News

Retired Pope Benedict accused of anti-Semitism after article on Christians and Jews

Then-Pope Benedict XVI receives a gift from Israeli chief Rabbis Shlomo Amar, right, and Yona Metzger, left, at the center for the Jewish Heritage in Jerusalem, on May 12, 2009. The pope told Israel's two chief rabbis that the Catholic Church is "irrevocably committed" to "a genuine and lasting reconciliation between Christians and Jews." (AP Photo/Kobi Gideon, Pool)

PARIS (RNS) — Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, head of the Roman Catholic Church from 2005 to 2013, is being accused of fostering anti-Semitism after publishing a controversial essay in a German-language theological journal.

Both Jewish and Catholic leaders say that the retired pontiff’s essay on Jewish-Catholic relations in the current issue of Communio suggests he harbors anti-Semitic views despite his visits to synagogues and cordial relations with Jews during his papacy.Articles both criticizing and defending the essay have appeared in German, Austrian and Swiss media in recent weeks.

The central point of debate is Benedict’s denial the Catholic Church ever adopted “supersessionism,” the theological belief that God’s covenant through Christ replaced the covenant God made with the Jewish people, and his insistence at the same time that the Christian lens for reading the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is the only valid one.

“Whoever describes the role of Judaism like this is building the foundation for a new anti-Semitism on a Christian basis,” said Rabbi Walter Homolka, executive director of the School of Jewish Theology at Potsdam University in Germany.

“Benedict’s suggestion that Christians should teach Jews how to read selected parts of the Hebrew Bible in a Christological way is very problematic,” said the Rev. Christian Rutishauser, head of the Jesuit order in Switzerland and an expert on Jewish-Christian relations.

Benedict pledged at his surprise 2013 resignation that he would remain “hidden from the world” and not get involved in church debates. He wrote his essay as a private text last fall and passed it on to Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, who read it and convinced him to publish it.

Critics say the recent essay seems to walk back efforts in the past half-century to undo the Catholic Church’s long history of anti-Semitism. After nearly two millennia of hostility, the Catholic Church’s Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) acknowledged Christianity’s close historical ties with Judaism and absolved Jews of the stereotype of being “Christ killers.”

Pope John Paul II further developed this vision, visiting a synagogue, traveling to Israel, calling Jews “our elder brothers in the faith” and declaring that God’s covenant with them was not superseded by the covenant through Christ. Benedict’s essay in Communio, an international theological quarterly he helped found in 1972, seemed to walk some of that back to almost pre-Vatican II views. It has not yet been translated into English.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI sits in St. Peter’s Basilica as he attends the ceremony marking the start of the Holy Year, at the Vatican, on Dec. 8, 2015.  (AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia)

In the essay, Benedict notes that the term supersessionism – a sensitive issue for Jews who reject this view as Christian arrogance – was not listed in leading Christian theological lexicons. Building on this point, he argues that Christianity had never seen itself as completely overtaking Judaism, but just as replacing some Jewish rituals such as animal sacrifice with the Eucharist.

Vienna Chief Rabbi Arie Folger called this argument “an ahistoric revisionism that ignores the real suffering inflicted on Jews for centuries because of the doctrine of (the Church as) ‘the true Israel.'”

Telling Jews how to read the Hebrew Bible in a Christian way seemed to suggest that Christians should revive efforts to convert them, Folger wrote in the Jüdische Allgemeine, the weekly newspaper of the Central Council of Jews in Germany.

Benedict interpreted the expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem in the second century A.D. as part of a divine plan, but stated that the modern state of Israel did not have a religious significance for Judaism. Folger called this view “dishonest and dubious.”

An association of Christian-Jewish dialogue groups said Benedict’s essay undermines Vatican teaching since the 1960s and even contradicts declarations he had made as pope.

“The future of Christian-Jewish dialogue could falter in the face of this thoroughly critical questioning of its theological foundations,” the German Coordinating Council of Societies for Christian-Jewish Cooperation said in a statement.

Some Catholic theologians have come to Benedict’s defense. Bochum University theologian Thomas Söding said the essay was “not an irritation, but an inspiration for Jewish-Christian dialogue.”

Theologian Jan-Heiner Tück. Photo courtesy Vienna University

Likewise, Vienna University theologian Jan-Heiner Tück said the essay aimed not to roll back some Catholic positions but to further dialogue between the two religious traditions. Tück said that Benedict’s essay left open the difficult question of what role in salvation Catholicism saw for Judaism since it viewed the Jewish covenant with God as unbroken but the Christian covenant as the true bond. A Vatican document in 2015 said both covenants were paths to salvation, but how this worked was “an unfathomable divine mystery.”

“That should have been made clearer,” Tück said. Benedict was not trying to roll back progress in Christian-Jewish dialogue, he said, “but maybe there’s a certain gap in the description of the positive meaning of Judaism for salvation.”

Critics said Benedict’s essay could help explain why he rewrote the Latin text of the Good Friday prayer for the Jews in 2008. Until the late 1950s, the prayer had worshippers praying that the “perfidious Jews” would open their hearts and accept Jesus as their Lord. The revised 1970 prayer was softened, simply saying the Jews should grow in their love for God.

But in 2008, Benedict changed the wording so that Catholics would pray “that our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men.”

“Ten years ago, Joseph Ratzinger rewrote the Good Friday prayer in its Latin form, which was widely viewed as giving approval to evangelize Jews,” said Homolka, referring to Benedict by his birth name. He said the new essay is “the theological key” to understanding that change.

About the author

Tom Heneghan

375 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • This is the ideal. If religions would devote more of their time and energies to bickering with each other, instead of telling the rest of us how to live our private lives and who to hate, they could still feel self-important but would not be doing as much harm.

  • Hmmm…I’m sure Ratzinger (ex-Pope Benedict) is not an anti-Semite, but…

    He did volunteer for the German Army’s youth paramilitary group in 1943 and then served in the Wehrmacht (German Army), albeit as a draftee until 1945 and only deserted just as the war was ending. And…

    -> “In the essay, Benedict notes that the term supersessionism – a sensitive issue for Jews who reject this view as Christian arrogance – was not listed in leading Christian theological lexicons….”

    -> “…“Benedict’s suggestion that Christians should teach Jews how to read selected parts of the Hebrew Bible in a Christological way”

    -> “…in 2008, Benedict changed the wording so that Catholics would pray “that our God and Lord may illuminate their [Jews] hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men.”

    -> “…he argues that Christianity had never seen itself as completely overtaking Judaism, but just as replacing some Jewish rituals such as animal sacrifice with the Eucharist.” — Wow, ritual cannibalism is better than animal sacrifice !!

    Oh My !! The follies of my old beloved RCC…God’s true church !! They taught me as a youngster to never question Catholic Catechism…why would anybody do that ??

  • Wouldn’t you expect a pope to be biased toward a Christological interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures? Is this really news?

    Inter-religious dialogue does not mean that we should be working toward some sort of one-size-fits-all common belief. It does mean that we should be working toward creating a space where we can disagree with mutual respect and charity.

    That’s a tall order and we haven’t gotten there yet. For now, I’ll settle for not killing each other.

  • The Catholic church has a long, rich, very well-documented history of Jew hatred–even up to the current day, with some ABPs engaging in the most stupid of Jew-hating ideas (“Jewish control of the media” and so on)–so this is hardly a surprise.

  • If I recall my numbers correctly, 81% of white Protestant evangelicals chose Donald Trump in 2016. Only 52% of Catholic voters chose Trump and a much smaller 29% of Jewish voters in America chose Trump. These statistics strike me as more pertinent on every level than anything written by the Pope Emeritus. We should pay attention to the various “positions” of these religions with respect to each other by measuring how CRAZY their American followers might have become when acting out in public life. Our American Jews—-as a whole, as measured by their votes—–were not our religious “problem” (IMHO).

  • So now holding an expressing an opinion about the theological sufficiency of the Jewish religion is now Anti-semetic!

    That’s how “retarded” the left has let its collective intellect to become.

  • From the article: Tück said that Benedict’s essay left open the difficult question of what role in salvation Catholicism saw for Judaism since it viewed the Jewish covenant with God as unbroken but the Christian covenant as the true bond. A Vatican document in 2015 said both covenants were paths to salvation, but how this worked was “an unfathomable divine mystery.” “That should have been made clearer,” Tück said.

    Well, unfathomable divine mysteries are obviously not for Tuck. Even though, in another article today, there is this quote from Augustine: “si comprehendis non est Deus”; essentially saying what think you understand is not God.

    More problematic is any idea that Benedict wants to “walk back efforts in the past half-century to undo the Catholic Church’s long history of anti-Semitism.” The technicality of whether or not the church supported the idea of supersessionism is nit-picking. The anti-semitism practiced and promoted was real, brutal, deadly. The Catholic Church has finally begun to acknowledge the awful role its own teachings and prayers and social leadership played in the treatment of Jewish people. It is hypocritical to play word games pretending the fruits that were born from what was done and said was some kind of misunderstanding of others. I see in this some sad attempt to reduce responsibility for what happened – and that it not possible.

  • No they shouldn’t. “Jacob I have loved; Esau I hate.” Jews have absolutely no relation to the 12 Tribes of Israel. Imposters — Revelation 2:9

  • Anti semites— people who don’t like Jews, but occasionally have just enough human decency to pretend that the people they hate really aren’t Jews at all, or that they don’t really hate them.

    FIFY

  • Jews were not thrown out of various Nations and Countries over 100 times for NO GOOD REASON.

  • https://www.biblebelievers.org.au/expelled.htm

    250 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Carthage
    415 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Alexandria
    554 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Diocèse of Clermont (France)
    561 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Diocèse of Uzès (France)
    612 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Visigoth Spain
    642 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Visigoth Empire
    855 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Italy
    876 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Sens
    1012 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Mainz
    1182 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – France
    1182 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Germany
    1276 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Upper Bavaria
    1290 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – England
    1306 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – France
    1322 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – France (again)
    1348 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Switzerland
    1349 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Hielbronn (Germany)
    1349 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Saxony
    1349 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Hungary
    1360 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Hungary
    1370 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Belgium
    1380 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Slovakia
    1388 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Strasbourg
    1394 — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Germany
    ……..cont

  • You managed to find the entire shtick of the usual complainants and repeat it by rote, including “He did volunteer for the German Army’s youth paramilitary group in 1943 ….”.

    That is exactly how ignorance is perpetuated.

  • Oy vey, but it is very much true! Anyone with a brain can look at who owns and runs these media companies and Hollywood. Not hard!

  • They even boast about it! “December 19, 2008|JOEL STEIN (je//ish)– LA TIMES; “I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Je//s,” down from nearly 50% in 1964. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Je//s totally run Hollywood.”

  • Straight from the horse’s ass, I mean mouth: “Je//ish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion. Astyr remembers having “to run or fight for it in grammar school because I was a Je//. It could very well be that part of my porn career is an ‘up yours’ to these people.” – Nathan Abrams

  • Racist jewish Harvard professor Noel Ignatiev: “The goal of abolishing the White race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed White supremacists.” Filthy Sarah Silverman said: “I hope the Jews did kill Jesus, I’d f***ing do it again in a second!” Jewish supremacist Susan Sontag said: “The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone.”

  • Screw Magazine owner Al Goldstein: “…asked Al Goldstein why the porn industry contained so many Jews. Goldstein answered, “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks.”

  • “Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion. Astyr remembers having “to run or fight for it in grammar school because I was a Jew. It could very well be that part of my porn career is an ‘up yours’ to these people.” – Nathan Abrams

  • How about the tables turn for a change: Jewish supremacist Susan Sontag said: “The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone.”

