not Alice, it was not_alice 
I don’t think so. From the first published comments from the Vatican before Williamson’s Swedish interview blew up, there was a great deal of caution expressed about the lifting of the excommunications being “a step” on a rather long journey. I don’t think anyting will move this process very swiftly.
Oh? Someone else? Could’ve sworn it was you.
Don’t hit me!
Well, but it would be better (in terms of how it was received by the public at large) if they prayed for all people as a group, rather than singling Jews out specifically. Right?
It would depend on the prayer, wouldn’t it?
Put it this way, do you understand what the equivalence might be between prayers that Jews, in specific, abandon their religion and become Christians and, say… Der Trihs’ “prayers” that all theists stop being “sick” and “deluded” and “crazy” or what have you?
Surely you can understand why Jews in particular might not enjoy the specific attentions of the Catholic Church in a context that makes clear that the end of Judaism, specifically, due to conversion to Christianity, specifically, is the hoped for result.
Sure, but again I’m sure you can tell the difference between Jews’ prayers that Christians live a righteous, prosperous, Godly life… and Jews praying for Christians to decide that Jesus was just some schmuck from the Galilee and that they really should stop talking about him already.
I for one simply don’t buy the “just blew up” part.
Even I knew of this guy decades ago.
It is too much to ask the world to believe, on faith, that the Pope didn’t know of him, and that decades of inactivity were reached with milestones of accomplishments as a German Pope who had served as Hitler’s Youth took office and made other liturgical changes that appear to provide muddy waters to hide this one in.
So either he knew and isn’t saying so, or he didn’t know and those surrounding him kept it from him or somehow didn’t know either. All of that is impossible to believe. Only that he knew and got caught, for reasons I can only speculate on but won’t right now. As a result he has a problem on his hands he need not have had.
Or, maybe he did know, and is in a certain amount of agreement because he has been persuaded by SPXX that these very steps, and those to come, will indeed rapidly further the goal of converting all the Jews by creating agitation where there had been calm somehow.
None of that paints a pretty picture IMHO.
If it was truly benign, he would be on TV or other media every single day to get on top of the PR cycle and drive it, not react so slowly. An occasional speech by a leader, when it is opposition to actual acts, is hardly persuasive to the modern world.
That claim is probably pretty darn doubtful.
[
From the article linked to by FinnAgain:
I don’t understand this sentence. Can someone explain it please?
So as I got to bed to ponder alll this tonight, I leave with this:
There seems to be a consensus among MsWas, Sarafeena and tomanddebg that a core belief of Catholics is to convert the Jews for whatever reason.
That is pretty abstract, so let’s make it real.
How many Jews do you know that have ever become Catholic, or even other Christian for that matter?
Why did they do it? How did they reconcile their new and old beliefs?
Not talking about Jews for Jesus type cults here. Just not gonna do it, that is not what I mean. I mean Jewish people becoming lay Catholics.
Now, assuming maybe you can think of a friend of a friend you heard of once, why aren’t there more? Does the RCC see that there are not more as a failure of its persuasive methods to date, or is it that they real payoff is yet to come? If so, what is the plan for the rest of the persuasion?
In what ways does the eternal life of individual RCC members hang in the balance as Jews remain day-to-day, unconverted, and well, Jewish?
Now let’s talk about acts of excommunication. There is also a consensus that this is a state brought on by an individual, not pronounced by the Pope (although I confess why that is seems unexplained to me, given that the Traditionalist view of everything seems to be top down absolute control - was it always a state brought on by oneself?)
Anyway, Vatican reps recently warned politicians that advocating for a pro-choice position is tantamount and maybe an actual excommunication offense, so be forewarned if it concerns you.
How far does this go? To anyone (RCC of course) that works in a place that performs abortions? That advocates for abortions but is not a legislator? That supports an advocate or one of the above? How direct or indirect is it? Can one be excommunicated by simply not advocating for any position on any topic the Pope advises advocacy action on?
Can a state of excommunication be lifted by confession? If so, how frequently can one be excommunicated and then not? could it happen each week in time for Sunday Mass? Daily? More often then that? Or is there a limit as to how many bites at the apple you get (no pun intended)?
I’ll take it up one notch of abstract yet …
Given: we live in a world in which various different worldviews share common spaces as never before.
Given: some of the worldviews include basic beliefs that people with other worldviews are not only wrong but that they should be convinced of how wrong they are. Historically that perspective has included the use of force to impose those worldview truths (for the good of the others everlasting souls).
Given: sometimes the way in which the wrongness of others’ worldviews is characterized by particular worldviews has been part of the climate that fostered hate for its own sake and horrible crimes have resulted. Actually quite often.
Given: in various parts of the world particular worldviews will be dominant and that majority will have the opportunity to control and otherwise influence how the local minority worldview is treated.
