Yes, I will claim that as being poor rhetoric. I didn’t use enough qualifying terms. ‘Some Jews’, or even ‘Many Jews’ consider the Trinity to be polytheistic. Muslims too. There are discussions about it on the internet. Just look up Judaism, Trinity or Islam, Trinity, or put Polytheism in there if you like. It’s not like it’s that difficult to verify.
In reality, every group talks to their in-group about out-groups in ways they don’t speak about the out-groups in mixed company. I don’t think it’s quite the equivalent of Christian Baby Matzoh-ball soup.
Well you can say, “I do not believe that.”, or you can address the issue and talk about it, “Well it does seem like polytheism because it talks about three Gods in one like the Hindu trinity of Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma…or…”, there are a lot of ways to address it. IMO, you can tell when real tolerance has been achieved when out-group members are able to talk about sensitive in-group topics. I have seen videos of Israelis cursing at Christian tourists telling them to leave, how they are happy that they killed their Messiah. Intolerance is everywhere.
I do think that it’s pretty damn intolerant of anyone who dismisses all the work of JP II and B16 for better relations just B16 decided to allow a handful of anti-semites to take communion. There will NEVER be good relations if you expect the group you are coming to terms with to be redeemed as a pre-condition to having good relations with them. I’d love it if these Bishops came to you personally on Yom Kippur and apologized for their anti-semitism, but that’s not going to happen. I don’t see their being able to take communion as a roll-back of a great deal of effort put into relationships with Jews.
You speak to and relate to Catholics every day, you can wear your kippuh out in the open, live as a Jew out in the open without daily fear. That’s REAL, and I am tired of hearing that every little snag is some roll-back to the days of inquisitions, blood-libel or the holocaust, because it’s not.
Look, I’ll make you this promise. If anyone ever starts to round up Jews and send them to camps, I’ll pick up a gun and do what I can to break down the machinery that does so. If it came to that I know personally Jews and Christians alike who would fight by my side. Luckily for us, we don’t have to interrupt our Bourgeois existence to make that choice. As it is today though, I don’t see the SSPX eating crackers and drinking wine as a grave threat. Yes, Christians want to convert you. There are levels at work here though. Some ditzy young girl coming up to you to tell you the good news in Union Square Park is quite a distance from the Inquisition.
I understand the Catholic position on this one though. I wish we could all dwell in unity under a Brotherhood of the same God, but I don’t know that Jesus was the actual Messiah, so I am not as married to a particular method as they are. But the spirit of the wish is the same. The wish for Jews to be converted is a wish for eternal kinship. It is a wish for an end to an estrangement that they see as having occurred. Tolerance is accepting the prayer for the wish that it is. As long as the storm troopers are not appropriating your homes you should be thankful that they are relying on the power of prayer rather than state coercion.
He paints the controversy as a public relations failure on the part of the Vatican, for not getting its side of the story out promptly. He refers to Williamson’s “doubting the severity of the Holocaust” (sounds nicer than "Holocaust denier, doesn’t it? :rolleyes:) and emphasizes that the Pope had no idea when he did the excommunication rollback that Williamson had just given his poisonous interview on Jews and the Holocaust.
*"When the Vatican lifted the excommunication of four traditionalist Catholic bishops Jan. 21, it’s entirely possible Rome was unaware that one of those bishops, an Englishman named Richard Williamson, had just given an interview to Swedish television in which he denied that the Nazis had used gas chambers and asserted that no more than 200,000 to 300,000 Jews had died during the Second World War.
In retrospect, however, it would be disingenuous for anyone to feign surprise.
A troubled history with Judaism has long been part of the Catholic traditionalist movement associated with the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre — beginning with Lefebvre himself, who spoke approvingly of both the World War II-era Vichy Regime in France and the far-right National Front, and who identified the contemporary enemies of the faith as “Jews, Communists and Freemasons” in an Aug. 31, 1985, letter to Pope John Paul II…The historical association between some strains of traditionalist Catholicism and anti-Semitism run deep, intertwined with royalist reaction to the French Revolution in the 18th century and, later, the Boulanger and Dreyfus Affairs in France (1886-1889 and 1894-1899). In populist European conservatism, the defense of Christian tradition has often been linked to a suspicion of “contamination” — originally by Jews, and more recently, by Europe’s rising Muslim presence…This sense of antagonism was lifelong. In 1990, one year before his death, Lefebvre gave an interview to the journal of the National Front in France, suggesting that Catholic opposition to a residence of Carmelite nuns at the site of the Auschwitz concentration camp was being instigated by Jews.