  • “They (white European Christians) are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.” – Barbara Lerner-Spectre

  • YNet Israeli News: Nov 11, 2012 – Rabbi Baruch Efrati, a yeshiva head and community rabbi in the West Bank settlement of Efrat, believes that the Islamization of Europe is actually a good thing.”

  • “The Messiah will come only when Edom, Europe, Christianity has totally fallen. So I ask you, is it good news that Muslims are invading Europe? It’s excellent news! It means the coming of the Messiah! Excellent news!” French Rabbi Rav Touitou

  • Do you think that Saints who were martyred would have ever allowed themselves to be in a Nazi organization or army voluntarily or otherwise?

    Glad the church that made him Pope doesn’t have standards that are too high…but maybe that’s how they ended up with a quitter pope!. Too bad he didn’t quit the Wehrmacht a bit earlier too.

  • Racist jewish Harvard professor Noel Ignatiev: “The goal of abolishing the White race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed White supremacists.”

  • “I’m extremely glad that the white race is dying, and you should be too. White people do not have a right to exist. Period” jewish racist Emily Goldstein

  • “We wrote these characters but when we went to cast it, one of the things I had felt, having been to the Emmys a couple times — you look around that room and you see the whitest f*cking room in the history of time. Its just unbelievably white.” jewish racist JJ Abrams, star wars producer

  • “So now holding and expressing an opinion about the theological sufficiency of the Jewish religion is now Anti-semetic!”

    Yup. It is saying that the Jewish faith is not a religion or should be respected. “Theological sufficiency” is a nonsense phrase to mean evidently “just like my religion”.

  • Racist bigot Zionist Greg Morelli: The now deleted tweet, which ignited outrage on social media, read: “Soon as I heard it was country music, I felt relief. White people shooting white people isn’t terror … it’s community outreach. (hashtag)LasVegas.”

  • Isn’t there a Reddit board you should be on? This is not Pepe the Frog friendly territory. We already have a few regular Nazis here. Our quota is full.

  • May the world awaken. Screw Magazine interview: “…asked Al Goldstein (bigtime porn mogul and owner of magazine) why the porn industry contained so many Jews. Goldstein answered, “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks.”

  • Jewish CBS exec fired for unsympathetic Vegas massacre post – New York Post
    Oct 2, 2017 – A CBS legal executive who said she had no sympathy for the victims killed in Las Vegas because they were “country music fans” — and therefore likely Republican — has been fired. Hayley Geftman-Gold posted the ugly comments on social media about Sunday’s massacre in a …

  • “It’s not okay for white pride rallies to take place in 2016.” End St. Patrick’s Day! –jewish bigot Allison Rothberg

  • “I have often thought but kept to myself what a gruesome thing they are, traditional crucifixes … Instinctively I have always been uncomfortable around crucifixes…” – Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, jewish Forward news

  • Our critics will say — “Ignatiev is a one off and Silverman is a comedian. ” So…………..conspiracy theory.

  • 4 Reasons I Don’t Like Thanksgiving || Mayim Bialik
    Racist Big Bang Theory jewess star Miyam Bialik believes white Americans shouldn’t celebrate Thanksgiving.

  • “Reader, beware! if you so much as resent the filth of the mass of the movies, you will fall under the judgment of anti-Semitism. The movies are of Jewish production. If you fight filth, the fight carries you straight into the Jewish camp because the majority of the producers are there. And then you are “attacking the Jews.” – the great Henry Ford, 100 years ago

  • From the Horses mouth — “An Empire of their Own; How the Jews Invented Hollywood” by Neil Gabler.
    But I guess Gabler was just a ‘one off’ as well. Alex Jones says the Arabs run Hollywood. Weird — I spent time auditioning back in the 90’s. Don’t remember one Arab Casting Director, or Producer or Studio Head.

  • Says you, whose idols are most likely the worse perpetrators of genocide in world history? Jewish communist bolsheviks Marx, Berman, Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Yagoda, Kamenev, Kaganovich, those Christ-hating anti-White Nazis?

  • David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 dispatch to Washington: “The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution.” –Russia, From the American Embassy, New York, 1921

  • Army Intelligence reports written by Captain Montgomery Schuyler: Schuyler made a point of the heavy Jewish involvement in the Communist revolution. Schuyler wrote that “It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning guided and controlled by Russian Jews..” and went on to point out that of the total 384 commissars running the Soviet Union, more than 300 were Jews.”

  • “There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international movement controlled by Jews; communications are passing between the leaders in America, France, Russia and England with a view to concerted action….” Great Britain, Directorate of Intelligence, A Monthly Review of the Progress of Revolutionary Movements Abroad, no. 9, July 16, 1913 (861.99/5067).

  • There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews.
    Winston Churchill, Illustrated Sunday Herald (London), February 8, 1920, pg. 5

  • “The Jew is an inborn Communist.” – Otto Weininger (jewish author), Sex and Character, page 311

  • Stalin’s Jews
    “We mustn’t forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish”
    — YNet Israeli news

  • “Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity.”

  • I don’t think you know what you’re talking about relative to the Nazi youth in general or Ratzinger relative to it.

    I also don’t think you could meet the standards you wish to hold him to.

  • Thanks, Ben. I see it didn’t take the attack dogs long to hijack this thread. Very sad.

  • The Holodomor. 66+ million white Russian Christians murdered. A glimpse of Satan’s hatred! (Revelation 2:9; 3:9) Aleksander Solzhenitsyn.

  • Feel free to post the actuall full text of such archbishops saying the Jews control the media…chapter/verse/date.

  • So you are an anti-semite as well. OK.

    By all means dumbazz, explain what you mean by “theological sufficiency”

  • Well the Jews have a shorted understanding of the history of salvation, clinging to just the OT, and in fact removing some books they had in the OT, when Christians started using them to connect prophesy and teaching to NT writing.

  • Or maybe they just don’t buy into fraudulent saviors and prophets….they have rejected others too.

  • https://holocaustdeprogrammingcourse.com/
    Educate yourself. The Germans did nothing wrong. NO holocaust. Just work and transit camps. Blame the allies for bombing Camp supply lines.
    The Jews first declared war on Germany.
    Soap made out of Jew Fat — HOAX
    Lampshades made out of Jew Skin – HOAX
    Shrunken Heads – HOAX
    What else is a LIE?

  • My comment remains unchanged. Now you are just trying to justify long held beliefs used for attacking Jews as a people and a faith.

  • That’s silly even for you.

    So scientists who can explain more data with a single hypothesis are Anti-copernican

  • Ratzinger is not only anti-semitic; he’s a dysfunctional closet case — indeed the patron saint of closet cases. Die already. Why do the most evil men live the longest?

  • “‘Whoever describes the role of Judaism like this is building the foundation for a new anti-Semitism on a Christian basis,’ said Rabbi Walter Homolka”, who also said, however:

    (1) “I deal with the concept of truth and lie in Jewish traditional literature, examining its development in the Hebrew Bible and rabbinic literature. An essential aspect in understanding this concept is the dualism of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ impulses and the free will of human beings, who were created in the image of God and have the choice to decide between right and wrong.”
    – Walter Homolka, Journal of Beliefs & Values: Studies in Religion & Education, June 20, 2017.

    (2) “[I] have … given guidelines to [my] students on how to behave so that they won’t fall prey to … attacks. [I] advise them not to wear their skullcaps on the street. Instead, they should choose an inconspicuous head cover. Apparently a Jew is only safe if he is not visible as such.”
    – Walter Homolka, The Times of Israel, September 2, 2012.

  • People like Ratzinger have no capacity for life in a pluralistic world. They show no respect for others. They are pathologically compelled to proclaim themselves and their beliefs as untouchable and unassailable. He’s indistinguishable from a radical Muslim Grand Mufti who believe themselves to sit at the right hand of God.

  • Of course, it’s reasonable to ask, but somehow I suspect you will not be persuaded when I find the info I’m looking for.

    I’m looking, and will post a link to what I find (and of course, only from a credible source).

  • Again……………nice deflection. Why don’t you argue his ‘quotes’. Was Alexander Solzhenitsyn a liar?

  • Of course they weren’t. There’s always a good reason for hatred and bigotry, even if you have to make it up out of whole cloth, and very cheap cloth at that.

  • Thank you for demonstrating as clearcas clear can be the pedigree of the hatred you harbor.

    Give you enough rope, and so on.

  • I believe I’ve located the info I want, and will post a link tom’w or day after.

    Meantime….certain national Catholic churches are well-known for their anti-Semitism. For example, years ago I met a Holocaust survivor who’d grown up in Poland. He told me how he’d gone to church one day with a Catholic friend, to see what that was like, and was shocked when he heard the priest doing all kinds of Jew hatred–from the pulpit!

    And of course, this filtered down to lay Catholics, who hated Jews. Read any material about Jewish guerillas in Poland, and you will read about how non-Jewish guerillas would routinely attack the Jews.

    Similarly, the region of Germany that was the biggest supporter of Hitler was Bavaria. Coincidentally, that’s the most heavily Catholic area, and is still very conservative.

    Similarly, what do you think was the origin of the Dreyfus business in France? Hmm…let’s see, what is still the dominant religion in France? Hmm…

    And then of course there was the Inquisition. And here in the US, that Jew-hating priest in Detroit in the ‘thirties–Fr. Coughlin?…how much more info do you need?

  • Save your breath. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t move the needle; neither do cherry picked singlets.

    Most people no longer are even rational, though that doesn’t mean they accept the fact, thanks to post-modernism.

  • Jew Hatred. They are all out today.

    Homo hatred. Christian hating Christian hatred.

    Remind me why I am an atheist again?

  • Racist bigoted Zionist jews are also synonymous with circus clowns. A pie for your face fellow antic tribesman!

  • The occupied land of Israel by those harlequins is a joke. They need to be deported and the land given to the real Barnum and Bailey Circus. A much better fit!

  • There are three criminal organizations all claiming to (exclusively) speak Truth, in the name of the same Abrahamic God.

    The result :

    Hatred on Earth.

  • Yeah, so my cousins sisters friend on my mamas side who lives around the corner from my uncles brother said the Jews killed Jesus.

  • I gave you an up sign only because I knew you were referring to me. And that dude is truly a clown.

  • If your life is centered around something which most religions condemn, it is more than a little difficult to be a fan of religion.

  • Aaah! It sure looks like you are preparing the grounds for rejecting anything I will post!

    To me, the best kind of evidence would be something written by a recognized Catholic clergyman–that is, a priest, archbishop, etc., who was in good standing at the time the material was written. And of course, the material should have appeared in some sort of “recognized” source, i.e. a source such that we can be reasonably confident that the material is genuine, such as some print material, e.g. a Vatican source, and not just some website, where anyone can write anything and claim to be anyone.

    That would mean that anyone could see the material for himself (assuming it is available online

    Would such a citation satisfy you?

  • FYI, I recently discovered that among scholars of religion, there is apparently quite a large interest in the subtopic “religion and violence”. I even discovered a Great Courses video on the subject.

    No doubt there is a similar subtopic of “religion and hatreds”.

  • I would say that by now it is well-established that he was no Nazi and was an unwilling volunteer.

  • After what they’ve done to Jews for close to two thousand years, why isn’t it already crystal-clear to Christians that they need to just shut their mouths where Jews and Judaism are concerned? They long ago lost any license they ever may have had (which I’m not sure they ever did) to comment on them. 

    This very-simple notion shouldn’t be too difficult to understand; yet, too many Christians — including some like the Pope emeritus who’s certainly smart enough to know better — simply refuse to obey it. They shoot their mouths off about Judaism nonetheless … they just can’t seem to help themselves, or something. I guess. 