I think we can all agree to those givens, yes?
What do those things (that various worldviews are now effectively living in closer quarters than ever before, that we disagree about some basic stuff, that history demonstrate repeatedly that those differences can cause horrible conflicts particularly when any group takes upon themselves to change the POV of members of another group, and that certain groups will be in relatively greater power in various different parts of the world) tell us about how should we choose to discuss and approach others of conflicting perspectives? In general I think it means that we have to tread carefully and that the minority worldviews have great cause for concern.
From the POV of a minority other that has been on the losing side of that interaction many times in the past it informs me that my best interests are served by making sure that my roomies know very clearly that trying to impose their POV upon me will be cause for conflict, that embracing haters and sending the signal that they are indeed accepted as part of your family, even if it is part of your core belief, will cause problems between us. We have to share the space and your rights to your core beliefs stop when they start to tell me that my beliefs should be worked against.
Being good roomies in tight spaces is difficult, I know.
I’m not 100% sure, but I think it’s a dig at one of the trends among liberal Catholics these days. The term “body of Christ” can refer to two things…the literal body of Christ, and also the congregation of believers. The more liberal/less traditionalist types tend to place more focus or importance on the latter definition than the former. Traditionalists think it should be the other way around, and that this view tends to bring people up to the level of God. Progressives are very interested in having the voices of the laypeople heard, at the parish level and higher. I’ve always believed that there is a natural conflict for those of us in the US and I’m sure those in other democracies as well, who in my view have a natural conflict between the Church’s rule by authority, and our civic view of government.
As a for instance, there was a big controversy in my parish a few years ago when a young and rather conservative priest was assigned to our parish. Some of the more active parishoners took a dim view of his management style, which was basically to say that we follow the rules the magisterium sets down, and any interpretation of such as done by laypeople is not really welcome (I’m making him sound harsher than he was…he was a nice guy, he just had some definite ideas, and perhaps the parish wasn’t a good fit for him). Getting back to what I said above about the “body of Christ,” I remember during Easter Week services, he was walking around with the incense, and he waved it at the altar, at the crucifix, etc. But he didn’t wave it at the congregation. This infuriated a certain segment of the population, due to their personal spin on this theology. It was just about the last straw, and not long after that he was re-assigned.
I don’t think I know any. I know some Christians who have become Jewish, but not the other way around.
I think that somehow the position of the Church has been misrepresented here…I don’t think a “core belief of Catholics” is to convert the Jews, at least not in the sense that it’s considered an important mission to make this happen. As tomndebb said earlier, it’s often one of the things that is prayed for, but it’s usually in the context of praying for the whole world to accept Jesus. Mentioning the Jews by name is out of a sense of brotherhood with that particular religion (we are in a sense “converted Jews.”) In terms of “persuasion,” I’ve never in my life heard anything said about doing or saying anything to try to convert the Jews that I know, for instance.
As far as I know, it doesn’t affect my eternal life at all. 
Yes, it always has been a state brought on by oneself. The punishment angle tends to be misinterpreted. Excommunication is a spiritual state. It exists or it doesn’t, and no person (not even the Pope) can make it so. A person is supposed to understand whether or not their actions put them outside the Body of Christ, and act (meaning, take the sacraments) accordingly. What putting you on the list of the excommuncated does is make this state of being public. It’s certainly a way of controlling the situation, as a priest can’t know whether they should be giving someone communion otherwise, and has to trust that the person is in the proper state to do so.
That’s a good question, and it’s kind of nebulous in my mind. There is a list of I think 7 things that grants immediate excommunication, of which procuring an abortion is one. How this translates to an average person having culpability for abortions based on some other involvement with the practice (say, work at or donating money to Planned Parenthood) is a matter of interpretation.
I see no reason why it couldn’t be lifted by confession, and I suppose a person could go back and forth between excommunicated and not on a daily basis. The thing about excommuncation, though, is that it usually is caused by a philosophical or lifestyle choice, which don’t tend to change easily. But God will always forgive, if that’s what you’re asking, if you are truly repentant. The thing about confession is that it’s important to truly repent and have the intention not to repeat the same sin. You can’t confess to performing abortions and be absolved if your full intention is to go back to work the next day and perform more.
Hope this clears some things up!
It’s not a hijack I am making the same point I have made this whole time. People keep claiming they understand what excommunication is and isn’t. Then they turn around and cite other people who think the Eucharist should be used as a political football.
There is no hijack here. That’s the entire point. The only thing that happened was that these people were brought back into communion. Thus there is NOTHING to REASONABLY find offensive about this issue.