Lefebvre’s followers often share this outlook. In 1997, one of the four bishops ordained by Lefebvre in 1988, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, said, “The church for its part has at all times forbidden and condemned the killing of Jews, even when ‘their grave defects rendered them odious to the nations among which they were established.’ … All this makes us think that the Jews are the most active artisans for the coming of Antichrist.”*
No one is suggesting that letting these sorts of people back into the fold is posing some imminent threat to Jews. It does strike a sour note on interfaith relations, and gives encouragement, however slight one might claim, to a body of hatred that while dormant, refuses to die out.
mswas seems to think that manifestations of anti-Semitism are insignificant unless there are actual roundups of Jews to send them to camps. Then he’ll help out.
Thanks, but that kind of heavy lifting is not required. For the time being, just show some empathy and understanding of history.
The problem is that the people asking that won’t accept the spiritual motivations as valid motivations. They seek some hidden political agenda rather than just accepting that the Pope wanted to reconcile people so that they didn’t die excommunicated.
No, I disagree that this is a manifestation of anti-semitism on the part of the church. It’s that simple. I don’t think the anti-semitism is insignificant I think it doesn’t apply to this scenario.
I have some empathy and understanding of history. Even the most casual student of history is aware of Jewish persecution. After all they control the media.
As I’ve said repeatedly the eucharist isn’t a political football, and who receives it shouldn’t have an impact on Jewish-Catholic relations.
Maybe you should try reading it before you try interpreting it. It is public domain, you can find it for free on the web, or published in paperback by Penguin.
I get the impression you have mastered Orwell though
You must have mistaken me for someone else although the only use of the term Secular Humanism I have seen here came from you trying to say I am talking about it.
You keep saying what I am talking about instead of accepting I speak for myself. I thank you for stopping that, or we may be heading to the Pit.
Ah so every Catholic ever who served the State instead of doing the Church’s bidding in state matters, has put themselves in a state of excommunication, and eventually Catholics of that era will realize that, and what with being in a state of Communion being more important then life itself, let alone participating in one’s secular society, they will gladly be zombies for the Church?
Is that what I am to infer?
Still waiting for cites on anything you have written so far in this thread…
And yet you are suggesting Catholics (of which mcCain is not, I believe) are not capable of making the same decision?
I am giving you ever chance to make the point clearly. Others don’t seem to be getting it either, to say the least.
They are high enough and able to draw attention form teh Vatican for 20 years or more to resolve the issue. That sounds like they have access to the top. I was at a Confirmation once where the Bishop of that area was present - maybe even had my picture taken with him. Judging by the behavior of the parishioners, this was no ordinary or regular visit.
Maybe, maybe not. How are you so certain when the Vatican itself seemed to need 20 years to parse the point? If there is something that explains exhaustively the collection and interpretation of evidence regarding if these folks were not already in a state of excommunication at that time, then I’d appreciate the link.
We will see how that goes I guess.
You know, when you travel, and people can’t understand your language, shouting is not helpful. Anything more about that and it is to the Pit with you.
That may be the story now but if that is all there is to it, then why did it take 20 years and several Popes to straighten it out?
For the millionth time, we all understand your point about the timing and method of excommunication. No one disagrees on that, we stipulate it unless someone shows otherwise. The real point is the interpretation that began from you much later in the thread, which brought me in. Go back to the quoted sections of my first post here if you want to see what that was again.
I’d be more comfortable with that if 20 years didn’t pass, and if the guy promptly met the conditions laid down for his rehabilitation by the Pope, instead of showing him up. From upthread, someone, maybe you, pointed out that the Pope had left open the door that he could be made an active Bishop if he apologizes publicly, he apparently decided the inbetween state of being in communion but not an active Bishop was preferable. Anyone familiar with negotiation techniques and processes is going to say Whoa! to that - someone was played. Or complicit behind the scenes.
Sure - how about you provide your cites where you learned all this so I can surely come to the same conclusion you did, and then I will see if other material leads to the same conclusion or not. But let’s start with what you have read to convince you.
I am just asking for a cite. A single cite. I have never heard a Christian of any sect say that nor have I seen them write that. Have I seen or heard everything? No, but you keep repeating it as though it is common knowledge, so please provide what you consider an authoritative cite, and I will be sure to read it promptly.