  • What good is it to be a Christian, if one can’t then stomp around declaring oneself superior to others, because of Jesus? And if one presumes oneself superior to certain other groups, how much of a step does it take, from that point, to then hate them for their assumed inferiority? 

    I mean, seriously … think about it … what other point is there, to being a Christian? Really? It’s all about alleviating their personal insecurity and reinforcing their infantilism. Presuming superiority over others, and moving on to outright hatred, is a simple and fantastic way to do both. By contrast, growing up, dealing with one’s insecurity head-on, and leaving others alone takes a lot more work and is much harder to do — so Christians refuse. 

  • Time to escape the idiocy of the RCC and Christianity in general if you have not already.

  • Benedict’s argument that the Church never OFFICIALLY embraced supercessionism might be correct, but is also a case of serious nitpicking — the very way the books of the Christian Bible are divided between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant at least leans that way. But for the statement that the Bible should be interpreted according to Christian beliefs, or even that Jews should be evangelized, how is this even an argument? We’re Christians!

  • Well, a certain class of so called christian. Certain people that hang out here, certainly. I’ve known many not of that type, both here and not here.

    The “you must get right with god” types, who are already certain that they are.

    And here comes the Usual Suspect in…

  • Most religions condemn other religions. In fact, from what I have seen if you, o Mouth of Bob, when you are not condemning other religions, you are busy condemning the members of your own. And everyone else.

    Hey, Parker! Did you see his comment where he said liberal Christians hate religion almost as much as he imagines non-religious people do? Is that really whom you want to hang out with?

    Back to ignoring you, dear.

  • The Christian religion is the only religion which insists that’s its views are correct. All other religions admit that they are probably wrong. For example, the Jews call themselves the Not So Chosen People.

    Oh, wait a minute, that’s not how it is at all. All religions claim to be the be all and end all of God’s intentions.

    So why condemn the Christians and only Christians?

  • And most schools of atheistic philosophies condemn other schools of atheistic philosophies, oh Mouth of Ben.

    Welcome to humanity.

  • Re: “So why condemn the Christians and only Christians?” 

    I didn’t condemn “only Christians.” They are, however, the topic of discussion for this article. Therefore I’m addressing Christians and why they do what they do. There’s no reason for me to discuss other religions here … none at all! … and moreover, I have no intention of doing so here, solely to dispel your baseless assumption that I “only” critique Christians. 

  • But you did only condemn Christians. That’s a fact. And now you’re backpedaling with contradictory statements.

    1.I didn’t condemn “only Christians.”

    2.There’s no reason for me to discuss other religions here

    So which is it?

  • What garbage and slander by the usual slanderers of renown. We need to reinsert “perfidious” in the prayer

  • Yeah right Howard, maybe due to the much longer seething hatred by mass murdering and child raping Talmudic Jews of Christians.

  • The American Hebrew September 10, 1920:

    “The Bolshevist revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction, and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental and physical forces, become a reality all over the world.”

  • Re: “But you did only condemn Christians.” 

    Yes, because Christians — and only Christians — are the subject of this article. I am under no obligation — especially due to your hurt feelings — to introduce the failings of any other religions. They are not relevant to this article … and as I already told you, I absolutely refuse to discuss any of them here. 

    If there’s any part of this you don’t comprehend, I’m happy to repeat it for you until it sinks into your Christianist head. 

    Re: “And now you’re backpedaling with contradictory statements.” 

    Nope. Never did. 

    Re: “I didn’t condemn ‘only Christians.'” 

    In this article’s comments, yes. Because Christians are the topic here. I have no rational reason to hurl other religions into this particular discussion, solely to appease your hurt feelings. I have, however, condemned other religions elsewhere. Plenty of times. I’ll let you figure out where you can find a bunch of that material … but as I said twice already, I absolutely will not introduce other religions into this discussion, which is about Christians and their propensity to keep talking about Judaism and Jews when in reality they have no license to discuss them any more. 

    Re: “There’s no reason for me to discuss other religions here” 

    Yes, of course. Because they’re the topic of discussion in this article. This article does not concern any religion other than Christianity, so that is all I will talk about. 

    There is no “contradiction” in my saying that. I have no idea why you think it’s the case … except maybe due to your own hurt feelings. Go cry about it to someone who cares — I don’t. 

  • “The Communists are against religion (Christianity), and they seek to destroy religion; yet, when we look deeper into the nature of Communism, we see that it is essential nothing else than a religion (Judaism).”

    (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Rabbi Harry Waton, p. 138).

    “The Jews welcome this revolution in the Christian world, and the Jews should show an example. It is not an accident that Judaism gave birth to Marxism, and it is not an accident that the Jews readily took up Marxism: all this was in perfect accord with the progress of Judaism and the Jews.”

    (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, by Rabbi Harry Waton, p. 148).

  • I believe Gene was kicked out of Jewish Christian Dialogue because his pamphlet “proved” Christianity is “One True Religion”. Headed by ” “Come now, let us reason together,
    says the Lord:.” Isaiah 1.18a
    The Roman Catholic theologians kicked him out. “…book table closed down, not because it offended Jews, but because my research supported the chronology of the Old Testament. I was expelled by Catholic theologians who were offended because my studies conflicted with their views on Bible chronology. I rec’d letter of apology from Rabbi Max Shapiro, Director of the Center for Jewish-Christian Learning at the College of St Thomas.” p. 10 Bible Chronology & Scientific Method Minneapolis 1987. https://news.stthomas.edu/please-remember-in-your-prayers-rabbi-max-shapiro/

    Also, see work of Jakob Jocz who believes sine qua non for the Church is its mission to Jews. https://www.amazon.com/Christians-Jews-Encounter-Jakob-Jocz/dp/B0000CMU85/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1533397415&sr=1-6&refinements=p_27%3AJakob+Jocz

  • Re; ” Christians — and only Christians — are the subject of this article…This article does not concern any religion other than Christianity,”

    Of course it does. The entire point of the article is the contrast between Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Old Testament. Did you even read the article? Jews and Judiasm are mentioned numerous times, a rabbi is quoted and another is pictured at the top.

    Re: If there’s any part of this you don’t comprehend, I’m happy to repeat it for you until it sinks into your Christianist head.

    I’m an atheist. May I recommend that you base your future arguments on facts and not assumptions.

  • “..the theological belief that God’s covenant through Christ replaced the covenant God made with the Jewish people…”

    He did. Jesus said he came to fulfill the law covenant. The Bible also speaks of a new covenant.

  • If one looks at the history of the Roman Catholic Church, up to and including present day, one sees the panorama of one long series of events of the most horrific and savage assaults, including mass murder, ethnic cleansing and torture on anyone non-Catholic, ethnicities, beliefs of all kinds, and even in this day on its own children by its own debauched renegade clergy.
    And in the midst of it all theologians debate the ecumenical nuance of who or what Catholics hate.
    Almost makes you want to believe in Hell, huh?

  • I’m making progress. I believe I’ve identified the individual who made the comment. More later as I investigate further.

    Meanwhile, I hope you will reply to my question about what will satisfy you in terms of evidence.

  • In the first verse of the Hebrew Bible. He has seven words (seven is perfect) in original Hebrew. Man’s translations from Vulgate to all new translations can only translate six words (six is the number of man) because that is all man can do.

    Like the Menorah in the Temple, the middle lamp is called servant lamp that is used to light the other lamps. Jesus is the Light of the world in our midst to light the other six lamps (six as in Man).

    The middle word of Genesis 1:1 Aleph – Tav ( אֵ֥ת ) are the first and last letters of the Hebrew language. In our New Testament, Jesus called Himself the Alpha and Omega in the book of Revelation. Revelation chapter 1.

  • Here’s a link to an article you might find interesting. The article concerns pope JP II apologizing for the sins of the church0–or do you think I made this up?:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/mar/13/catholicism.religion

    and here is a link to the list of apologies made by JP II:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II

    If you’d like some links to additional “sins of the church”, feel free to ask; I will be delighted to provide them (and of course, I must thank you for stimulating me to do this research).

  • Who cares!!! The Great Kibosh rules the day!!

    Putting the kibosh on all religion in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!!

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.

    • There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.

    • There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.

    • There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.

    • Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.

    • Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.

    • A constant cycle of reincarnation until enlightenment is reached and belief that various beings (angels?, tinkerbells? etc) exist that we, as mortals, cannot comprehend makes for a no on Sikhism.

    Added details available upon written request

  • Re: “The entire point of the article is the contrast between Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Old Testament.” 

    No it wasn’t. The point of the article was Benedict’s essay on Jews. That’s the topic here … how Christians treat (or more accurately, mistreat) Jews. And you originally replied to my reply to Ben’s comment, in which I presented my explanation for why Christians so easily express hatred for “outside” groups such as gays and Jews. It’s due to their own personal insecurities and immaturity. 

    That’s what I was talking about. I wasn’t talking about other religions, and wasn’t even talking about Jews or Judaism. They weren’t relevant to the discussion I had replied to. Please, do make an effort to at least try to keep up … OK? 

    Re: “I’m an atheist. May I suggest that you base your future arguments on facts rather than on assumptions?” 

    If you are, in fact, an “atheist,” there’s no logical reason for you to have presumed I ought to have commented on every last stinking last religion in the world in the context of this article, or more significantly, in the context of the comment Ben made, to which I had responded. And that was … for your edification: 

    “Well, a certain class of so called christian. Certain people that hang out here, certainly. I’ve known many not of that type, both here and not here. “The ‘you must get right with god’ types, who are already certain that they are. “And here comes the Usual Suspect in…” 

    Now, you tell me … if you can, Mr Claimed Atheist … where in Ben’s comment was the invitation for me to comment every last stinking last religion in the world, rather than just Christianity, which is the subject of the original article (contrary to your assertion otherwise) as well as Ben’s comment? Hmm? Do tell. I can’t wait for your explanation. 

    If you are the “atheist” you say you are, you ought to be able to come up with a cogent explanation for why I was required to respond to Ben’s comment about Christians’ attitudes by injecting every last stinking last religion in the world into the discussion. Go ahead. Tell me all about it! 

    Or, maybe you can just admit that my injecting mention of every last stinking last religion in the world into my reply to Ben wouldn’t have been relevant, and therefore wouldn’t have made the slightest bit of sense. You might surprise me by making that concession … but given your sanctimony expressed so far, I doubt it. 

    And one last thing: If you think I wasn’t permitted to critique “only Christianity,” maybe you’d care to provide me with a list of all the specific religions you think I was been obligated to mention. Would that list have included Buddhism? Islam? Sikhism? Yazidism? Shinto? Hinduism? Zoroastrianism? Neopaganism? Jainism? Wicca? Which ones? If you think I’m required to comment on other religions, the least you could do is provide a list of the ones you think are mandatory for me to mention. I’d appreciate it. 

  • Because you hate God, and yet you spend hours a day trolling around a religious news site spreading light headed thoughts, that’s why.

  • You people have so many stories that you tell yourselves about the people who disagree with you, or who don’t see things your rather narrow way. It’s adorable. Vicious, pernicious, but still adorable.

    I don’t hate god: not your god, not any god. No more than I hate Zeus, Thor, Brahma, quanyin, Allah, or any of the rest of the many, many gods of men. How can I hate what I see no reason to believe exists? I also don’t hate pizza flavored ice cream, Voldemort, Donald trump’s benevolent morality, or good ben affleck movies.

    Why is it that when you disagree with others, you are just proclaiming the truth in love? But when we disagree with you and your rather rigid, narrow, and definitely anti-benevolent attitudes , we must hate you, or your god, or your faith?

