Support This Website! Shop Here!

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Catholics and the Holocaust

The Holocaust killed 12 million people.


It killed 6 million Jews.


It killed 3 million Catholics.


It killed 3 million Orthodox.


In August, 1939, just days before the invasion of Poland, Hitler told his generals:
Genghis Khan led millions of women and children to slaughter—with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a state. ... Our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formations in readiness—for the present only in the East—with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians? ... Poland will be depopulated and settled with Germans. ... As for the rest, gentlemen, the fate of Russia will be exactly the same as I am now going through with in the case of Poland.
German Nazi planners had in November 1939 called for "the complete destruction" of all Poles. "All Poles", Heinrich Himmler swore, "will disappear from the world". The Polish state under German occupation was to be cleared of ethnic Poles and settled by German colonists. 


Why?


Prussia and Russia had carved up and eliminated Poland in 1795. Poland was wiped off the map in that year, and did not return as a nation until the League of Nations re-created it after World War I. 


The re-creation of Poland in 1918 led to constant combat between Germany and Poland, and also between Germany and Russia. Neither state wanted Poland to exist (unless they ruled it) precisely because Poland-Lithuania had dominated both Germany and Russia in the 14th and 15th centuries. Indeed, Poland-Lithuania was arguably the most powerful state in Europe during that time. 


Precisely because Germany and Russia completely obliterated Poland as a political entity in 1795, both countries felt the recreation of Poland following World War I was an insult, a theft of property they had taken through military force, and a threat to their continued existence.


This is why the Germans were happy to make treaty with the Soviet Union and divide Catholic Poland up yet again at the beginning of World War II. Even though England and France had treaties with Poland that required them to go to war to assist Poland, neither country honored her obligations. It was the famous "sitzkrieg", when French and British divisions on the Western front outnumbered German divisions 5 to 1, but the two refused to move while German divisions once more obliterated Poland.


The recreation of Poland after World War I did, however, establish a precedent. When the Jewish question was raised following World War II, the re-creation of another country, Israel, out of the remains of the conquered Ottoman Empire seemed like a good idea. Look how well it had worked with Poland!


Just as the creation of Poland following World War I led to a lasting European peace, so the creation of Israel after World War II led to a lasting peace in the Middle East.


Cough.


Why do I bring all this up?


Because, some Jewish groups get upset when a Catholic bishop invokes the Holocaust. 
It is useful to remember that the Nazis hated the Catholic Poles just as thoroughly, their deaths were planned just as carefully, as those of the European Jews. Auschwitz killed Catholic Poles exclusively for the first 20 months of operation.


I am truly sick and tired of the Anti-Defamation League claiming the Holocaust as a peculiarly anti-Semitic event.  


It wasn't.


I'm sorry, my elder brothers in faith, the Holocaust was not all about you. You don't get to define what can and cannot be said about the Holocaust. My brother and sister Catholics were just as thoroughly targeted, went through the same tortures, died the same deaths. Catholics have a right to invoke the Holocaust, the same as you. 


Stop being such narcissists, and recognize the universality of the tragedy which was the Holocaust.











30 comments:

stmykearchangel said...

Amen brother. I am glad you brought this point up.

Jordanes551 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jordanes551 said...

Even more to the point, Bishop Jenky didn't even invoke the Holocaust. But most people are ignorant of what happened back then, and they carelessly assume that you can't possibly mention "Hitler" unless you're referring to the Holocaust. Even if you don't mention the Holocaust at all, but instead explicitly mention some other horrible thing Hitler did.

Sorry, but this thing about Bishop Jenky's homily is all faux outrage, ginned up by the Democrats as a political ploy as another military move in their war on religious liberty, particularly the liberty of the Catholic Church.

Steve "scotju" Dalton said...