Unlike a certain Bishop I know of
That I agree with, but while it may be related, it is not the same as saying “being ins a state of communion is more important then [this] life itself”
Again, that is offensive to Catholics to refer to the Eucharist as “crackers and wine”. Please stop it. If you don’t believe me, go ask your local Priest. I am sure he will be diplomatic about it, but he will make the same point about it that I am. Which is, that once properly blessed, the bread (not crackers by the way, but unleavened bread because that is what Jesus ate at the Last Supper, as Seder) and the wine are not symbolic of the Body and Blood of Christ, but actually become the Body of Christ. I think Protestant Churches and sects may vary on this key point, and find it more symbolic then real, I am not sure.
In any case, that is fundamental to Catholicism as I understand it, that they can become one with Christ himself through the Eucharist.
You simple can not argue that sanctioned ability to partake of the Eucharist is more important then life itself, and then turn around and argue that it is only crackers and wine, and expect to be taken seriously by anyone with even a smidgen of experience.
Can I ask if that Christmas Mass at St. Patrick’s was the only Mass you have ever been too? Ever been to any other Catholic rituals? Because I don’t know how you could claim to have been paying attention at all, and come away with such profound mis-understandings about such a dramatic part of the service.
AS I said, and others echoed I think, no one thinks that any group is free of Holocaust deniers. Given your own definition of Communion, you are right, no one thinks they should be denied Eucharist on that basis. Can you accept that?
The concern is not that at all, but rather that, since V2 the Pope has led a level of Interfaith Dialog (if we don’t want to be confused by “Ecumenism”) that has heretofore been seen as helpful although hardly a job completed.
So when a new Pope, who as a youth participated in the machinery of the Holocaust, under duress or not, but he did it (where was his service to Church then instead of state?) and then quickly, in terms of movement of Doctrine and other matters, rehabilitates a group who argues strongly, effectively, and vociferously for rolling back the changes among which are the ones that led to and resulted from the Interfaith Dialog, that is cause for notice among those with whom the Dialog was taking place. After all, just because there is a new Pope does not mean other parties bring new representative, and those other parties may not feel that each Pope is not bound to the decisions brought to bear by prior Popes. And that makes it difficult to have an ongoing Dialog to say the least.
Let’s play a new rhetorical game - instead of you saying that was intolerant, which is beating your head against the wall because the other readers already have said they don’t see it that way, how about if you do your best to repeat or paraphrase my point as though you were me and trying to convince others. That might cause you to think about it instead of reacting only, and might be a valuable exercise.
It is my opinion, and if Cardinal Ratzenberger was involved, then the fact that he so quickly changed courses indicates either a quid pro quo, a change of heart, or that he was never fully convinced of the earlier result.
Because what else changed really? The Pope takes a huge PR hit to maybe bring a group of (I think someone here said) about 100K people closer to the fold, but not all the way in.
Eh. Maybe.
But why take the massive PR hit for that, when the goal could have been accomplished without the PR hit, or even with a PR plus?
That is what strikes me personally as odd because it was unnecessary, and I assume all the actors in the negotiations are sophisticated. I may be wrong on that last point, but to paraphrase the theme song about “Monk” and to apply it to Bishops and Popes, “I don’t think so”.
So we are left to wonder, what were the negotiating circumstances that led to the current result among other possibilities. All of which include SPXX doing what is necessary, and at least some but not all of which involve them recanting their Denial.
Why this one, that is the question that nags at people, not that they were unexcommunicated at all.
No I don’t feel that way at all. Stop being my spokesperson. Everytime you type what I think, stop right there because it has been wrong every time so far. Think of something else, and probably something else again if you want to get closer to what I think.
I have seen what the Pope has said so far, it strikes me as weaselly. Like I said, I am a marketing guy who makes a good part of my living participating in the signalliing and predictions of complex negotiations. In my experience, this Pope is not being straight up, and is certainly not being effective at communicating the benefits of his decisions in this matter to either his faithful, or those who are subjects to the Interfaith Dialogs.
I don’t think you are getting the right signal as a non-Catholic, and neither am I satisfied at what he seems to be saying. I know, and if I have faith in anything, it is that he can do better - so what makes me wonder is why doesn’t he? If it were a simple error, it would have been corrected right away, but instead it lingers with each passing update. That tells me something else is going on.
Generally agreed. See above, but to summarize again, it is not the internal stuff we are talking about at all, it is the damage to the ongoing Interfaith Dialog with outsiders. If he is abandoning that, fine, his business, and others will react as they will to such a dreadful signal. If he is not, then he needs to be very plain in words and deeds, because he has already sent the opposite signal nearly very plainly.
