covenant,"
infection with a mutating "virus" that afflicts "Gentiles" of all times and
all places for no reason at all -- to being a racist Nazi or anything in
between. Unless "anti-semite" is used to indicate someone who thinks that
anyone born of a Jewish parent is inferior in some way, automatically damned,
needs to be held in contempt or subjection, etc., I think it's pretty much
a worthless term. Aside from that, Catholics should be much more worried
about the rampant anti-Catholicism out there (much of it stemming from Semites).
Furthermore, we are to learn from, and make use of, some of the God-given
truths of Judaism, Islam, and even Buddhism, within Church context.
There are no theological truths in Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism that are
not taught by the Catholic Church. Anything that is theologically true in
them is true in the Church and taught by the Church. If a Jew says "Hear,
O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord," and it is true, then so does the
Church. If a Muslim says "Jesus was a great Prophet," and it is true, then
so does the Church. Everything that is needed for salvation is offered by
the Church, and anyone who is saved is saved by the grace of Christ alone,
through His Church which is His Bride.
As children, we are taught that hatred breeds hatred and lies beget lies.
"Grown-up" Catholics must believe this too.
What is this talk of hatred? Where is there hatred at my site? Where is an
untruth, let alone a "lie"?
Pope John Paul II apologized for the sins of Catholics who were remiss
in this lesson. It is a lesson that has always been a Truth throughout history,
a lesson of Truth that always will be, but one that has only further been
elucidated by Vatican II. Call it naivety if you will, but I wish the spirit
of Pope John Paul II and his relationship with the Rabbi of Rome to the very
end of the Holy Father's earthly life would hold a higher place on your Jewish
relations web page.
I don't know what his relationship with the Rabbi of Rome was exactly, but
his praying in synagogues was sacrilegious. There's another Pope who had
a relationship with another chief Rabbi of Rome, though. Rabbi Zolli took
on the name "Euguenio" at his Baptism, in honor of Pope Pius XII -- a man
who saved 800,000 Jewish lives, but who is now routinely kicked and slandered
as a Jew-hater, apparently because in spite of extending Christian charity
to Jews (as should be extended to all men), he didn't preach a false gospel.
Instead of preaching a false Gospel, he preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ,
and Rabbi Zolli was saved by it and by the example of his charity. For this,
he is reviled. This is the sort of hatred against which a Catholic should
expend his energy.
I will continue on... Praying faithfully for you and your website, hoping
for the spirit of charity and the conversion of souls to Christ. You may
be an instrument of peace -- however God sees fit, that's up to Him. On a
personal note, the real Catholic charity that I have seen towards Jews by
clergy, and several lay and religious, helped bring true conversion about
Thanks for the prayers for the site!
Obviously charity is a required thing on the part of Catholics, but it can
never come at the expense of Truth. If it does, it isn't charity at all;
it's mere sentiment. If we love Jews (as we must), we will preach Christ
to them, without watering it down, without lying about our History to make
them feel better about theirs, without bowing and scraping in undeserved
shame or in some gesture designed to appease the unwillingness on the part
of some to let go of the idea of having that Super-Sacred D.N.A. before which
all must stand in awe, as if all of us don't have fascinating histories stemming
from Adam and Eve and Seth and Noah, et al., and as if all of us don't come
from cultural groups about which we can find something to be proud (and ashamed,
if we're honest).
Just as obviously, prudence is called for in this endeavor since there is
so much misinformation out there. I pray I've been prudent, though I know
saying anything unpleasant about Judaism or Jewry is bound to sound
"anti-semitic" in our excrutiatingly philo-semitic culture -- a culture in
which just being an orthodox Catholic is enough to get the "anti-semite"
label. But I know there are too few people who are willing to defend Holy
Mother Church and to speak very clearly that Jesus is the Way, the Truth,
and the Life for everyone, Jew or Greek. So I must.
At any rate, God's blessings to you, friend.
I do believe
we have reached an impasse, and so I offer these last words to you attached
in Adobe (to preserve their integrity), as well as in Word, for you to shred
as you will.