The Jews have always had an insanely high opinion of their sufferings being worth more than that of a Gentile, especially if the Gentile is a Christian. So this attack on my bishop, Daniel Jenky, isn't a big surprise to me. For Bp Jenky to dare suggest that Non-Jews suffered just as much as the Jews under Nazism and Communism (even more if you take into account that the Reds killed 60 million from 1917 to 1992) is a no-no to the supposed trademark owners of Holocaust Inc. Sorry, sons of Judea, if we get pricked, we bled like you do.
"is all faux outrage, ginned up by the Democrats", Huh!? Ah, I read the stories, and it said the "fax outrage" was being "ginned up" by Jewish individuals and groups like the ADL. The Demo's are only assisting and taking advantage of this non-issue in spreading the "F.O." And oh, let's remember that the Democratic Party has a very high number of leftist Jews in it's leadership and membership and most Jews in America voted for the Obummer in 2008.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Jewish theology is not Christian theology.

According to Jewish theology, looking out for #1 is perfectly reasonable, and you can't expect people to do anything else.

According to the rabbis, if two ordinary men are walking through a desert, and one has only enough water for himself, there is no sin in him refusing to share his water with his companion.

Now, if two rabbis are in a similar situation, the rabbis are required to share the water, even if it means both will die. They are held to a higher standard because they have studied more.

But, from a Jewish perspective, there is nothing wrong with spinning the Holocaust by emphasizing the Jewish suffering while not mentioning the suffering of other groups. Let other groups look out for themselves.

It isn't Christian theology, and we shouldn't expect that people who are not Christians will follow the Christian standard on how to consider situations.

I am not Spartacus said...

The Jews of today are not your elder brothers in the Faith. Rabbinical Judaism formed after the destruction of the city of deicide in 70 A.D. with the express intent to war against Holy Mother Church.

And there were not six million Jews killed in Europe.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

I Am Not Spartacus,

You are quite wrong.

Even SSPX Bishop Bernard Fellay welcomed Famille Chrétienne [French Catholic weekly] on January 31, 2008 in his General House of Menzingen, Switzerland. He responded in particular to the accusations of Antisemitism cast at the Fraternity of Saint Pius X.

"We evidently condemn every act of murder of the innocent. It is a crime that cries to heaven! Even more so when it is related to a people. We reject every accusation of Antisemitism. Completely and absolutely. We reject every form of approval of what happened under Hitler. This is something abominable. Christianity places Charity at a supreme level. Saint Paul, speaking of the Jews, proclaims, 'I wished myself to be an anathema [from Christ], for my brethren!" (Rom. 9, 3). The Jews are "our elder brothers" in the sense that we have something in common, that is, the old Covenant. It is true that the acknowledgment of the coming of the Messiah separates us.

"It is very interesting to notice that the Church did not await for the Council to prescribe courses of action regarding the Jews. Since the 30s, even during the war, several texts of Rome provide a very just position: the abominations of the Hitlerist regime must be condemned! 'Spiritually, we are all Semites', Pope Pius XI had said. It is a truth which comes from Sacred Scripture itself, 'we are sons of Abraham,' Saint Paul also affirms."

Rabbinical Judaism formed after the destruction of the first Temple in 586 BC. That's why Jesus' disciples called Him "Rabboni" and "Rabbi".

As an historian with a graduate degree in European history, I can affirm the 12 million figure for the Holocaust and the 6 million figure for the number of Jews killed is as solid as any other large number you'll find from that kind of event.

There is no historical evidence to demonstrate that rabbinical Judaism's express purpose is to destroy the Church.

Indeed, given the way Judaism has fractured into segments in the last 200 years, it's difficult to say that Jews have any express theological purpose anymore.

In any case, most segments of Judaism certainly aren't having children. Their population has been slowly dropping across the world for some time - well before World War II, in fact.

Even if an anti-Semite were to insist that Jews are some kind of threat to Christians, that same anti-Semite would have to agree that the threat is receding every year. They, like so many European nations, are being swamped by Islam.

I am not Spartacus said...