As for the rest of it I don’t take your comments to me seriously ever. Because you consistantly single me out when posters I am referring to are piling on me doing PRECISELY what you accuse me of. I didn’t bring the third party in, he did. So it’s HIS hijack. You single me out all the time, so as far as I am concerned anything you have to say is personal and irrelevant. If you say it as a mod, I will just continue my practice of no longer posting in that thread because I do not wish to compete with your personally motivated censorship. So either issue a warning or engage in the conversation, but drop the veiled moderating of my behavior. As a poster your opinion of me is worthless, as a mod it’s enough to kill a thread for me.
As it is, my posts are the main reason anyone is still posting in this thread, so if I leave it’ll probably die pretty quickly. So go ahead and modkill it if you want but take your hypocritical personal opinions about me to the pit otherwise.
Uh no. Actually, it got back on track while you were gone.
While your early posts were intriguing enough to contribute to pulling me in, you are hardly the only reason anyone is posting.
We all understand your point. You don’t have to hammer it home anymore.
The thread has moved on past that now while you were gone, even if you were only asleep for the night. If you wish to contribute to the posts as they are, not as you perceived them yesterday, I hope you do join us again. I am sure you have something new and more to add, I hope you provide it.
Except that you claim you understand it but turn around and show that you don’t. Or at least don’t care. The only thing that happened is they were brought back into communion. If that doesn’t bother you then this is only a controversy for the sake of it being a controversy aka anti-Catholic intolerance.
Why is it bigotry when you judge other groups by a handful of extremists, but it’s not bigotry when you judge Catholics by the actions of a handful of extremists?
:rolleyes: Says the person who was citing their Catholic girlfriend as a reference in half a dozen posts.
I’m going to remember your debate technique in the future and not respond to you.
Yawn.
Lord hear his prayer!
Part of the problem is that you’re evidently going out of your way to be as unpleasant and irrational as possible. I’m not sure exactly what’s gotten in your craw in this thread, but you’re much more fun to talk with if the subject is internet spaceships.
For instance, people have repeated several times that it isn’t simply the de-excommunication, but how it was handled, especially by the Pope. And, when it’s explained to you exactly why a group that’s been persecuted, tortured and murdered by the Catholic Church for more than 1,000 years, often based on racism and desires to eradicate that entire group itself via forced conversions, and why then they wouldn’t like renewed calls for the eradication of their entire group via conversion at the same time as a Holocaust denier was welcomed back to the flock without an immediate and forceful denunciation of his racism, you call them “paranoid”. In fact, you go as far as to argue that a desire to eradicate Judaism from the face of the Earth is just “assimilation”. We can only assume that by the same standards, camps that try to ‘cure teh ghey’ and eliminate homosexuality itself aren’t homophobic, and it’s just that gays are so very “intolerant” that they don’t like the idea. (again, not enough rolleyes to fill the need).
People have not slurred the entirety of Catholics (as you have indeed done to the entirety of Jews, and then backpedaled) based on Catholic extremists, but have merely stated that the reaction of the Catholic leadership to those extremists was worrisome. You repeatedly cast this as some sort of anti-Catholic bigotry.
Just like you’re now using “anti-Catholic intolerance” as a slur upon people’s behavior while you can’t even make up your mind as to whether or not intolerance is a bad thing. To say nothing of the horrible snarl of rationalizing your have built up to support your house of cards. Catholics wishing to eradicate Judaism from the face of the earth are not intolerant. Jews objecting to the desire to have their religion wiped from the face of the Earth, they are intolerant. But of course, not wanting to be eradicated as a religion is simply part of Judaism’s core beliefs, so you are intolerant for objecting to their objections, and you’ve created a situation where the dominant group can voice support for annihilating the very existence of a non-dominant group, but if the non-dominant group is uppity enough to object, you start talking about how intolerant they are, while, oddly, not dishing out any venom for the folks who want to completely destroy another religion. In fact, while offering up a apologia that is just an intractable difference done out of desire for eternal brotherhood and destroying an entire religion is “assimilation”. And, of course, you’re well aware that in 21st century America, “intolerance” has a 100% pejorative connotation. To say nothing of the absurdity whereby applying the word ‘intolerance’ so wildly to anybody who doesn’t like anything, with or without cause, you’ve neutered the word and removed its meaning. When a skinhead who wants to beat the shit out of gays and a gay man who doesn’t want to be beaten to a pulp are both equally “intolerant”, you’re just spewing Jaberwockian nonsense. Even worse, it would seem that you might not even consider the first act to be intolerant since hating gays is just an intractable part of skinhead ideology. When being a Klanner and finding that Klan odious are both equally ‘intolerant’, you’ve robbed the word of any real meaning.
There aren’t enough rolleyes.
And you do need to get a handle on your rhetoric, because it’s bonkers.
Instead of standing on ceremony and crowing about how put upon you are, why don’t you take a look at why you believe it’s okay for some Catholics to talk about wanting to eradicate Judaism entirely, but just awful for Jews to say “Um… that’s offensive.”