Peace in Christ,
David 'ben XXX' XXX. AKA Andrew.
Descendant in the faith and blood of Abraham,
(as are you through the spiritual adoption of Baptism and the Body and Blood
We may have reached an impasse, sadly. I will read the attachment and reply
as I go along.
I pray that you be well in heart and spirit through the blessings of our
Lord Jesus Christ. Sadly, your web page and response to my comments, maintain
an awfully bitter antipathy towards Judaism (and as can be logically inferred
- towards Jews), engendering unequivocal anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, as
author and/or endorser/disseminator of this hate speech, you fail to see
or openly admit that.
If you see no difference between being a descendant of Jews and exalting
Judaism (or any other ideology or religion, for that matter), then you speak
as Hitler does. I don't think that just because a person has a Jewish parent
means he must believe in or be protective of post-Temple Judaism, but you
seem to. Even as a self-proclaimed Catholic, you defend that explicitly
antichrist religion, ignoring even what the Jewish Encyclopedia says about
its radical differences from the religion of the Old Testament.
Furthermore, you make claims as to your website's Catholicity and pledge
loyalty to the teachings of the Magisterium. You seem to attempt to back
these claims vis a vis your interpretation, or simple presentation, of Church
documents and Sacred Scripture. Yet at the same time, you defame the Papacy,
bishops, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, citing their infallibility
only when it suits your cause.
You'd have to give specific examples in order for me to know what you're
alluding to here.
In your e-mail, you labeled our departed Blessed John Paul II, (and soon-to-be
called "Saint John Paul the Great") as a heretic, based on his visiting and
worshipping in a Jewish Synogogue!
I never said John Paul II was a heretic (and such a thing wouldn't be my
perogative as a laywoman even if he were); I said his praying in a synagogue
was sacrilegious (as was his kissing the Qur'an).
You tried to bash the Church "Hierarchs," thereby establishing your own
special authority over the USCCB.
Even the Association of Hebrew Catholics found great fault in that document
by the USCCB -- a document that was so radical and wrong, that the USCCB
took it down from their website almost immediately after the uproar ensued.
But the bigger point is this: infallible teaching is infallible teaching.
What has always been taught everywhere from the beginning is what Catholics
must believe. If a Pope were to come out on his balcony tomorrow and say
that Jesus is not God, we must not believe him. We're not legal positivists;
we're Catholics bound to Scripture, Tradition, and the infallible
Magisterium (with regard to the assent of faith. We are to obey the fallible
Magisterium, too, unless doing so leads to sin or harms souls).
Also, it appears you assert authority over the Catechism of the Catholic
Church. For example, on your website, you imply in several places that Jews
are not a race, and "race is not the issue," seemingly as a way to skirt
the issue of racism and/or of being called a racist. CCC 839 refers to the
Jews as a race. In your e-mail to me you said "Unlike racists and Talmudists,
I don't believe that Jews are a race at all." Therefore, in addition to whomever
you have the audacity to call 'racists', and in addition to your handy scapegoat
of the Jew himself, whom you libelously vilify and caricaturize as a 'Talmudist',
you have also implicated the Magisterium, who allowed the Catechism to be
printed. Maybe the Church should have consulted you first?
First, I'm not sure what "Jew" you're referring to when you assert I'm handily
scapegoating "the Jew," but I don't believe that all Jews or even most Jews
are Talmudists. I don't think the "average Jew" has a clue as to what's in
the Talmud, at least not on a conscious level -- that is, not in any way
such that he could say to himself, "The goyim are cattle? That's from the
Talmud -- Yebamoth, I believe!" To the average Jew, the Talmud is the work,
written by long-ago "sages," that Babs gazed at rapturously in "Yentl." I
think that most Jews would be revolted if they faced what it contained, for
that matter (though I think, too, that most wouldn't even admit it to themselves,
let alone to any so-called "Gentile"). That doesn't mean that the Talmud
doesn't affect Jewish culture, however. For ex., America's entire culture
is based on radical individualism, and any American could tell you all about
how he has his rights, but that same American couldn't name those rights
enumerated in the Constitution's first 10 amendments to save his life, and
most probably couldn't even tell you what the "Bill of Rights" is.