"No, no I say to you, it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible! Through Christ and in Christ we are spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we are all Semites." is what the Pope said.

Obviously, he is not referencing the Jews who committed the sin of Deicide and whose still refuse to accept Jesus but in these modern times it is always the case that the last five words of that statement are quoted while the rest of his words are omitted.

Jesus tells the Jews (Gospel of John) that the devil is their Father.

Of course Bishop Fellay rejects antisemitism because racism is a serious sin but it was only relatively recently that the SSPX website scrubbed its links to their teachings on the Jews which, rightly, taught that because of their sin of Deicide, the Jews were cursed.

The sspx, like all Christian Catholic Traditionalists, are antiJew.

As to the putative six million Jews killed in Europe, that is a mystical sum intrinsic to the propaganda putatively justifying the establishment of Israel and which establishment was a necessary precondition for the appearance on earth of the Anti Christ.

http://sixmillionmyth.blogspot.com/p/six-million-myth.html

Of course what happened to the Jews during the war was horrible but what happened to the Jews was an example of them reaping the whilwind they had sown for centuries – as La Civilta Cattolica documented.

As to you being unaware of documentation that Rabbinical Judaism formed after Titus destroyed the city of Deicide, there are many references, from E. Michael Jones', "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit," to The Encyclopedia Britannica to Michael Voris Videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY1GG0dyU9Y&feature=plcp&context=C3b392aeUDOEgsToPDskIerf6NWfxvnOLZS-zAAWEl

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Mr. Kellmeyer. It would do you some good to read what the Catholic Church taught about The Jews prior to the V2 revolution.

I can be read online with Intro here-

http://www.alcazar.net/Jewish_Q-1.pdf

and text here


http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jq1.htm

I am not Spartacus said...

Ominous and Prophetic Warning about Jews from a Catholic Newspaper

October 23, 1890 La Civiltà Cattolica, on The Jewish Question


Ultimate Defense: Setting Aside Civil Equality

But as long as Christianity doesn't shed the political yoke of Masonry, it will be vain to propose and discuss possible solutions for liberation. The only solution and, at the same time the most reliable one, is to turn back and retake the way where one has gone astray. If the Hebrews are not put in their place by humane and Christian laws, certainly, but nevertheless by laws of exception which deprive them of civil equality, to which they have no right and which is even no less pernicious for them than it is for Christians, little or nothing will be accomplished.
Seeing the inevitability of their presence in the various countries; seeing their unalterable nature of their beingforeigners in every country, and of their being enemies of each country that tolerates them, and of their being a society always separated from the societies in which it lives; seeing the Talmud's morality that they follow, and the fundamental dogma of their religion which impels them to seize, by any means whatsoever, the goods of all peoples, because it assigns to their race the possession of, and the domination over, all the world; seeing that the experience of many centuries, and that one which we are undergoing at present, has proven and still proves, that the legal equality with Christians conceded to them in the Christian states results either in their oppression of Christians or in their slaughter by Christians, there emerges the consequence that the only way of reconciling the Hebrews' residence with the Christians' rights is to regulate it with such laws which, at the same time, impede the Hebrews from offending the Christians' welfare, and impede the Christians from offending that of the Hebrews.


And this is just what, in a more or less perfect manner, has been done in the past; this is what, for a century, the Hebrews have tried to abolish; but this is also what, sooner or later, willingly or unwillingly, will have to be restored, and perhaps the Hebrews themselves will be constrained to ask that it be restored. For the predominance to which today's revolutionary law has helped them is digging an abyss under their feet, whose depth corresponds to the height to which they have risen. And at the first burst of the storm they are provoking by their very predominance at present, they will suffer such an enormous ruin, heralding an event as unequaled in their history as their modern audacity is also unequaled and with which they have trampled the nations that have madly exalted them.

On January 30, 1933, German President Paul Von Hindenburg named Adolph Hitler Chancellor – less than one-half century after the official Catholic Church's media organ, La Civilta Cattolica, issued its ominous warning

Steve Kellmeyer said...