Maybe. But then why are they still negotiating? Because even if they can’t now, they want to and intend to later, or else they intend to die martyrs before they get the chance. If they were satisfied being simple lay folks, they could and would simply announce that and it would help. But it is clear they have a following and an effective PR channel to deliver messages to the public, but have not said such a thing. I conclude they are NOT satisfied being lay people or the equivalent.
Great deal? Sure, maybe, probably. But effective? Efficient? Apparently not.
You speak for yourself when you say that. I truly do not care what people believe as long as they wait for me to come to them with questions. Which I will do politely and approach them to schedule a convenient time and place and introduce the topic I want to ask about so as not to put them on the spot.
That is tolerance to me of both individuals and beliefs.
Christianity on the other had, as you yourself have said, is built on the opposite - that I must be converted to their beliefs, on their schedule, and at their rate. They knock on my door, hang out and pester me at the local shop exits, put tracts on my windshield, not once, but often. None of this is invited or welcome, and because it is not welcome I am intolerant, and they are not? I kinda wonder how you feel about rape victims, but that is another thread for another time.
And everyone here was fine with that many pages ago, except the crux of your argument has been that lifting an excommunication is not something the Pope can do, only something that one can do for themselves, right? So are we starting over here? Is this a change?
Perhaps you can invite some of these theologians to this discussion, or point us to where we can read their thoughts first hand at least.
Really? Just curious - I don’t know the answer although I have a hunch. If you were to convert to Catholicism, what issues surrounding your previous Baptist Baptism would need to resolved if any, and how is that usually done?
And are you really really sure that the relationship of taking communion is the same in each church or sect? I am not convinced of that - I have seen articles somewhere, too lazy to look right now, that I seem to recall stated otherwise. For one, I think that in RCC, nothing but wine will do, whereas elsewhere grape juice is fine. More importantly, the idea of the consecrated bread and wine becoming literally the body of Christ is not one that is shared universally among Christians I believe to be the case, but I am willing to stand corrected.
OK, that is succinct.
Is it possible to be tolerant of both in your view? If so, how would you know when you saw it?
Maybe that answers the question, but I will hope for a direct answer to the direct question.
Gee, why don’t they let themselves into my house and have a service if they want? The back door is open. Does doctrine tell them where to stop? Or common sense and the law having nothing to do with doctrine at all. I am reminded of the joke of “Would you sleep with me for $20? No, what do you think I am! Would you do it for $1 Million? Let’s go!”
If doctrine compels proselytzing, then in this town, as one of the few non-Christians, the rest of the town should be all over me like white on rice. It only seems that they are sometimes, but in truth, they are not *that * bad.
Oh so I should do their work for them so they don’t have to? How about they simply wait for me to come to them. Heck, set up a booth near the sidewalk of the church, make a sign that says “Discuss theology 5 C” like Lucy in Peanuts and I might not only stop by, but pay for the privilege.
Come to my door, interrupt me, and it is as rude as it is if I interrupt you. I don’t care if you are compelled by Doctrine to be there or are seeking a handout to feed a heroin jones, or selling magazines in a scam, or Kirby vacuums (all of which I get regularly here) it is still rude to come uninvited.
Thanks but no thanks, and if not followed immediately by turning and leaving, “Get lost” is more politeness and more effort then people like that deserve. I am never interested in “Fortune Cookie” Bible tit for tat.
Which is what I have been thinking for a few post cycles now is what you are doing here with us. It just doesn’t make sense, almost none of what you are saying, even if you think it does.
And “getting him off script” appears to be the goal of SPXX wrt Benedict, and it seems they have succeeded as explained here by me and others. The rest of us who were involved and now appear to be marginalized have a right to not be happy about that.
I don’t expect the Pope, or SPXX for that matter, or even the local parish Priests to come to my door or anywhere I might be, so outside opinion sharing is the only way to be heard.
Gee, thanks for allowing me to breathe the air you breathe once you are finished using it. :rolleyes:
So if a bully makes clear he could, and might beat me up at any time, but until he does he is nothing but tolerant? And it would be my fault when I do get beat up because I am intolerant of his tolerance? Hmm, where’s that rape victim again? What do we say about her predicament?
You didn’t hear that from me.
If that is a theme of that book, and the origin of the absurd beliefs you expressed about Jews and what they do when hanging out together, and I don’t know if it is or not (do you know?), then it is certainly fair to raise the issue.
The difference betweem, say Christians and Muslims on one hand, and Jews and Buddhists on the other hand, are that the former are “competing” and the latter are not. Other groups may fall somewhere on either end or in the middle of the spectrum, but I am less familiar with them to say.