Try real hard to see this from a Jewish point of view, instead of just objecting to the fact that those uppity paranoid freaks don’t like to hear talk that echoes more than a thousand years of horror, or that advocates the annihilation of their entire religion, specifically, by name, via conversion. Try to imagine what the reaction would have been if someone like Baruch Goldstein hadn’t been killed and, instead, was welcomed back into a congregation whose rabbi said not one word of protest until a media storm prompted him to action. Do you think people would be displaying “anti-Jewish intolerance” for pointing out that the rabbi had made a major hash of the situation?
Unfortunately most of the posts in response to you have been due to your rhetorical bomb chucking, to your taking offense where none is implied, to your insulting other people for “intolerance”, or “paranoia”, or what have you. It’s not a plus for the thread any more than it is when the predictable response to claims of an NDE are trotted out.
Your martyrdom impresses me; your disingenuousness does not.
My comment was specifically addressed to your little dig
It was irrelevant to the discussion and it was nothing more than a mean-spirited dig at a third party that was a backhanded way to take a shot at a poster.
Now, you may wish to take offense that other people do not want you to behave in a rude manner when you are not getting your way in a fight, but as the Moderator, here, I would prefer that you not post in a way that is deliberately and personally antagonistic. You are not required to admire me. You are required to play nice in my sandbox when I request it of you.
I was trying to be less heavy-handed than to issue an Official Moderator Warning, but I am willing to resort to that if you insist.
I have not interfered when you spent several pages making up a new meaning for the word “intolerant” just to make your odd point. I have not interfered, except to make factual corrections, when you have twisted history or Catholic theology, and I have not made any personal attacks in the process. But when I tell you to refrain from personal attacks in this Forum–a pretty long-standing rule–you suddenly wish to take offense at my posts and express your contempt.
On the day that you demonstrate that there is anything that you are willing to discuss in good faith, I will consider your opinion on such matters.
And, since you have already announced that you will ignore me as a poster, I note that this is an official Moderator post:
[ /Moderating ]
Yeah. I would note that the church also prays for our “separated brethren” among the Christians as well as “all those who do not know Jesus.” I acknowledge that the objects of those prayers can find them offensive. There is a tension between the church’s perceived mission to bring all people to God through Jesus and the free will of everyone else that is simply not going to be resolved in a way that is acceptable to all. Given the current language of the prayers and the fact that they are employed only one time a year at a day that is not even one where attendance is obligatory, I suspect that we may be as close as we’re going to get in regards to a meeting of the minds on that issue.
Given that I have made the same point earlier in the thread, sure.
I’m certainly willing to acknowledge that there is a tension between free will and universal Christianity, as well as a tension between doctrinal purity and diplomatic relations with other faiths. But I don’t think the second dynamic is necessarily intractable. A prayer that, for instance “all people might come to know Redemption” would be 100% acceptable to me. And I’d wager that Christians could certainly be aware that in that context, “know Redemption” meant “accept Jesus as the Christ.”
To be honest, I’m not sure what the frequency or attendance numbers have got to do with the price of tea in China. I mean, sure, it’d be a lot worse if it was repeated ever afternoon via bullhorn on street corners but the fact that it exists at all is going to be a source of ill will.
This goes both ways, as the use of the Kol Nidre in Jewish worship has seen a hell of a lot of movement over the centuries. And that’s a prayer that’s only used once per year (albeit on the Day of Atonement). I don’t have any problem with dropping/rephrasing the Kol Nidre so as not to give the mistaken impression that all Jews are oathbreakers.
Must’ve missed that, my apologies.
My problem is that you are judging Catholicism and the future of Jewish-Catholic relations by a minority extremist fringe and then claiming it’s not intolerant.
It’s not deeper than that.
If someone else were judging some other group by a minority fringe, you would call it bigotry. If we were judging Jews by the actions of Haredim in Jerusalem, you would call it bigotry. That is precisely what you are doing here.
I also agree with you that you’re much more fun to talk with if the subject is internet spaceships.
As far as it goes, I agree with you pretty much completely in your analysis of the Israel/Palestine situation, and have said as much. I just don’t think your view is quite as fair and even-handed in this matter as it is there.
I’ll give you one concession though, the Pope’s handling of this was imbecilic. He dropped the ball and then tried to quibble about it. Stupid yes, but it saddens me that there is a prominent opinion amongst many Jews, you as well as others that this signifies a shift in Jewish-Catholic relations. One need not be Jewish OR Catholic to think that good relations between the two is indeed a good thing.
Found the post you’re talking about. I must’ve forgotten it or missed it, ah well.
In any case, you displayed a marked level of historical awareness and empathy.
Kudos to you, good form.