The Gospel of John tells us "salvation is from the Jews".

The Jews and Romans who wanted Jesus crucified have been dead a long time. None of those alive now bear guilt for that, beyond what each of us bear for our own sins.

What a Catholic newspaper reports is not necessarily what the Catholic Church teaches. Unless you are also willing to accept, say, the glowing final review L'Osservatore Romano gave to Harry Potter?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

E. Michael Jones and Michael Voris are nice guys. Neither are necessarily reliable about Judaism.

Take that Michael Voris video. I already dissected that back when it came out. Michael makes some mistakes in it - I correct them.

You don't have a case.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Mr Kellmeyer; Here is Jesus in the Gospel of Saint John:

Then Jesus said to those Jews, who believed him: If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed. [32] And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. [33] They answered him: We are the seed of Abraham, and we have never been slaves to any man: how sayest thou: you shall be free? [34] Jesus answered them: Amen, amen I say unto you: that whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin. [35] Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever; but the son abideth for ever.
[36] If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. [37] I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. [38] I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father. [39] They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. [40] But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not.
[41] You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God. [42] Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: [43] Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. [44] You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do.


And here is Saint Paul:

1 Thess 2 For you, brethren, are become followers of the churches of God which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered the same things from your own coutrymen, even as they have from the Jews, Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men;

Your casual dismissal of the series in La Civilta Cattolica hints at a bit of unease that is likely developing within you.

It is clear you have not read it before and your dismissal of it and the way you dismiss it is a bit embarrassing. You seem unaware of the origins of that paper and how its content was reflective of the Papacy.

Dr. E. Michael Jones's book is fantastic and your, he's a nice guy, dismissal of him because he disagrees with your ideology is quite revealing.

In any event, you are, of course, at liberty to believe what you may but I think that you will go back and reread that series and you will begin to broaden your reading in Tradition about what Holy Mother Church has always taught about the Jews and, once you do that, you will not only cease dismissing evidence countervailing to what you now accept as definitive, you will actually, at some point, confess you really missed learning some important content of Tradition.

Pax tecum

I am not Spartacus said...

Take that Michael Voris video. I already dissected that back when it came out. Michael makes some mistakes in it - I correct them.

Dear Mr Kellmeyer. I read it rapidly and you make a number of serious mistakes which reveal a rupture with Tradition in many area, not the least of which is your idea that covenant was not rejected by the Jews.

Good Lord, man. Do you not know that such a claim is heresy?

OK, well, I guess I will just say goodbye now.

Wow

Steve Kellmeyer said...

I Am Not Spartacus,

L'Osservatora Romano is *NOT* Magisterial. La Civilta Cattolica is *NOT* Magisterial.

If I am being too subtle for you, I'm sorry. I don't know how to pound it into your skull anymore bluntly then that. The source you quote is not worth the paper it's printed on.

It is NOT Tradition.
It is not even tradition.
It's just a group of newspaper editors and journalists who are not fond of Jews.

In the Scriptures you quote, both Jesus and St. Paul were referring to a specific group of Jews, all long since dead.

However, when Jesus said "Salvation is from the Jews", that statement is not restricted to a specific group of Jews.

You know neither Scriptures nor the power of God. You are quite wrong.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Mr Kellmeyer As Dr E. Michael Jones observed about La Civilta Cattolica -

Civilta Cattolica published its first number on April 6, 1850. The founder of the review was a young Jesuit by the name of Carlo Maria Curci, who justified the creation of a new journal by claiming that European journalism was “the child of the French revolution, intent on propagating blasphemous and anti-Christian ideas soaked in a rationalism which was both agnostic and atheistic.”11