If you can’t accept that in your heart, then you can’t really understand the nature of your intolerance yet.
Now that you mention it, my name could be ambiguous in that matter. One of my earliest posts, I explain the origin of it in case you want to dig it up. search for my name and “plastic bag”.
No, time is not an issue at all. It is explained in the prayer book. Maybe on Christmas because there is a large percentage of visitors who might not know, especially that church in NYC. But no way did they say it would be ok but for time, they simply said Catholics only who know who they are, everyone else please wait quietly" or something like that. Seriously. Ask your theologian friends if you misunderstood or misremembered because of the large hall and crowd perhaps. You are very wrong here, please don’t take a stand.
Everything expository you wrote, primarily from before I joined the thread, By then you had veered from useful exposition into what I [and others seem to] consider outrageous conclusions. I accept that those are opinions and need no cite.
not_alice Cut your posts down to less than 700 words and I will respond to them. There is so much straw that needs unbailing that it’s more work than I am interested in right now. Distill your point, you’re just repeating yourself too much.
Meanwhile, you ask for cites. As such I request that you actually read what I cited earlier on in the thread.
So in your faith you are concerned that after this life you will be lonely and in need of eternal kinship?
Hmm.
I don’t think Jews suffer from that - maybe you should look into becoming one of them instead of making them become one of you!
And as a side benefit, I think you might even be entitled to a Bar Mitzvah, with its attendant party at some point after that, and since you won’t be 13 years old, you won’t have to waste it on such an awkward age!
Funny. I mentioned all that upthread, that I learned just from reading newspapers 20 years ago. I didn’t pay any attention to it since then, yet my Catholic gf was astounded I knew about it at that level of detail.
If I knew about it, how could the Pope himself not know about it?
It is that sort of blatant disingenuousness on the part of the Vatican that makes for distrust about intent and every other statement.
You bitched that you ran over the limit and now you order me to write how you want?
If you don’t want to answer, don’t answer, I don’t care. You are not really persuading anyone of anything by repeating yourself endlessly. If you feel you wrote enough, so be it.
As for your request on cites, I assure you I have read, and understood every word you wrote here.
Well, you know those uppity Jews, always talking smack about Christians when they think nobody else is listening. And paranoid, paranoid as the day is long. They think that the historical patterns which made it acceptable to advocate the annihilation of Judaism as a religious abomination bear watching when they re-emerge after an era marked by unheard of interfaith dialog. And those Jews still have the nerve to be upset about things like the Inquisition with its attempt to destroy Judaism itself through conversion. Er, I mean,the attempt to get Jews into Eternal Kinship by forcefully assimilating them. Those Jews were simply intolerant of the Inquisitors desire to assimilate them right out of being Jews.
As to your claim of what Jews think of Christianity … honestly most Jews do not think about Christianity much at all, let alone enough to have an opinion about whether or not the Trinity is actually polytheism-lite. Yeah I’ve heard some occasional discussions trying to explain the tripartite nature of God in Christian thought and what exactly the Holy Ghost is (can’t yet say I get it, but not for lack of trying, my shortcomings I am sure) and how much of Pauline theology is Greek thought inspired more than Jewish thought inspired - but more around these parts than behind any Jewish closed doors - and not with disrespect but as a matter of a comparative religious interest and in the cause of reducing ignorance. Jews dissing Christian theology behind closed doors? Nah, most don’t know that much about their own faith let alone about yours. Any more than most Catholics appreciate the stakes in “compromising” with the SSPX group and instead think of it as all about the liturgy.
But again tolerance != agreement. It means accepting that there are disagreements and being willing to live with them. And tolerance that implies tolerance of intolerance is no tolerance at all.
I’ll make you this promise. I will do my best not to ever let things get to the point that guns are being picked up. And yes, that means I will make it my business to butt into “internal Church affairs” when I believe the outcomes have implications beyond the Church. Like I said before, that is my pay grade. It became so as soon as my wife and I had our first kid.
BTW here’s a fun Master speaks on excommunication!
I ran over the limit trying to respond to you. Last time I redacted one of your voluminous posts you got pissy about it. Most of the character limit was from the quotations from your post.
You have not significantly demonstrated that the unprecedented interfaith dialogue is actually under threat. At least, not that it is being abandoned by the Catholic side.
Uh, cite on my being “pissy” because you quoted well?
If you want to break it up into posts under the limit, then fine. Or write effectively with a minimal of quotes, a la DSeid and others have done - good advice I direct to myself at this point too.