    I don’t hate you, dearie, or your particular and peculiar version of a god who, not surprisingly, resembles you. Neither of you are worthy of that much emotional energy. If you don’t like what I have to say, you have a number of very simple options. You can dispute what I have to say with facts, logic, and experience and make a case. You can do what you usually do, which is fairly nasty and has little relation to those things. You can ignore me, as I ignore the Mouth of Bob and the entirety of BobWorld. You can pretend that I hate god, and justify yourself that way.

    Or, You can block me.

  • Because they are the ones that are active in our part of the world, and who— at least a portion known s hyper conservative Christians— think that they ought to have dominion over the lives of others. In other parts of the world, they are known as islamists.

  • Sure, a quickie reminder in the context of your post.

    “God hatred.” The atheist’s favorite hobby.

  • Because in the end, it’s not even about the Christians, since not all of them are conservative, and some even support gay marriage (in direct defiance of their own God and Bible.)

    In the end, it’s really about Christ himself. What He said, what He did, what He is offering, and why He is offering it. THAT one person, if we be honest, is the real target of condemnation here.

  • Re: “Of course it does. The entire point of the article is the contrast between Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Old Testament.” 

    No. The point of the article — which apparently I’m forced to repeat to you — is Benedict’s supersessionist essay. The specific comment to which I’d replied … and which got your knickers all in knots, for some unknown reason … was Ben’s comment about how Christians treat certain “outside” groups. 

    Re: “Did you even read the article?” 

    I did, but you didn’t. Obviously. You also didn’t read Ben’s comment, to which I’d replied. 

    Re: “I’m an atheist.” 

    That’s unlikely in the extreme. Why, if you’re truly an atheist, are you so sanctimoniously angry that I insolently dared critique Christianity in the context of this article, but no other religion? Which religions, exactly, would you have preferred I’d critiqued? Maybe you wanted me to critique Scientology. That would be a neat trick, though, since that’s neither the subject of this article nor of Ben’s comment, to which I’d responded. 

    Re: “Otherwise you’ll simply be repeating your mistakes.” 

    … except I haven’t made one. I discussed Christianity, which is the subject of this article and of Ben’s comment, to which I’d replied. As I said several times to you already … and which you apparently do not understand (maybe English isn’t your native tongue) … I do not intend to critique any other religion here. What’s more, you have no power to force me to do so. Your childish demand that I critique other faiths than Christianity, here, in the wake of this article and of Ben’s comment, is so irrational, childish, and asinine that I can’t imagine what made you come out with it. 

    If you’re an atheist, I wish you luck, because you’re clearly just as self-righteous and infantile as all the militant Christianists out there you’re obliquely defending by pitching fits over my refusal to critique any religion except Christianity here. 

  • “It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.” – racist anti-Christian jewish supremacist Masha Gessen

  • (((They))) and their brainwashed “leftist” minions want Christianity eradicated. “Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … We must keep our eyes on the goal … of radically reordering society’s views of reality.” ~ Paula Ettelbrick, Jewish, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

  • Seek and ye shall find! “Israeli lawmaker tears up “abominable” New Testament, throws it in trash” — CNN Headline These are mainly your “atheists”

  • Filthy Sarah Silverman said: “I hope the Jews did kill Jesus, I’d f***ing do it again in a second!”

  • “The Messiah will come only when Edom, Europe, Christianity has totally fallen. So I ask you, is it good news that Muslims are invading Europe? It’s excellent news! It means the coming of the Messiah! Excellent news!” French Rabbi Rav Touitou

  • Screw Magazine interview: “…asked Al Goldstein (bigtime porn mogul and owner of magazine) why the porn industry contained so many Jews. Goldstein answered, “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks.”

  • It’s no surprise American Atheists is run by a jew… “I have often thought but kept to myself what a gruesome thing they are, traditional crucifixes … Instinctively I have always been uncomfortable around crucifixes…” – Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, jewish Forward news

  • There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews.
    Winston Churchill, Illustrated Sunday Herald (London), February 8, 1920, pg. 5

  • Mostly jewish hatred! Corrupt ZIONISTS control Hollywood, media like CNN and Fox News, porn, the major banks, Federal Reserve, universities, and politicians. They are the source for anything anti-Christian and anti-White. Filthy Sarah Silverman said: “I hope the Jews did kill Jesus, I’d f***ing do it again in a second!” Jewish supremacist Susan Sontag said: “The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone.”

  • Anti-goyim, the tribe’s favourite hobby! “It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.” – racist anti-Christian jewish supremacist Masha Gessen

  • Again, you just must tell yourselves these stories to justify who you are in the world. Not my problem.

    But since we’ree discussing our relative moral merits, doc, and who hates who and why, let’s talk about THIS.

    In 168 comments, Not one of you right wing clowns and super duper Christians called out our resident dime store anti-Semite And Fearful White Man for his numerous posts attack Jewish people.

    Not a one of you super duper moralizing busybodies called out Clown McClownington for his numerous cut and paste anti Semitic screeds, aka lies, distortions, half truths, and definite all around racist and religious bigotry.

    Not a single one of you hyper conservative holy hypocrite had a word to say about NeoCon, with his slanderous, reviling, and vicious comment about child raping Talmudic Jews.

    Not a one. I did, both in general and in particular. I flagged about 1/3 of the clowns nastiness. That’s the difference between you and me. .

    But you had plenty of time to attack me and the other atheists for daring to think that maybe you don’t have any kind of a lock on the truth, that you represent not god, But simply yourselves, and that you are really not very nice people at all.thats the difference between you and me.

    One would almost think that you agreed with these three antisemites. But unlike them, you are just smart enough to realize what that kind of thing makes you all look like. So you just keep attacking gays and atheists, and then you whine and complain when we fight back about how persecuted you are.

    You kids are sick. Get help.

    That includes all the residents of BobWorld with you,

  • Do I always call out Charlotte?
    Do I always call out YOU?
    No, I don’t.
    So relax already Ben. You stress too much.

    In this little RNS sandbox, I have my Fundie fun and my favorite guilty debating pleasures. So I don’t stress on anybody, not even anti-semitic spammers. My own positive respect for the State of Israel and all the Jewish people, has been posted here more than once.

    So if you want to call out somebody up in here, stop all the fake angst and just GO DO IT. Yes? Go rock-n-roll.

  • You may not believe this Doink, but I’ve actually used that same quotation, in this very forum, to argue against Gay Marriage.

    BUT… Are you aware that 24 percent of Jewish voters voted for President Trump in 2016? Without them, liberal Queen Hillary would be kicking all our arses right now. No more Religious Freedom. Hollywood, CNN, and Gay Goliath would rule the roost.

    So we need to show some real fairness & appreciation to those Jewish voters, yes? So we can’t obey this LIE that the Jewish people are somehow “the source for everything Anti-Christian and Anti-White.” That just ain’t true, not in your Bible, and not in your hometown.

  • Ummm – I blocked them all.
    I just didn’t have to pat myself on the back and let everyone know.
    I’ll be watching for you to call out Charlotte in the very near future.
    Thank you in advance.

  • Tom, I have to thank you for asking me for a citation or reference to support my claim about anti-Semitism by high-ranking prelates of the RCC. I finally found something, and as well, I stumbled across some other very interesting stuff.

    Here’s what I’ve got so far.

    The individual I was thinking of is Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga of Honduras (or more formally, Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga).

    In an article he wrote for the Italian-language magazine 30 Giorni in May 2002, he stated that “the Jews” are to blame for the scandal surrounding the sexual misconduct of priests toward young parishioners.

    He later attempted to walk that back.

    I believe that was the same article in which he wrote about Jews and media. I am still looking.

    My Italian is not good enough to do an accurate translation of this article. I am looking for a translation of the article into English, and if I cannot find that, a translator.

    I look forward to seeing your comments, of course.

    Oh, along the way I learned about that charming fellow, Pope Pius IX (“Pio Nono”). Another charming guy: a Jew hater, and a person lusting for power. Did you know he was the guy who invented the notion of “papal infallibility”?

  • Ben, in the interests of fairness, maybe folks here are smart enough to ignore those idiots you write about. Really, to reply to any of that nonsense would just be to encourage more.

  • As I said finding of picking cherries from this or that cardinal doesn’t prove your sweeping bigoted statement about the hierarchy, anymore than if that same Cardinal, Maradiaga is shown to be a flamboyant homosexual would prove that the hierarchy is generally a bunch of sodomites.

  • That the article is not available on the Web, yet possibly calumnious diatribes about it are circulating here freely, is a terrible thing. It should be made Web-accessible at once, preferably in English.

    Controversialists need controversies to keep their audiences. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is not a controversialist — and he has fought lifelong against anti-Semitism. The accusations against him, which I note come almost entirely from non-Catholic sources, must be validated against the text of his article. To permit accusations to be made in a factual vacuum is unjust: a classic sin of omission. Only those whose careers require conflict between Christians and Jews can profit from such a state of affairs.

  • Fasten your seat belt: I agree (!!) that the fact that one or 2 or 10 individuals has characteristic X, does not mean that the organization to which they belong, has that characteristic.

    That said…it’s quite interesting that you misread my original statement, which is what started this discussion. I stated “..a long, rich, well-documented history of Jew hatred”. And I gave you references to matters such as popes apologizing for past sins of the church.

    The church’s *history* of Jew-hatred is simply not debatable.

    I did NOT say that the church today has those characteristics.

    All that said…your use of the word “sodomites” reveals a lot about you.

  • Speaking of sick and needing help ….

    Boo hoo hoo, poor wittle Ben.

    If I showed up at – say – JoeMyGod with the attitude relative to the majority of its posters you show in religious discussions exhibiting, I wouldn’t be treated as well as you are.

    You give every sign of being a professional victim.

  • There are somethings to be said about that article. There is certainly some truth it
    In it, as well as a conflation of gay men with homosexually oriented men. That’s what I object to.

    But there was a kernel of truth. These men put their sexuality on the shelf at a fairly young age. One could argue that they are stuck in their teenage years themselves, never having to confront their sexuality. So their interests tend to coincide with that. In my entire life, a
    Of all of the hundreds or thousands of gay men I have known, I have known only one whom I would describe as gay who also had an interest in underaged boys.

    But here is the other issue missing from the article. When I came out at 21, I was a kid in a candy store, and there was a lot of candy hanging around. I’ve known many gay men with exactly that experience. When the straight kids are busy exploring dating, the opposite sex, and all of that, we’re hiding out in the closet, hoping no one find outs out. And then we come out.

    What happens to these wanna be priests. They go to the seminary, where they find an awful lot of men in exactly the same position. Is this whole thing any sort of a surprise? They’re not in a candy store, but in the candy section at the biggest Costco in the world. The closet does what it always does-x it’s camouflage. It also, as it has always done, perverts, twists, and destroys everything it comes in contact with. THE CLOSET, the enforcement mechanism of homobigotry society, not being gay.

  • Nice try at deflection. Read your own comments. Personally, I ignore what Charlotte has to say, even though she has some truth in it. Fundamentalist fun: right.

    Fundamentalism: 1% fun, 9% dum, 90% mental.

  • All very interesting.

    I wish I knew what it is about sex that has just about all religions and denoms so freaked out. For sure the sex drive in almost all individuals is strong, and cannot simply be stamped out just by saying “no!”, as the church proposes for priests. (And btw, highly credible research published in 1992 by A. W. Richard Sipe found that 50% of all priests are non-celibate–50% of those with men, 50% with women.)

    You might also find it interestg to look up some research published recently by a Harvard scholar named Dershowitz (presumably the son of..) in which he says that the OT originally did *not* prohibit gay sex.