Second, as to Jews being a "race," they are only in the same sense that one
hears of "the German race" or "the Irish race," which is, I'm sure, how the
Catechism was using the term. As a matter of fact, I read something within
the past week that referred to "the Catholic race." But whatever the case,
neither Jews nor Catholics are a separate biological category of man in the
same sense that classical anthropology had distinguished among caucasoids,
mongoloids, negroids, austroloids and what not (all of whom come from Adam,
Eve, Seth, Noah, etc., all of whom are blended together to a great extent
anyway, and all of whom are equally beloved by God and made in His image).
And even if Jews were a separate "race," who cares?
Third, the only reason the concept of race was brought up by me at all was
in response to your words, "They were and still are a microcosm of the HUMAN
condition and God's special love for ALL of His people. They are not a
degenerate, evil race." To this, I replied "Unlike racists and Talmudists,
I don't believe that Jews are a 'race' at all. They are an ethnic group,
like Italians and Lebanese and the Swiss." But, as already asked, even if
Jews were a separate "race," what would we make of it? Does God love the
Jew more than, say, the Black man? And how would Ethiopian Jews fit in all
that anyway? What does being a Jew mean anyway? Is it a matter of
"race" to you? Nationality? Religion? It seems to be a shell game, generally
speaking. It's all of the above and none of the above. One day it's "race,"
the next it's "religion." Per Eretz Israel's law of return, one must have
a Jewish mother and not be a Christian. You can have a Jewish mother
and be a Buddhist, Wiccan, or atheist, but if you convert to Christianity,
you're out. Think about it: according to the laws of Eretz Israel, being
Jewish is, in part, a matter not of what you are religiously speaking,
but of what you are not: you can not be a follower of Christ.
Whatever. But all I'm concerned about are religion, ideology, and culture.
I don't give a rat's tuches about race.
You also denied Jesus' forgiveness of the Jews who arranged and/or called
for his murder. CCC 597 clarifies for the Catholic Faithful, (apparently
you excluded), that His forgiveness was intended for both Romans and the
Jews, and that the Jews "knew not what they did" lest they would not have
taken part in the Passion and death of our Lord. A paragraph from your website:
http://www.fisheaters.com/jc3.html: "It has become even less fashionable
to point out the obvious: Jews are the ones who wanted Christ dead. I know
that it's politically correct to bash the Romans on this account, but the
Romans had no issue with Jesus and "only" acted as instruments to carry out
the Jews' wishes (which is culpability and cowardice enough, to be sure).
The Jews, however, did want Christ dead, and used Roman power to make it
happen. The Russians didn't want it, the Poles didn't want it, the Ugandans
didn't want it, Pilate washed his hands of the matter: the Jews wanted it."
It is up to Christ as to whom He wants to forgive or not and whom He'll hold
as invincibly ignorant or culpable for any given act (and, by the way, I
said nothing about Jesus' forgiveness in this regard one way or another,
though, in contradiction to your assertion that the Catechism's words are
lost on me, I cited the 16th c. Catechism of the Council of Trent, which
I will do again with new emphasis: "In this guilt [of the death of Christ]
are involved all those who fall frequently into sin; for, as our sins consigned
Christ the Lord to the death of the cross, most certainly those who wallow
in sin and iniquity crucify to themselves again the Son of God, as far as
in them lies, and make a mockery of Him. This guilt seems more enormous in
us than in the Jews, since according to the testimony of the same Apostle:
If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of
glory; while we, on the contrary, professing to know Him, yet denying Him
by our actions, seem in some sort to lay violent hands on him.")