The Jesuits who founded Civilta Cattolica were not acting on their own. The new magazine was created under the auspices of Pope Pius IX and viewed by him as the application of his anti-modernist theories, as expressed in the Syllabus of Errors, to the political situation of his day. Civilta was to be a bulwark against modernist thought. It would allow the Church to combat the enemies of the Church with their own weapons. Civilta took on “the avarice and pride of an ugly monk in Germany, the insatiable libido of a tyrant king in England, and the cult of national unity and independence which was promoted by all sorts of demagogues in Italy,”12 and it did so with the approval of the pope. Civilta Cattolica was conceived as an instrument in the Church’s intellectual apostolate, and its scope was essentially apologetic and polemical. Civilta distinguished itself from the moment of its inception in a series of battles against revolutionary thought, above all against liberalism, laicism and against the principles which were the inspiration for the French Revolution.13

The pope’s support was both spiritual and financial. In February 1850, Pius IX, while still residing Naples, ordered Cardinal Antonelli to transfer 1,250 ducats from the pope’s account at the Rothschild bank in Naples to the Jesuits and declared his willingness to take on whatever financial burdens necessary to ensure the successful launching of the review.14 The great care the pope took in the launching of the magazine paid off when on March 20, subscription had reached 3,000. During the first three months of publication that number would jump to 6,307.15

The ties between Civilta and the pope only became closer when Pius IX returned to Rome. From that point onward, “Civilta Cattolica was considered as an expression of the voice of the Vatican, as well as a faithful interpreter of the thought of the pope, which was well-research and intellectually superior.”16 On February 12, 1866, the pope, pleased by the success of the magazine, granted canonical status to the editorial staff at Civilta by establishing the “Collegium Societatis Iesu Scriptorum Ephemeridi vulgo La Civilita Cattolica” and granting them the privileges of other colleges of the society. From this moment on, only the pope could intervene in their affairs.

Papal Approval

As a result of this approval, Civilta Cattolica soon became the most authoritative offical organ of the papacy, a status which not even the founding of L’Osservatore Romano in 1861 could undermine.17 Both Pius IX and Leo XIII placed a very special trust (“una fiducia tutta particolare”) in the Jesuits responsible for the magazine, and they reciprocated by returning that trust with a loyalty that was both absolute and deferential (“con una fedelta assolute e deferente”).18

Your rhetorical bluster is a clear signal that you dio not know what you were talking about and so I have just made my last attempt at trying to inform your ignorance.

I am quite sure I will fail.

C'est la vie

Steve Kellmeyer said...

I Am Not Spartacus,

Thank you.
You are proving my point.
Everything you provide here shows that the newspaper is NOT Magisterial.

It was founded by a Pope. Big deal.

Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II both wrote books that were non-Magisterial.

This newspaper was not even written by the Pope - it was just funded by him.

So, that's the best you've got?
The Pope threw some money at a newspaper and.... and what?

I'm supposed to think it now teaches only Magisterial truths?

Please.

The Popes have thrown money at numerous artists, numerous writers over the centuries. Is it a shock to see some of it land in a newspaper? Does that make ANY of the funded persons part of the Magisterium?

If you want to argue that it does, show me a Magisterial document that supports such an understanding.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Mr Kellmeyer.

http://holywar.org/txt/Thetribulation/chapter6.htm

That is my final good faith effort to address your reflexive gainsaying.

Good luck in getting up to speed on Catholic Tradition.

Pax tecum

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Well, at least you're getting closer. You at least gave me the writings of a saint, which is something.

Sadly, it still doesn't work.
Saints can be as wrong as anyone else. For instance, Mother Teresa supported a priest who turned out to be a pedophile.

Look, all I need is a Magisterial document that says what you say.

You say the Jews are not our elder brothers in the faith.

You say rabbinical Judaism formed after the destruction of the Second Temple, formed specifically and explicitly to destroy the Church.

You say 6 million Jews did not die in the Holocaust.

You say the Magisterium supports your assertions.