  • Before Thy eyes, O Lord, we bring our offences, and we compare them with the stripes we have received.
    If we consider the evil we have wrought, what we suffer is little, what we deserve is great.
    What we have committed is very grave, what we have suffered is very slight.
    We feel the punishment of sin, yet withdraw not from the obstinacy of sinning.
    Under Thy lash our inconstancy is visited, but our sinfulness is not changed.
    Our suffering soul is tonnented, but our neck is not bent.
    Our life groans under sorrow, yet mends not in deed.
    If Thou spare us we correct not our ways: if Thou punish we cannot endure it.
    In time of correction we confess our wrong-doing: after Thy visitation we forget that we have wept.
    If Thou stretchest forth Thy hand we promise amendment; if Thou withholdest the sword we keep not our promise.
    If Thou strikest we cry out for mercy: if Thou sparest we again provoke Thee to strike.
    Here we are before Thee, O Lord, shameless criminals: we know that unless Thou pardon we shall deservedly perish.
    Grant then, almighty Father, without our deserving it, the pardon we ask for; Thou who madest out of nothing those who ask Thee.
    Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

  • “The Two Universal Sects

    They all err—Moslems, Jews,
    Christians, and Zoroastrians:

    Humanity follows two world-wide sects:
    One, man intelligent without religion,

    The second, religious without intellect. ”

    Al-Ma’arri

    , born AD 973 /, died AD 1058 / .

    Al-Ma’arri was
    a blind Arab philosopher, poet and writer.[1][2] He was a controversial
    rationalist of his time, attacking the dogmas of religion and rejecting the
    claim that Islam possessed any monopoly on truth.”

  • Control sex, the most intimate and hidden part of personality, you control the person.

  • It’s hard to know what they are talking about.
    Sleep the sleep of a woman is what Leviticus says.
    Man-bed and soft men are what Paul says.
    The “Sin of Sodom” didn’t actually happen, though god did sit down for dinner with Abraham.
    The sin of gibeah and the sin of Sodom had some remarkable similarities, except the sin of gibeah actually occurred. No one uses it to condemn heterosexuality, though.
    And so on.

  • Well, that’s a real difference between me & you. (One of several, it seems.)

    I don’t ignore Charlotte. I don’t ignore Doink. I don’t ignore YOU. I do not always feel like replying or arguing, but I do take a moment to listen to folks (as long as I don’t have to read 10 posts in a row.)

    Of course, I could whine about good ole Ben being a “super duper” hypocrite by giving Charlotte a free pass on the “Your Blackness” thing. But why whine at all? If something should be addressed, YOU address it yourself in a post, (as I have done). Don’t call on **somebody else** to do it.

  • There’s “evangelization” (words not necessary) and there’s “proselytization” (words necessary).

  • Sorry, but Firstthings has less-than-zero credibility.

    Find some *mainstream* or respected scholarly individual or organization and I wil give its argument serious consideration.

  • I ignore a number of commenters, Like Charlotte, the Mouth of bob, Sandimonious.
    I haven’t set myself up as a moral arbiter. That’s all you.
    I did address it. You didn’t.

  • Gee whiz, I have plenty to say about Neocons, look at my “mic”. As for “Not a single one of you hyper conservative holy hypocrite had a word to say about NeoCon, with his slanderous, reviling, and vicious comment about child raping Talmudic Jews” I suggest all see the Talmudic proof of Jewish [pedophilia which is in fact halakah, the Jews right to rape toddler females 3 yrs old and a day. https://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/pedophiliasecret.html

    God’s it’s disgustng

  • You think 24% of 1.7% [Jewish population of USA] made even a dent? Hardly, no state they congregate in gave him a win due to their vote [Florida he won without their vote] and he certainly did not win NY. The only influence Jews have is on contributions politically and whatever votes those can shift can buy. Not their vote alone, means jack shit

  • Haha, yeah, exactly, says the 5’6″ Joo to the 6’4 245 lbs size 14 Northern Euro male. Good one, why is it you all have such a great need to project your own widely known and renown short comings onto others? Oh yeah, never mind

  • That was a stupid remark to make on an article dealing with a specifically Christian sectarian leader. You apparently are just concern trolling for its own sake.

  • Actually the article was not about how Christians mistreat Jews. It was about Benedict’s article and about his misbegotten views and denial of history.

  • Or we could just note that the Catholic Church didn’t disavow anti-semitic dogma and rhetoric until 1965.The edict is called Nostra Aetate. It was meant to smooth over centuries of Jew hatred by the church as well as its role in collaboration in the Holocaust

  • Or we could just note the Church’s own dogma which permitted such inflammatory antisemitism until 1965. (see Nostra Aetate).

  • Denial is cheap and incredible dishonest here. Especially since the Church’s own stated position and dogma until 1965 promoted anti-semtism as a matter of course.

    “Most people no longer are even rational, though that doesn’t mean they accept the fact, thanks to post-modernism.”

    Some people are just flat out dishonest and unreceptive to rational fact based discussion, as you have demonstrated,

  • Sorry Sparky, but Holocaust denial was already proven to the entire world be complete dishonest hokum and its proponents malicious liars. David Irving’s attempt to silence criticism laid it all to bare for everyone to see and analyze for themselves. There is not a single denier who has not been referenced by him or referenced him.

    For point by point rebuttals of the lies told by holocaust deniers:
    http://www.hdot.org

    BTW you are calling Edward R. Murrow, one of the most trusted journalists of all time a liar.
    http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/murrowbuchenwaldtranscript.html

    Rather well fed town residents view the death camp they helped run outside their own town
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X50vImqi3gU

  • That is hardly a rebuttal or a denial. Your remarks dripped with anti-semitism and like the ex-Pope, sought to attack the existence of Judaism as a religion.

  • Mr. Hobs.

    Its not hyperbole. Its how he identifies. He is a dyed in the wool white supremacist, holocaust denier, Hitler lover. But if it makes you feel better, he is also a devout Christian.

  • Pointing out the deficiencies is not anti-Semitic.

    The drama of the left. Effete dramatists.

  • How did we nazi that cut and paste before on sites like Stormfront or on “Pepe the Frog friendly” Reddit boards

  • Ever notice that nazis love large cut and pastes but are always too spineless to post links to a source?

    Why is that? Are you too embarrassed to tell us which site you got it from?

  • Re: “Actually the article was not about how Christians mistreat Jews. It was about Benedict’s article and about his misbegotten views and denial of history.” 

    Actually, both of those are the exact same thing. Benedict’s views directly follow from many centuries of Christian anti-Semitism. That there’s a term for the type of thinking he espoused — i.e. “supersessionism” — is a consequence of that. 

    As I said in a comment in a different chain, Christians need to just stop talking about Jews and Judaism altogether. They long ago tore up and shredded any license they may ever have had, to comment on them. 

  • “Deficiencies” which are entirely self-defined and really just malicious offense for its own sake.

    Theologically deficient = not Catholic. Nothing more than that.

  • It’s not a crime to have one’s criteria for a satisficing religion and to test religions against it.

    The little drama queens

  • “Respected scholarly individual”, you ask for? Sure. Look up Dr. Gagnon’s bio as NT Professor. Website. Books and articles. The bane of pro-gay scholarship, revisionism and media moves.

  • You are deliberately attacking and denigrating another religion in service of your own. Glad you are being upfront about that and not trying to pretend it is something anyone has to take seriously.

    So rather than refuting the anti-semitism you are just doubling down on it and trying to say it was entirely necessary. Whatevs.

  • Joseph Ratzinger, emeritus bishop of Rome, never ceases to amaze — or disappoint. His arrogance is once more on display for all to see. He still wears pontifical white garb even though (a) the papal color traces its roots to the Dominican Order, (b) he has never been a member of the Order, and (c) there is no such office as a (quote) emeritus pope (endquote). He may or may not be a retired “Prince of the Church”. He is a retired bishop. Claiming his status as “Emeritus Pope” was an act of chutzpah, if ever.

    According to this report, “Benedict pledged at his surprise 2013 resignation that he would remain ‘hidden from the world’ and not get involved in church debates. He wrote his essay as a private text last fall and passed it on to Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, who read it and convinced him to publish it.” Koch is not exactly a progressive hierarch (a charitable description, to say the least). His sympathies are with Ratzinger, no longer Pope Benedict XVI, “emeritus” or otherwise. The retired bishop of Rome said he would remain “hidden from the world” and not get involved in church debates. So much for Ratzinger keeping his word. So much for Kurt Koch facilitating interfaith relations with Jews. Pope Francis needs to remind his predecessor to keep to himself, i.e., keep to his promise, and open the door to the good cardinal’s exit from his position. With Catholic friends like Koch, the Jews don’t need more enemies.

    “In the essay, Benedict notes that the term supersessionism – a sensitive issue for Jews who reject this view as Christian arrogance – was not listed in leading Christian theological lexicons.” This backdoor attempt at walking back Catholic relations with Jews reminds me of then-Pope B16 authorizing unlimited use of the Tridentine mass by asserting that it had never been “judicially abrogated”. Fact is one of his predecessors, Paul VI, made clear in late 1969 that his implementing the Novus Ordo liturgy had been an “act of obedience” to Vatican II. The pope told two audiences that Catholics would no longer be using liturgical practices that were part of the old rite. Catholics, he said, would be encouraged to engage with the new liturgy and to no longer be preoccupied with private prayers and devotions during community worship. During his papacy, B16, on the other hand, worked feverishly to redefine Vatican II in minimalist terms. JPII did much the same thing. What hobbled their efforts, thank God, was Vatican II itself.

    Per the report, Ratzinger thinks “the modern state of Israel did not have a religious significance for Judaism.” Shame on this man! Whatever views one may have about recent developments in Israel pushed by Netanyahu (for whom I have little to no sympathy), fact is much of the Jewish world thinks the Jewish State of Israel holds tremendous religious importance. Again, more arrogance expressed by the retired bishop of Rome.

    One of Ratzinger’s supporters in this incident, theologian Thomas Söding, says the essay was ‘not an irritation, but an inspiration for Jewish-Christian dialogue.'” What pure hokum! Obviously, the reaction from various Jewish religious authorities tells us this embarrassing Ratzinger episode is more than just (quote) an irritation (endquote). Theologian Jan-Heiner Tück, per the report, claims that Catholicism “view[s] the Jewish covenant with God as unbroken but the Christian covenant as the true bond.” I scoured Vatican II’s “Nostra Aetate” and “Lumen Gentium” for this interpretation and could not find it. On the other hand, LG-16 states, “Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.” Yet, some theologians attempt to portray God’s love in terms of gradients: God’s covenant with the Jews, in other words, is not as “true” as the divine relationship with Christians, especially Catholics. Again, pure bunkum.

    If Joseph Ratzinger is unwilling to remain “hidden from the world” after relinquishing the Chair of Peter, someone needs to remind him. If Cardinal Koch is incapable of doing the job (which apparently is the case), Pope Francis needs to step into the picture — perhaps quietly — and remind the retired bishop that he’s no longer in charge and is an obstacle to interfaith relations with the Jews. It wouldn’t hurt, also, to remind Ratzinger that Jesus died a Jew, not at all a Christian, much less a Catholic.

  • I love how drama queens turn everything they can’t argue with into an “attack”.

    One can easily manage the drama they bring to ordinary moments:

    Not men who can perform
    in combat.

  • Just like 8% of blacks, 24% of Hispanics, 44% of women. 24% of Jewish voters.

    Not enough, one by one, to beat Queen Hillary and the Libbie Media. But **together**, they made it.

    They tipped the electoral scale just enough to change history and help rescue America.

  • As pope, Ratzinger was authoritarian. As CDF prefect, he behaved in much the same way. He can’t seem to let go of his notoriety including his promise to stay “hidden from the world”. Ratzinger is nothing more than a former bishop of Rome. “Emeritus Pope”, my @ss.