Nonetheless, it's still a fact that it was 1st century Palestinian Jews who
wanted Jesus dead, while other Jews remained faithful and followed Him to
the bitter end -- bitter because they were persecuted by faithless Jews and,
later, Romans (especially Nero, whom religious Jews claim as a convert).
One wouldn't have to speak of this Deicide at all except in passing, but
apparently we have to point it out because too many modern Jews keep denying
it when they are among those they consider the "goyim" -- bringing into
question the historicity of our Gospels, all in spite of the fact that
their own "holy books" gloat over that truth. During the Mel Gibson vs. the
World debacle, who was making a big whoop out of that Gospel fact? It wasn't
the Catholics. If it were up to us, we'd prefer to be able to, say, make
movies without having to go on publicity tours defending the very basics
of our religion against lies. Mr. Gibson made that movie so Christians could
meditate on Christ's Passion, but it was turned into a big circus revolving
around Catholics' supposed "anti-semitism." It was ridiculous, and the page
you refer to was written at the height of that nonsense. There is nothing
there that is factually incorrect.
In the end, most of your rebuttals in your e-mail response were a part
of a giant red-herring that feebly dissected my simple points. You did this
with copious amounts of Sacred Scripture and doctrine of Sacred Tradition
which I don't deny, i.e. "you were preaching to the choir." Of course, the
dubious Talmud references, coming from you could at best be considered as
slanderous, however, there's no denying that "lies beget lies," and Jews
of 1500 years ago in some circles were not beyond reproach, nor were certain
of Christians who killed "in the name of Truth," be it that they were Roman,
Czarist, Spanish, etc. So, your numerous quotes of Catholic teachings and
Scripture argue against nothing I said, and when the dust clouds settle,
you still leave me believing that you absolutely hate Jews and that you foment
this hatred rather than charity.
The Talmud references are real, so they are not "slanderous" in the least,
and the Talmud is still the lens through which practicing Jews (some "Reformed"
types aside) see Torah. It is to your credit that you apparently don't
want them to be real (I didn't want them to be real either when I
first encountered them), but they are real nonetheless.
My motive isn't hatred; I hate no one. My motive is to protect Holy Mother
Church against constant defamation. How can one explain the Spanish
Inquisition -- something that is always exaggerated beyond all recognition
and held against the Church -- if one can't explain the power certain insincere
"conversos" assumed in the Church, how they cooperated with Muslims to take
over Spain, and the usury practiced by Jews -- a usury that impoverished
those Christians you claim to be brothers with? How can one explain
"Christian anti-semitism" without talking about that impoverishment by usury
and about Jewish anti-Christianism (the spitting on Crosses, the mocking
of our religious processions, the anti-"Gentile" Talmud, the air of superiority
that many religious Jews exhibit, etc.)? Why is it if we point these things
out to defend ourselves, we are "anti-semites," but when Jewish leaders accuse
us of irrational hatred or of being infected with some "virus of anti-semitism,"
when they blaspheme our Lord and Savior as a lying usurper, when they blame
Christian theology for the pagan Hitler's rise, etc., they get a free pass
while we are supposed to sit silently by and do nothing for fear of more
of the same name-calling (printed in newspapers across the land if we're
But, of course, you believe you are "teaching about Christ's love." In
this endeavor, you claim to be "in partibus infidelium" - ("i.p.i.") - in
your closing salutation. If I may be so bold, this suggests to me, at least,
an arrogance and a belief in yourself that you are more Catholic than the
members and bishop of your diocese (Where is it? Is it that much of a spiritual
wasteland, or are you that spiritually isolated as a Christian?) I wonder
what the bishop would have to say about your "charity" works. Still, I'll
keep praying for you to really love the Jews and to see their gloriousness
as we are called to do by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
As to my sig line, America is a Pagan-Protestant-Judeo-Masonic country filled
with infidels. It's no commentary on the quality of Catholics in my diocese,
whose judgment I leave in the Hands of Jesus and whom I imagine to be more
pleasing to God than I.