So, supply Magisterial documents that do what you say they do.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Mr. Kellmeyer. This post of mine just popped into my head and which post demolishes your claim that 1st Thessalonians 2 only refers to the Jews then alive; well, it demolishes that claim if the Jews then alive didn't live to tee-off this great Doctor.

http://southernvermontcrank.blogspot.com/2012/01/feast-of-st-john-chrysostom-bishop.html

I must admit that I am shocked you seem so little read when it comes to the Fathers and Doctors of the Church and The Jews.

Perhaps you have cause to seek a partial remit of your tuition :)

All in good fun, I assure you.

Pax tecum

P.S. If anything else I have posted pops into my head, I'll post a link

Steve Kellmeyer said...

I am not Spartacus,

John Chrysostom's homilies are not... how shall we say it... they are not the touchstone for Catholic-Jewish relations.

Do you see the homily you quote footnoted in many Magisterial documents? Or ANY Magisterial documents?

Chrysostom was writing in a particular historical milieu and geographic location. That has to be taken into account.

For instance, there's a comment by PC which, for some reason, has not yet appeared in which he claims the Inquisition and the conversos as an example of Jewish perfidy.

Of course, that's nonsense. By definition, a converso is baptized - is Christian. You can speak of Christian perfidy in wanting to practice Judaism instead of Christianity. That's what Chrysostom is railing against and that's what the Inquisition prosecuted. But once someone is validly baptized, they are Christians. You can't call them anything else.

When the Popes instituted special housing, dress or rules for the Jews, it was generally to protect them from violence from Christian mobs. The Jewish ghetto had high walls and locked gates, but the inhabitants had the keys - they were supposed to lock Christian miscreants OUT.

If you really want to accept Zionist attacks on Catholicism as an accurate way to interpret papal documents, I don't really have a response to you, apart from sadness at your silliness.

I am not Spartacus said...

Even the Theology of a Doctor of the Catholic Church is a key you reject; a key that could free you from your zionist cell.

Your comments about the great Doctor and him being a product of his times if hysterically funny seeing as how you are the pluperfect example of one who is a product of modernism, modernity, and the new theology which has surrendered to the Synagogue of Satan.

Ah, well...you are among a legion of modern men who lets Jews lead them around by their noses out of fear that they will be called a name if they cleave to Tradition.

I have an extremely high tolerance for participating in lost causes but you have already exhausted my tolerance.

adios...

Steve Kellmeyer said...

So, you can't produce a Magisterial document that makes reference to this Chrysostom homily?

How odd.

Tell me.... how many times will you be posting your "last" post?

PC said...

Mr. Kellmeyer,


“Of course, that's nonsense. By definition, a converso is baptized - is Christian. You can speak of Christian perfidy in wanting to practice Judaism instead of Christianity. That's what Chrysostom is railing against and that's what the Inquisition prosecuted. But once someone is validly baptized, they are Christians. You can't call them anything else.”

You are incorrect. Having read your analysis of Michael Voris’ video in which you attempt to correct Mr. Voris’ mistakes, I realize that you are completely misinformed and confused. In trying to clarify the terminology used to describe the jewish race--The distinction between the religion of Judaism and the "race" of Judaism—you have done nothing but raise questions without providing a solution. While I agree that precision of terms is important, you must pick one that describes the Jews as they describe themselves with respect to the rest of the world.

Maimonides writes: "As for Gentiles with whom we are not at war…their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued, for it is written: 'neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow'--but [a Gentile] is not thy fellow" (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Murder 4:11).

Who is "we"? Maimonides is clearly identifying himself with someone else. If Maimonides uses the term “Gentiles” and the Talmud uses the word “goyam” (cattle) to refer to gentiles, what word do YOU think would be appropriate to describe the jews that think this ways. It is indisputable that they think of themselves as a separate nation in whatever nation they reside. If it makes you uncomfortable to use the term race, please be honest and pick another word that is precise. The term race is historically used because it is sufficiently loose to accommodate the imprecision you correctly describe.