  • So one is a drama queen for calling out obvious bigoted attacks on others. How cute. Attack the speaker and ignore bad actions on your part.

    On par with “playing the race card” response when one is called out as a racist. It does not refute the accusation of bigotry, only shows the speaker is thin skinned about hearing it.

  • Pius IX did not invent the idea of “papal infallibility”, but he did make it official and well publicized doctrine from Vatican I in 1870. Fortunately, it was Bishop Vincent Gasser, as I recall, who developed the more palatable doctrine adopted by the conciliar fathers. Essentially, his “Relatio” contained the compromise idea, based on scripture, that it is *the Church* that is infallible (at all times) and that the pope teaches infallibly only under the conditions specified in “Pastor Aeternus”, Chapter 4, last paragraph. Vatican II’s “Lumen Gentium” (# 12) expands the teaching about the Church’s infallibility: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when ‘from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful’ they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is NOT JUST THE WORD OF MEN but truly the word of God ” (caps for emphases to stress what I think reinforces church teaching on doctrinal reception). Canon law acknowledges — rightly — that doctrine is *proposed* for reception. There have been only two infallibly taught doctrines since 1854 (the latter date in retroactive recognition of Pius IX’s dogmatic pronouncement about Mary’s “Immaculate Conception”). If I remember, Pius IX and Pius XII, who dogmatically defined Mary’s “Assumption in 1950, both consulted with bishops around the world as to their own reception of these proposed teachings.

  • “Nostra Aetate” does not address any role of the Church of Rome in the Holocaust. We know, of course, that not all Catholic church leaders condemned anti-Semitism. Pius XII has been criticized for not doing more to save Jews, but I myself am not convinced he could have done more without making life more difficult for Catholics and Jews alike. It’s a contested matter, to say the least. See http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html.

  • I think your reference to “ritual cannibalism” is historically inaccurate and theologically inappropriate (It was Justin Martyr in his “Second Apology” who refuted the idea promoted by non-Christians that Christians practiced cannibalism).There seems to be a divide in the Church of Rome today between some Catholics who see official worship as “sacrifice” and other Catholics (like me) who reject such a notion and, instead, see the liturgy as a memorial service. I reject the former notion, popular before Vatican II, because it is based on typology presenting the cleric as a “priest”, Jesus as the “victim”, and the eucharistic table as an “altar”. This language, not at all part of primitive Christian practice and belief, arose after Rome’s destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE and in later years as Christian apologists began using traditional Jewish terminology to attract Jews to Christianity and encourage them to remain within it.

    RE: “cannibalism”, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Apology_of_Justin_Martyr#Apology_against_Propaganda.

  • “…when Christians started using them to connect prophesy and teaching to NT writing.”

    Known as ‘typology’, a communications approach used to target a specific audience but that, in fact, proves nothing.

  • Yessir. I like to doink my blow-up Bibi Netanyahu doll while reciting racist passages from the Talmud!

  • No, one is a drama queen for characterizing disagreements as “obvious bigoted attacks”.

  • So, when you call other people “bigoted”, it’s entirely self-defined and really just malicious offense for its own sake.

  • The former Pontiff did not attack the existence of Judaism as a religion.

    Pull your thumb from your -ss.

  • And Who implanted that faculty in Christians which spurred on that targeting?

    Go deeper man. Don’t stay on the surface of someone else’s learning.

  • Interesting stuff, thanks for posting. I was not aware that there have been only 2 infallible doctrines.

  • I’m aware of this, of course. (I’m buying Bivens’ book, since I absorb info better from print vs watching.)

  • It does however point to the prior institutionalizing of antisemitism by the church. 20 years after the holocaust. Better late than never? Hence the need to disavow it.

    Prior to WWII the church openly supported fascism. Franco’s regime was bought and paid for by them.

    Catholics made up a significant part of Germany and almost all of Austria. The Nazis couldn’t operate without some form of approval or at least neutrality from the Vatican. Pious XII pretty much abdicated responsibility as leader of the Catholic world at the time. I feel no need to make excuses or demonize him here. He had the chance at being an extraordinary person and missed it.

  • I was not addressing the Church’s “need to disavow [the Holocaust]” but only your mistaken assertion. As for Pius XII, I’m not convinced he could have done more than he did without jeopardizing the Church’s precarious standing with the Nazi regime.

  • I don’t remember the names of the historians, but it has been noted that the *idea* of papal infallibility had been discussed in some medieval circles (maybe earlier?) Admittedly, I’m weak in this area.

  • And Who inspired our primitive ancestors in the Christian faith to understand priesthood and sacrifice as self-sacrifice in emulating the earthly ministry of Jesus?

    Your reply assumes that God inspired later Christian apologists to portray their faith in cultic terms having nothing to do with Jesus’ earthly ministry.

    Typology is just as I described its use nearly two thousand years ago. My reply reflected verifiable and accurate historical information.

    “Go deeper man.” Thanks, but no thanks. I rely on Joseph Ratzinger who acknowledged more than fifty years ago that historical fact trumps related church doctrine when these two sources are in conflict.

  • The Jewish people had an inkling of the priesthood..and God put even that in them (as He did “monotheism” in the latter day Jews)…and through His Son He adjusted that inkling onto the target He wanted.

  • Not at all. I referenced the Holocaust simply as a way to show the Catholic Church’s disavowal of antisemitism in 1965 was wildly untimely and overdue.

    As for Pious, I think you underestimate how much the Nazis relied on collaborators and the feckless to exert control. Hitler could not invade the Vatican and abduct the Pope. He wanted to, but the repercussions were too great. Nor could the Nazi regime function without cooperation of Catholics in the Reich and occupied territories. They even relied on Catholic religious appeals as a recruitment tool in Belgium and Croatia.

    Pious acted in a normal manner of avoiding unnecessary trouble and conflict when extraordinary measures were the more moral option.

  • I can’t speak to the “inkling of the priesthood”, but Jesus lived at a time when the Jews had a cultic/sacrificial priesthood with animal offerings on altars.

    You write, “…and through His Son He adjusted that inkling onto the target He wanted.” Believe as you wish; I’ll go with the evidence that does not at all threaten my faith in Jesus as Savior and Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. Facts trump related doctrine when the two sources are in conflict.

  • “Church” and “Israel” are contested terms, but there is muddle. Each term has a sociological sense and a theological sense. There is ethnic Israel and there is the faithful remnant whose members are known only to God. There is visible Church and there is the communion of saints whose members are known only to God. Ethnic Israel and visible Church are two sociological terms for two entities. The faithful remnant and
    the communion of saints are two theological terms for one entity.
    Theologically, there is no supersession; God’s chosen people, whom he has blessed with saving faith, are a single group throughout history and for eternity.
    Opponents in debate about supersessionism or replacement theology conceive the objects as sociological. They want higher prestige and more members for their respective clubs. We may leave them to their petty squabbles.

  • Honey, dear, I don’t think you would know what disgusting is if you got drunk, married it in Las Vegas, and woke up next to it in church the next morning.

  • Benedict’s views do follow from many centuries of Christian anti-Semitism. However, many Christians, and even many Catholics, disagree with him.

  • How you can keep track of all of these petty legalisms and even pettier pettifoggery is beyond me. I can only admire you for it.

    One thing I notice, and this has nothing to do with you. Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. Even since I was a little child, and got exposed to the casual antisemitism of the 50’s, the use of the term “Jew” (or Jews) has always indicated to me just that very casual, and usually camouflaged, antisemitism. Not “the Jewish People”, but “The Jews”. Like in the gospel of John. the Jews.

    Kind of like when Kaela Moore proudly announced that “our lawyer is a Jew.” Or when our resident Fearful White Man talks about Jew this and Jew that.

    Again, nothing to do with you at all. But nevertheless, that term used in that way seems to have some some emotional charge.

  • I submit that’s not enough. If influential — and otherwise-smart — Christians like Benedict still feel a compulsion to comment on Jews and Judaism, then obviously, not enough is being done to shut them up. 

    What’s needed is to impose an unmistakable directive upon all Christians, everywhere, of all kinds. An “11th Commandment,” if you will, which is “Thou shalt stop talking about Jews.” That has yet to be done. And honestly, I don’t see it ever coming down. There are too many Christians who, while they disagree with their co-religionists who blabber about Jews, won’t do anything other than just weakly say, “Ah but we disagree” and then walk away, as though that were enough. Unfortunately, that will never be enough. There have to be consequences, if not outright punishment. Only the imposition of discipline — which might seem kind of harsh — will do the trick. 

  • As a general observation, the RCC is an *organization*, and all organizations have some difficulty changing their views on things. I suppose that goes double–if not X10–for religious organizations, since they claim guidance from god, and are on the record with their rulings–and the “reasoning” underlying those rulings.

  • Like so many of your comments, your comment that Ben “hates god” reveals an enormous amount about your thinking–or, perhaps more accurately, your distorted thinking.

  • “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” (Genesis 2)

  • Read (more extensively) his comments.

    Sometimes it helps people to be woken up….if you hate the things of God…you hate God.

  • “schools of atheistic philosophies”
    —————————
    those being like “cat armadas”

  • I am a non-believer. I’ve often had “strong believers” opine that I “hate god”. How can you hate something you do not believe exists?

    I have been a non-believer for many years and have never seen any evidence of the excistence of soul/afterlife/god/satan/etc etc.

    It is no accident that not a single one of these are falsifiable.

    As well, I assume you are familiar with Catholic teaching about the things that should be accepted “on faith”.

  • Agree because, as you suggest, the divinity always is mediated through one or more human beings.

  • “I can only admire you for it.”

    Well, shucks (embarrassing grin, right hand on shoulder, head tilted slightly downward and to the side :o)

    I can understand the “emotional charge” attached to the phrase “the Jew(s)”. One of my Protestant first cousins converted to the Jewish faith several decades ago; she has since passed on. Her son, so far as I know, embraces Judaism although I don’t know to what extent. Of course, as you and I both know, Jesus was a Jew, if not always observant. By the latter, I mean his desire for mercy and penchant for practicality, not religious ritual: “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.”

    I’ve always been interested in Catholicism although I’ve never felt drawn to the seminary and ordination (had I done otherwise, I suspect I’d have been defrocked long before now :o)

    Thanks for sharing.

  • I myself have blocked only one comment, as best I can remember, in all my years of blogging. Sometimes I feel like replying, and sometimes I don’t. When I see comments from Jew-, Catholic-, racial-haters, I must remind myself, “There but for the grace of God go I.” There’s one or more reasons for their sorry behaviors; our challenge is to keep poking them with the hope of reaching through to them. I believe God doesn’t give up on us and we should try not to give up on them.

    That said, Alexandria, I can fully understand your frustration, etc. with such people.

  • “Jesus became the victim, priest, and altar.”

    Your belief, but not the belief of our earliest ancestors in the Christian faith.

  • No I love all souls, and want them to be as close to God not just in the hereafter but today, now, and that means living God’s will; it may mean denying oneself severely at times.

    It means learning about His will….and His will is manifestly expressed in the very design of the body which is male and female, in all its complementarity.

    Your supposed love of LGBTQRSTUV people is as shallow and narrow as it can possibly be.

  • Nonsense.

    How wrong you are….from the early 300s.

    Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 310 A.D.)