As you pray for me to "really" love the Jews (even though I've spoken with
a number of Hebrew Catholics and other Hebrew Christians without any problems
until now and don't go about confronting or encouraging hatred against
non-Catholic Jews), I will pray for you to really love all men as
being made in the image of God as we are called to do by the Catechism of
the Catholic Church. Everyone is a part of an ethnic people, and everyone
wants to love and should love that people. Every people I can think of has
things to be proud -- and not so proud -- of. But it is foolishness and ugliness
to exalt one's people as superior in some existential sense, as marked by
a "gloriousness" before which men must fawn, and that is exactly what I am
sensing you advocate. And if you think Jews are a "race," then that also
makes you, de facto, racist.
Now, earlier you wrote, "In the end, most of your rebuttals in your e-mail
response were a part of a giant red-herring that feebly dissected my simple
points. You did this with copious amounts of Sacred Scripture and doctrine
of Sacred Tradition which I don't deny, i.e. 'you were preaching to the choir.'"
Do you agree then:
That most of Old
Covenant Israel failed to live up to the obligations of their Covenant with
God (Who remains faithful on His end of the bargain and doesn't repent of
His gifts) and so God made a new Covenant with the House of Israel and the
House of Juda (Jeremias 31), thereby fulfilling the Old Covenant, and that
this New Covenant was also for the Gentiles (Matthew 2:21-32, Matthew 12:21,
That it was through
the Passion of Jesus Christ that this New Covenant was consummated? (John
That Jesus is the
Way, the Truth, the Life and that no man cometh unto the Father but
by Him? (John 14:6)
That we are to
go and teach all nations -- baptizing them in the Name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost -- teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever that Christ has commanded? (Matthew 28:19)
That some branches
were cut off from Israel and others were grafted in, and that anyone
may be grafted in (and grafted in again) by repentance and faith that
works in love -- and that anyone may be broken off if they boast against
"the branches" or lose their faith? (Romans 11)
Christ, there is no Jew and no Greek? (Galatians 3:28)
are as much the sons and daughters of Abraham as any self-proclaimed physical
descendant of Abraham? (Matthew 3:7, Galatians 3:7-29)
That Ismael is
a type of the faithless Jew and that Isaac is a type of the fulfilled Jew
and other Christians? (Galatians 4:21-31)
That, as concerning
the Gospel, religious Jews (i.e., practitioners of post-Temple Judaism, not
just "anyone with a Hebrew parent") are enemies for our sake? (Romans 11)
are to love their enemies? (Matthew 5:44)
are called to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves? (Matthew 10:16)
That is what Scripture
says and that is what the Church has always infallibly taught, and if you
agree with that, then what is your argument with me? It seems to boil down
to the fact that I don't show the same enthusiasm for your ethnic group as
I do for my own, but why should I? Can't you see how absolutely
arrogant it sounds to tell someone that they should show "reverence"
before the "gloriousness" of the Jewish people? Can you imagine if
you weren't Jewish and someone said that to you? What would you think?
Let's try it out:
"David, you should
show reverence before the gloriousness of the Italian people!"
If I were to say
that to you in a serious manner, wouldn't it make you want to ask me just
who the Hell do I think I am? And why would you, who claim to be Catholic,
say that to anyone? What is your goal?
David, come on, man, you are obviously proud of being Jewish. Fine. I'm glad
for you. And I'm proud of being Italian. But just as Italians have dirty
laundry to face up to (those ancient Romans were swell fellas, eh? Does the
name "Gramsci" ring a bell? How about Mussolini? Capone?), so do the Jewish
people with regard to anti-Christianism, the teachings of the Talmud, usury,
the political realities of fulfilling Zionist goals, and revolutionary politics
in general. Be proud, but be honest with yourself , look at History,
and sort through Jewish culture -- keeping the good and leaving the bad behind
without pretending it isn't there and, especially, without accusing fellow
Catholics of "anti-semitism" for pointing it out in order to defend Holy
Mother Church. To paraphrase a Clemenza line from "The Godfather," "Leave
the particularism, take the rugelach."