Your other criticisms of Michael Voris are equally fallacious. I think it is dishonest to demand that others provide magisterial proof whilst you disparage Mr. Voris work without citing a single doctor of the church or pope. History is not on your side.

You evidently dismissed my list papal documents. However, do the following look like they were meant to protect the jews from Christians? When the Jews were countless times expelled from Christians realms, are you seriously asking us to believe that it was to protect the Jews?

Pope Saint Pius V: “With full understanding and in exercising of the apostolic powers, we withdraw from the Jews and their rule (and recognize no right or claim) all properties, which the Jews have in their possession in this city Rome or other places of our domain of rule.” (Cum Nos Super)

Pope Paul IV: “It is too absurd and pointless that the Jews, whom their own guilt condemns to slavery, under the pretence that Christian piety suffers and tolerates their coexistence, pay back [with wickedness] the mercy received from Christians.” (Cum Nimis Absurdum)

The test of the veracity of a doctor of the church is not whether or not he is cited by a magisterial document. There never existed a doctor of the church or saint who contradicted St. John, in fact, there are many who affirm his teaching--St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine. Even better, the jewish historians confirm all the accusations made about them over the centuries. All these sources are well-documented in "Plot Against the Church."

PC

Steve "scotju" Dalton said...

Steve, based on what I've seen of your replies to IANS and PC, I believe you are lacking in information about Jewish-Christian history. I notice that when someone brings up what some saint or Church Father said about Jews, you make the claim that only applies to the historical epoch that he was dealing with. While that's partially true, it's not true generally. In my study of my familiy's history, which is of Marrano Jewish ancestory on my late father's side, I have brought, borrowed, and read many books written by Jewish authors to understand that history from that point of view. One of those books was Rabbi Louis Newman's "Jewish Influence On Christian Reform Movements". The"Christian reform movements" that Newman is refering to are the heresies that have bedeviled the Chrch from its beginings. Newman shows that Jews have aided, abbedded, sympathized with, financed, and sometimes outright controlled many of these Anti-Christian, Anti-Catholic movements down through history. While, as you have pointed out, certain saints like St John Chysostom were responding to local problems, those local problems were a part of an ongoing historical pattern of Jewish behavior. Indeed, Pope Pius V said in his Bull Hebraeorm gens, dated 02/26/1569, which expelled the Jews from Rome for various offences against Christians, said,"Finally, we consider as known and proven, how offensively this perverse generation offends the name of Christ, how hostile it is to those who carry the name of Christians, even making attempts on their lives." He also said in the same bull,"We know that this most perverse people have always been the cause and seed-bag of almost all the heresies."
Steve, I hope you will make an effort to procure copies of Newman's and the 'Plot' book. Newman's book has been out of print for a while, so you will have to by it second hand or get it by an inter-library loan. The other book is readily available.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Does the Church have dialogue with Freemasons?

No - no attempts to talk with them have ever been made. Catholics aren't supposed to associate their organizations. The Church DOES have dialogue with Jews.

According to several posters here, the Jews started Freemasonry and are worse than Freemasons.

St. Maximilian Kolbe founded an order to fight Freemasonry. He didn't found one to fight Jews.

No saint of the Church has.

Muslims were instrumental in starting the iconoclast heresy within the Eastern Church. Muslims arguably contributed to Protestantism.

What I think I see here is a bunch of Catholics taking a quasi-Muslim view towards Jews.

Matheus F. Ticiani said...

See what I tried to tell you, Steve...?

Jordanes551 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steve Kellmeyer said...

Well, spiritually, SURE!

You caught me out on that one...

Jordanes551 said...

Steve, how can you claim to be Catholic if you refuse to believe that all Jews are genetically programmed to attack and subvert the Catholic Church?

I'll bet you're of Jewish descent.

;-)

Jordanes551 said...

(Sorry, I caught a mistake in my comment and reposted it just as you were posting your reply.)