    “While then the better, the great and worthy and divine sacrifice was not yet available for men, it was necessary for them by the offering of animals to pay a ransom for their own life, and this was fitly a life that represented their own nature. Thus did the holy men of old, anticipating by the Holy Spirit that a holy victim, dear to God and great, would one day come for men, as the offering for the sins of the world, believing that as prophets they must perform in symbol his sacrifice, and shew forth in type what was yet to be. But when that which was perfect was come, in accordance with the predictions of the prophets, the former sacrifices ceased at once because of the better and true Sacrifice….Since then according to the witness of the prophets the great and precious ransom has been found for Jews and Greeks alike, the propitiation for the whole world, the life given for the life of all men, the pure offering for every stain and sin, the Lamb of God, the holy sheep dear to God, the Lamb that was foretold, by Whose inspired and mystic teaching all we Gentiles have procured the forgiveness of our former sins, and such Jews as hope in Him are freed from the curse of Moses, daily celebrating His memorial, the remembrance of His Body and Blood, and are admitted to a greater sacrifice than that of the ancient law, we do not reckon it right to fall back upon the first beggarly elements, which are symbols and likenesses but do not contain the truth itself.”

  • More…and I could go on and may go on all night.

    Cyril of Jerusalem (350 A.D.) “On the night he was betrayed our Lord Jesus Christ took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples and said: “Take, eat: this is my body”. He took the cup, gave thanks and said: “Take, drink: this is my blood”. Since Christ himself has declared the bread to be his body, who can have any further doubt? Since he himself has said quite categorically, This is my blood, who would dare to question it and say that it is not his blood? Therefore, it is with complete assurance that we receive the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. His body is given to us under the symbol of bread, and his blood is given to us under the symbol of wine, in order to make us by receiving them one body and blood with him. Having his body and blood in our members, we become bearers of Christ and sharers, as Saint Peter says, in the divine nature. Do not, then, regard the eucharistic elements as ordinary bread and wine: they are in fact the body and blood of the Lord, as he himself has declared. Whatever your senses may tell you, be strong in faith. You have been taught and you are firmly convinced that what looks and tastes like bread and wine is not bread and wine but the body and the blood of Christ. You know also how David referred to this long ago when he sang: Bread gives strength to man’s heart and makes his face shine with the oil of gladness. Strengthen your heart, then, by receiving this bread as spiritual bread, and bring joy to the face of your soul.”

  • St. John Chrysostom (c. 387 A.D.): “For when you see the Lord sacrificed, and laid upon the altar, and the priest standing and praying over the victim, and all the worshippers empurpled with that precious blood, can you then think that you are still among men, and standing upon the earth? Are you not, on the contrary, straightway translated to Heaven, and casting out every carnal thought from the soul, do you not with disembodied spirit and pure reason contemplate the things which are in Heaven? Oh! What a marvel! What love of God to man! He who sits on high with the Father is at that hour held in the hands of all, and gives Himself to those who are willing to embrace and grasp Him. And this all do through the eyes of faith! Do these things seem to you fit to be despised, or such as to make it possible for any one to be uplifted against them?”

  • What’s the point…..why give great food to knuckle-dragging gourmands?

    St. Ambrose (c. 387-390 A.D.): “We have proved the sacraments of the Church to be the more ancient, now recognize that they are superior. In very truth it is a marvellous thing that God rained manna on the fathers, and fed them with daily food from heaven; so that it is said, “So man did eat angels’ food.” But yet all those who ate that food died in the wilderness, but that food which you receive, that living Bread which came down from heaven, furnishes the substance of eternal life; and whosoever shall eat of this Bread shall never die, and it is the Body of Christ.”

  • Exactly.

    And we know, of course, that there are certain people who are unshakeably sure that god has spoken to them–and told them, for example, to go out and shoot people, etc…I believe I saw an item the other day about a fellow who was told by god to shoot his dog…

  • And of course, far earlier…John 1:29.

    I’ve run across another catholic (lower case intentional) who has the formation of a 6 year old Buddhist.

  • As a general observation: tho I am an agnostic of long standing, I try always (well,….most of the time, anyway ) to be polite, not to be dogmatic, to actually *discuss* matters in a civilized manner….sometimes, I fall short and am able to respond only with a or …

    And I acknowledge the benefits religion has for believers, in various ways, and any positive things I believe to be true about religion.

    All that said…I am a devout individual–tho a devout *empiricist* …and I become quickly frustrated with people who talk about stuff of which they are ignorant, or who make claims that are simply, demonstrably untrue, or who are unwilling or unable to support their statements.

    I look forward to discussing matters with you here in the future.

  • And this – above – is the sum and substance – of the relativistic left’s argument – personal smears and slurs.

    What I’ve really enjoyed lately is watching the left self-eat each other….blacks brushing back the LGBTQRs, feminists brushing back the ecos, the ecos going against all the others.

    Charlotte just doesn’t see how utterly tired and empty zer arguments are.

  • Well I am trying to be respectful and loving of people of unknown pronoun proclivities.

    It’s so sensitive here, with all the drama queens running about with palms upturned.

  • At one time it did, no longer, too many people with new kinds of letters.

    At one time having letters meant something!

  • No one is going to discipline Benedict. I’m not quite sure how influential he is outside of ultra-right Catholic circles.
    I think that anti-Semitism ought to be called out whenever and wherever it occurs. That’s what’s happening now. And that’s good.

  • When it appears to me that someone is open to reasoning, I will reason. But some open hatred is just too much for me to tolerate.

  • Ever heard of intersex people before? Some people don’t need letters to tell them who they are.

  • I understand and, rest assured, not judging right or wrong for blocking. Hang in there!

  • Thank you for sharing. I appreciate your respectful approach and hold nothing against atheists or agnostics.

  • “To a much greater degree, [John’s gospel] is the product of a developed theological reflection and grows out of a different circle and tradition. It was probably written in the 90s of the first century…..The fourth gospel is not simply history; the narrative has been organized and adapted to serve the evangelist’s theological purposes as well. Among them are the opposition to the synagogue of the day and to John the Baptist’s followers, who tried to exalt their master at Jesus’ expense, the desire to show that Jesus was the Messiah, and the desire to convince Christians that their religious belief and practice must be rooted in Jesus. Such theological purposes have impelled the evangelist to emphasize motifs that were not so clear in the synoptic account of Jesus’ ministry, e.g., the explicit emphasis on his divinity.”

    SOURCE: http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=John&ch=

    SUGGESTION: If you’re gonna’ blog, don’t undercut your argument (assuming it is supportable) by demeaning yourself. Your second paragraph (“I’ve run across another catholic (lower case intentional) who has the formation of a 6 year old Buddhist.”) says everything about yourself and nothing about me.

    I can offer more information, but, for now, I’ll let you wallow. Sad.

  • I understand the line between sanity and insanity can be quite thin in some scenarios. Your basic point is well taken.

  • I do not deny Catholic eucharistic doctrine. Ambrose didn’t appear on the scene until the 4th century, well after Christian apologists began employing typology to promote the superiority of Christianity over Judaism. Your citation with source supports my earlier statements.

  • You said the idea of Christ as priest, victim and altar was a late day invention.

    I proved you wrong.

  • “For when you see the Lord sacrificed, and laid upon the altar, and the priest standing and praying over the victim…”

    Thanks for the Chrysostom quote with which I’m well familiar. By his time, typology was well established, and Chrysostom’s language reflected “the sacrificial language about the Eucharist which had also become accepted practice. Therefore, the apostles, too, were represented as priests” (Jaroslav Pelikan, THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION: A HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE, Vol. 1, THE EMERGENCE OF THE CATHOLIC TRADITION (100-600), University of Chicago Press, 1975).

  • Joe, you pretentiously paste the same tracts again and again here and in other places, without even understanding the drivel you think passes for intellectual points.

  • There aren’t “intersex” people.

    There has never been a person who has such characteristics who is dually fertile. Not one.

  • Again, see my comments re: Chrysostom and Ambrose. Your quotes with sources continue to support what I’ve been trying (obviously unsuccessfully) to explain to you. You are digging your argumentation hole ever deeper, and, sad thing is, your efforts do not refute church history, much less support your notion that I am not a Catholic (upper case ‘C’).

  • Again, you tilt at windmills. I’m as Catholic as are you. I apparently know more about the history unless you’ve deliberately demonstrated faux ignorance of same.

  • Pretentious people are vain. They place their security in what others think of them; they prop themselves up with google.

  • Re: “No one is going to discipline Benedict.” 

    Of course they won’t. No Christian has the courage to do so. 

    Re: “I think that anti-Semitism ought to be called out whenever and wherever it occurs.” 

    If all Christians actually did this, the anti-Semitism would have been beaten out of their religion, and its followers, long ago. But they don’t actually do this. Instead, when anti-Semitism is expressed, other Christians look for excuses why nothing needs to be done about it. Anti-Semitic Christians thus learn an important lesson: No one inside their faith will ever punish them for being anti-Semites. 

    Re: “That’s what’s happening now.” 

    It’s not, if you and other Christians just make excuses for why you don’t need to correct Benedict and force him to disavow anti-Semitism. The anti-Semites look at that, and say to themselves, “Hey, we’re fine, no one will punish us.” 

    Re: “And that’s good.” 

    Go ahead. Pat yourself on the back for not coercing an anti-Semitic Christian into giving up his anti-Semitism. Well done! I’m sure your Jesus must be sooooo proud of your inaction. 

  • You don’t know me, so you don’t know what I am doing, or not doing.

    How could I possibly punish Benedict?
    I cannot coerce my adult children, or my spouse, or my friends, or my clients into doing anything. How could I possibly coerce Benedict?

  • Re: “You don’t know me, so you don’t know what I am doing, or not doing.” 

    OK, so … do nothing about it. Just sit back, let Benedict … and any other Christians … write whatever they want, and let centuries of anti-Semitism just keep rolling into the future. 

    Re: “How could I possibly coerce Benedict?” 

    It would require many Christians, not just you, to intervene. And that, I’m afraid, is the problem. Not a large enough proportion of the Christian community feels the need to do anything. That’s why Christianity still has not been purged of anti-Semitism, and why Christians still feel they can comment on Jews and Judaism in whatever way they want, whenever they want. 

    To be clear, if enough Christians out there actually, truly, really decided never to tolerate anti-Semitism within one of their own — given that there are billions of them in the world — it would be quite literally impossible for it to continue. There are tools available to do so … but Christians won’t use them. 

    What they do, instead, is employ what I call “the Wizard of Oz” defense. They just sit around telling outsiders the anti-Semites don’t speak for them, expecting that’s enough. But it’s not … any more than it was enough for the Wizard to order Dorothy and her friends to “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.” 

  • Given what we know about human behavior, errors of thought, how desires can warp thinking, and so on, it seems to me that if you think god is talking to you, it’s best to be *extremely* cautious–particularly if you are the leader of a large religious movement. The kinds and size of “bad stuff” that can flow from such errors are just enormous.

  • Thank you.

    When I discuss something with someone with whom I disagree, one of my hopes is always to learn more, get rid of any misinformation I have, etc etc. Sadly, there are some people whose only goal is to defend their beliefs and institutions, regardless of how they accomplish that.

  • The polarity of their fertility demonstrates which sex they were meant to be by God. Their organs another. Their x and y genes another; aspects of their immune system another; brain waves, another. Muscle mass and distribution, another. etc. etc.

    Each element is part of an expression of God’s will.

  • Sure I do. I have more than a right I have a command from God. “To the ends of the earth”.

    If we truly “love” someone we have a duty to bring them closer to the Good, Truth, and Beautiful, and the source of everything truly good, true, and beautiful is God Himself.

    Our rights don’t come from a government but from the Creator, as the US founding documents show.

    And by the way…rights are given to us by God to do various duties. We don’t get them from a government to serve our selves. Rights allow us to do duties. If we don’t recognize the duty…we don’t have the right. But this point requires more IQ points to understand than most people have.

  • More frothy screed. You should clean up your filthy reading habits. Don’t point people to near porn.

  • Christians are not a monolithic group.

    I’m curious. Have you ever been able to coerce someone (other than very young children) to stop being a racist, or homophobe, or misogynist, or xenophobe, or anti-Semite?

  • You think that any website that disagrees with you is porn. Stop lynching LGBTQ+ people just for existing.

  • The froth and anger and distortions and lies and libels are injurious to your soul and to the tone of this site. flagged.

  • Are liberals that short of IQ points that discourse means to them to take a bastardization of someone else’s words and jamming them into someone else’s mouth?

    This is the sum of your approach. Distort, enflame, smear, libel, mis-represent, fart and stink up the room.

  • Re: “Christians are not a monolithic group.” 

    So what? Anything any Christian ever says or does, can — and does! — reflect on Christianity as a whole. That Christianity isn’t “monolithic” does not constitute a reason to be concerned when its spokesmen speak or behave in depraved ways. 

    Re: “Have you ever been able to coerce someone (other than very young children) to stop being a racist, or homophobe, or misogynist, or xenophobe, or anti-Semite?” 

    No, but then I’m not part of a religion which has spokesmen who can be racists, homophobes, etc. If I were, I would indeed be concerned, and would indeed want to stop them from making my religion (and, in turn, me) look bad. But at the same time, being part of the same religion, I would also have tools available to me to use against them. 

    It’s not my fault that you don’t know what those tools are and cannot devise ways to use them in a coercive manner, to correct your co-religionists. I concede the Pope emeritus would be difficult to reach, but that doesn’t mean there’s no way to deal with him. 

    Here’s the bottom line: Christianity belongs to Christians. It’s up to them to decide what it means, and based on that, to police it to their satisfaction. If they choose not to do so, I cannot (as an outside observer of it) respect it, or them for following it. 

  • More to the point, using strawmen as frequently you do renders your frontal lobe inactive, leaving only the brainstem to vibrate in public forums, embarrassingly.

  • That’s not a quote from Huonder, it’s a quote from the author of the sad Patheos article. When was the last time you had a functioning brain?

    Please, out of charity for your caretakers, have a checkup.

  • Still can’t read, can you?
    ‘”If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
    Swissinfo goes on to report that in response to the applause for his despicable anti-gay rhetoric, Bishop Huonder continued:
    “Both of these passages alone suffice to clarify unambiguously the church’s position on homosexuality.”‘

    Christians are literally Hitler.

  • Eat my sh*t.

    ‘”If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
    Swissinfo goes on to report that in response to the applause for his despicable anti-gay rhetoric, Bishop Huonder continued:
    “Both of these passages alone suffice to clarify unambiguously the church’s position on homosexuality.”‘

  • I’m not your “lover”; you may have hoodwinked her into doinng that vulgar act but keep your depravities to yourself.

  • “Sadly, there are some people whose only goal is to defend their beliefs and institutions, regardless of how they accomplish that.”

    FEAR of being challenged to rethink their doctrinal “taken-for-granteds” in the face of thoughtful arguments to the contrary.

  • I’m very suspicious of folks claiming that God talked with them. It is Catholic doctrine, for example, that a private revelation or approved apparition, e.g., Lourdes or Fatima, applies only to the person(s) who received it or witnessed the event, not to anyone else. The Church considers divine revelation to have ended with the death of the last Apostle (upper case) and that all we need to know for our salvation is to be found in the four canonical gospels (CCC-125 is relevant here).

  • I’m not “pretentious”. I value, as the Church of Rome does, both faith AND reason. I don’t value FEAR or blind faith. And I sure as hell don’t value ignorance of the subject-matter demonstrated by you.

  • Coming from you, your comments are pure drivel, thereby demonstrating your frustration at being challenged by others apparently more knowledgeable than you.

  • You did not “prove [me] wrong.” My God, get a grip. Do you want me to “spell it out” for you???

  • Interestg. What is CCC-125?

    Vaguely related to our overall discussion, here is a link to an interesting view by an evangelical “Christian”:

    https://www.rawstory.com/2018/08/gop-candidate-vile-perverted-lgbt-people-cannot-reproduce-recruit/

    Aside from the fact that no one has ever heard of a single LGBT individual “recruiting”, the question that immediately sprang to my mind was “Um, what about evangelical ‘Christians’? Recruiting is one of the biggest ways they spend their time.”

  • Oops: CCC-125 is #125 in the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, to wit:

    “The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures ‘because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior.'” In this respect, they hold primacy of place among all Judeo-Christian scriptures and doctrines. (It’s interesting that when challenged to quote *Jesus* on a matter, for example, homosexuality, the fundamentalist will quote *anyone but Jesus*, that is to say, someone or some event from the Old Testament.)

    Your link portrays manifestation of FEAR among — sorry to say — ignorant people who always rely on literality, no matter how stretched or far-fetched such an interpretation may be. Thank God we don’t have to instruct them to use the toilet whenever they “feel the urge”. I almost feel sorry for such folks. I write “almost” because I think adults should be held largely responsible for doing their own learning. Too often, these poor folks are “lost” in their little world of false certainty.

  • Tnx for the info re CCC.

    Much as I dislike almost all evangelicals with whom I’ve interacted, it does seem to me that what produces their views is a highly complex matter–a combination of many things, of which a few (that we know) are underlying racism/hatreds, ignorance, lack of curiosity, inability (or lack of desire to get past their prejudices, etc.

  • Ratzinger is a tragic figure. As an influential peritus at Vatican II he was instrumental in leading the charge for ambiguity which
    would open the windows and let in the fresh air of the modern world. He learned at least by 1968 with the student riots, the tenor of the
    times and had a sense of the smoke of Satan that was pouring in. He has been trying to walk back the Council and its spirit ever since.

  • Has Judaism been purged of anti-Christianity? Absolutely NOT. And it never will be, considering what what’s in the Talmud, and what children are taught in private Jewish schools. The Western World is getting completely fed up with Jewish BS. “Jew Fatigue” is real.

  • Re: “Has Judaism been purged of anti-Christianity? Absolutely NOT.” 

    I have no idea what you’re talking about … and am not interested in finding out. There can be no justification for anti-Semitism — none. 

    Re: “The Western World is getting completely fed up with Jewish BS. “ 

    Speak for yourself, dude. As I just said, there can be no justification for anti-Semitism. 

    Re: “‘Jew Fatigue’ is real.” 

    I don’t know about that, but “anti-Semitism fatigue” is very real, too. And again … there can be no justification for anti-Semitism. 

  • My A$$ you don’t know what I’m talking about.

    So, criticism of Jews or Israel is never justified? LOL Now why is that? And why is it that Jews and the left see it fit to call anyone who utters “white people” a “white supremacist”? That’s what the Media called Trump when he Tweeted about white people getting murdered and having their farms expropriated without compensation in South Africa. That’s what they call ANY white person for noticing the “Latinx” invasion of America, or expressing concern about becoming a minority in our own country. In the meantime? Israel has a WALL, is completely segregated, promotes ‘racial purity’, and openly persecutes Palestinians! It’s no secret that “Big J0O” in America (Jewish/Israel lobby) is the main driving force behind pushing for open borders and infinity immigration from 3rd world sh!t holes into the EU and the US. It’s no secret that AIPAC is one of Washington’s most powerful lobbies, that it incessantly push, pulls, bribes, blackmails our AMERICAN elected representatives in Congress — whatever needs to be done — to benefit A FOREIGN COUNTRY. Yet the MSM (including this news outlet) never accuses the Israel Lobby of “foreign intervention”. HOW IS AN ‘ISRAEL LOBBY’ EVEN LEGAL IN THE U.S.??? Oh, I know why the MSM doesn’t mention it. Look who owns them! More and more hard working, white Americans are realizing what’s going on in our country, and what has REALLY happened in the last 100 years. And to say they’re not happy about it is a major understatement.

  • Re: “My A$$ you don’t know what I’m talking about.” 

    Obviously you don’t … because you accused me of having said things I clearly have never said. 

    Re: “So, criticism of Jews or Israel is never justified?” 

    This is something I know I have never said … ever. 

    Re: “And why is it that Jews and the left see it fit to call anyone who utters ‘white people’ a ‘white supremacist’?” 

    Because whining that “white people” are being killed en masse (for example) is a white supremacist trope. 

    Re: “That’s what the Media called Trump when he Tweeted about white people getting murdered and having their farms expropriated without compensation in South Africa.” 

    The Groper-in-Chief stepped into a bit of distorted news. There has been a resumption of farmland acquisition by the S.A. government, but the part of about “white people” being massacred there is decidedly, and blatantly, untrue. But he trafficked in that claim, nevertheless. Because that distortion had been invented, and was being propagated by, white supremacists, the natural conclusion was that the GiC was also promoting white supremacy. 

    Re: “Israel has a WALL, is completely segregated, promotes ‘racial purity’, and openly persecutes Palestinians!” 

    So what? 

    Re: “It’s no secret that ‘Big J0O’ in America (Jewish/Israel lobby) is the main driving force behind pushing for open borders …” 

    I don’t know of anyone who’s “pushing for open borders.” I do know that some people have been accused of “pushing for open borders,” but no one is seriously saying the US needs to permit all immigration without question, grant all visa requests, etc. It’s just not something that’s being asked for. 

    Also, your invocation of “Big J0O” marks you as a paranoiac. Just so you know. There are treatments for that, you know. I hope you’ll see a professional and avail yourself of them. 

    Re: “It’s no secret that AIPAC is one of Washington’s most powerful lobbies …” 

    There are lots of lobbies pressing for all sorts of things in the US. Tell me something I don’t know, please. 

    Re: “Yet the MSM (including this news outlet) never accuses the Israel Lobby of ‘foreign intervention’.” 

    That’s not true. How could you know about AIPAC’s activity and influence, if the media never reported on it? They do. 

    Re: “HOW IS AN ‘ISRAEL LOBBY’ EVEN LEGAL IN THE U.S.???” 

    Because … well, it is! And using ALL CAPS doesn’t impress me. It just shows how unhinged you are. 

    Re: “Oh, I know why the MSM doesn’t mention it.” 

    Again, they absolutely do mention it! Otherwise you wouldn’t even be whining and simpering over it, right now. 

    Re: “Look who owns them!” 

    Dude, you really need treatment for your problem

    Re: “More and more hard working, white Americans are realizing what’s going on in our country …” 

    Yeah yeah yeah. The poor, put-upon, precious snowflakes. Waaaah wah waah. 

    Re: “… and what has REALLY happened in the last 100 years.” 

    I know, how terrible it was that they had to finally get rid of “Jim Crow” laws and actually extend civil rights to all those minorities. How awful! Why, they’re suffering just soooo much because of it! There there, little babies. 

    Re: “And to say they’re not happy about it is a major understatement.” 

    I really don’t care about their happiness, or lack of it. A bunch of precious snowflakes is what they are. They need to freaking grow the hell up, for the first time in their sniveling little lives — and so do you. 

  • “the theological belief that God’s covenant through Christ replaced the covenant God made with the Jewish people,…”
    That is exactly what I believe as a Roman Catholic .How can my belief that Christ is the incarnation of Yahweh make me an Anti-Semite?

  • The sacrifice Yahweh demanded of Abraham was realized when Christ sacrificed himself to himself (God the Father) for the sins of man. This sacrifice is the center of our Mass where during the holy communion the miracle of changing bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ takes place.
    It replaces the central Sacrifice that used to take place in the Temple of Jerusalem which Christ himself prophesized its end. Under Yahweh the chosen people were the descendants of Abraham. Under Christ the chosen people are the Christians.

ADVERTISEMENTs