Mopping up the Israel Lobby
The livre de scandale of John J Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy, was for me a mostly disappointing read. Having seen the earlier article by these two illustrious academics, one at Chicago and the other at Harvard, “The Israel Lobby,” in the London Review of Books (May 2006), I found nothing particularly original about the expanded version. Their 500-page book is noticeably repetitious and by the time one reaches the conclusion, one has heard it all before. The ecstatic reaction by Michael Massing in that Pravda of East Coast Jewish liberalism, The New York Review of Books, is full of overstatement. What “detonates with force” for the Eastern establishment, reacted on me far less dramatically. Unlike the hysteria at the New York Review occasioned by a real iconoclast, Norman Finkelstein, who pulls no punches when going after the German-haters and the Holocaust-exploiters, the explications of Mearsheimer and Walt are so soporific that it may be hard for anyone but an AIPAC fanatic to get really mad at them. “Respectable” critics of the Israeli lobby are, for the authors, certifiable leftists such as Jimmy Carter, the homosexual activist playwright Tony Kushner, and the ultraliberal leaders of American Reform Judaism. To their credit, Walt and Mearsheimer do make respectful references to Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, and Georgie Ann Geyer as critics of the first Iraqi War, who pointed the finger at AIPAC for fomenting the invasion of Kuwait.
But the illustrious authors, both pillars of the foreign policy journalistic establishment, have conspicuous liberal blind-spots. For example they seem to believe that support for the Iraqi War comes entirely from “the very extreme Right,” as I heard Professor Mearsheimer emphasize in a panel discussion at Swarthmore in 2005. Moreover, there is insufficient recognition in the book that some of the strongest criticism of the Israeli lobby has emanated from the paleo Right. This is one reason that liberal commentators, most recently in the New Statesman, have presented paleos as “anti-Semitic,” a charge that is also habitually made by the same sources in noting the Old Right’s opposition to the neoconservative-inspired war in Iraq.
The authors’ knowledge about religious matters is so embarrassingly limited that one has to blush whenever they touch on things ecclesiastical. “Christian Zionists” is for them a synonym for “Dispensationalists,” who are imagined to be a Svengalian presence hovering over our otherwise progressive land. But many “Christian Zionists” are not people fixed on a peculiar reading of the Book of Revelations but garden-variety, misguided Philosemites. Moreover, Evangelical is not synonymous with Dispensationalist or Fundamentalist, as the authors might have learned from reading Daryl Hart, George Marsden, Mark Shibley, or anyone of a few hundred other American religious historians. Unlike the Fundamentalists, the Evangelicals, who make up much of Rudolph Giuliani’s support base, have been sliding leftward on theological and social issues for decades. But like George W. Bush, Michael Gerson, Cal Thomas, and Ralph Reed, they are embattled Zionists and advocates of an American mission to spread “human rights,” even at the point of a bayonet.
The authors also take an overly optimistic view of both normal American international relations and the possibility for ending Middle Eastern tensions by showing the Israeli government tough love. On this last point I am closer to Harvey Sicherman and Jim Kurth of the Foreign Policy Research Institute than I am to my friends on the paleo Right. The religious and cultural hatreds that inflame the Muslim world would likely be there even if the Israelis managed to cut a deal with the Palestinians. And significantly, the Israeli “new historians,” whom the authors quote for recognizing the obvious fact that Zionists engaged in ethnic cleansing against Palestinians, typically do not come down on the Mearsheimer-Walt side in terms of how to deal with the Palestinians at the present time. While one might readily concede that American Indians were expelled from their tribal territories in the nineteenth century, why would anyone but a self-hating white Christian call for allowing Indian tribes to take back sizable chunks of the U.S.? And it would seem even more foolhardy to welcome back into one’s land those who have repeatedly called for killing or expelling the present settlers. Mearsheimer and Walt note that Israelis seem willing to create a separate state for West Bankers, while continuing to treat as citizens the one million plus Palestinians living in Israel proper. But Israelis polled on these matters would not try to absorb hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees, many of them from camps in Lebanon and Jordan, into their already multinational and Palestinian-laden population.
It might also be asked why the Israelis, who run a Western-type constitutional government, should trust the Palestinians politically—even if admittedly Israeli military forces have sometimes taken brutal revenge on the Palestinians after Hamas-incited terror-bombings. There is nothing in the Palestinian, or for that matter the Arab Muslim, past that would suggest the likelihood that they would honor and enforce treaties or control violent minorities that might seek to wipe out the Israelis. I am always amazed when my friends on the right who, although justly skeptical of the belief that Arabs Muslims could develop Western-type regimes, express every confidence that the Palestinians are closet-moderates. All that is needed for the unexpected to happen is for the Israelis to give the West Bankers a chance by clearing out of the West Bank and by giving the Arabs control of East Jerusalem.
If I were an Israeli, I would not support these concessions, and certainly not at this time, even if the American government cut its 6 billion dollars in annual direct aid. Nor has the special relation with Israel always been as one-sided as the authors suggest. It is highly unlikely that certain delicate missions, e.g., bombing Iraqi nuclear installations in 1978 or the Israeli strike on Syrian territory last month to test its radar system, took place without bi-national cooperation.
Mearsheimer and Walt are correct to stress that the American government, as in the Pollard Affair, has put up with outrageous behavior from the Israelis which it would not likely have accepted from most other (Western) countries. Moreover, the amount of money that is transferred each year from the U.S. to Israel, in private Zionist donations and military equipment as well as public aid, is in the tens of billions of dollars—and this payoff cannot be fully explained in terms of “American national interest.” But what can be questioned is whether the U.S. has come out of this relation entirely empty-handed. And despite the long chapter about how AIPAC mucks up our dealings with Iran, I am not convinced that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his mullah advisors would not be bulls in the china shop of international relations even without the disinformation provided by the Israeli lobby. The Iranian government would remain for us a problem, even if Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in a speech on May 24, 2006, had not tried to goad the US Congress into taking military action against Ahmadinejad.
Equally challengeable is the unstated but strongly suggested notion that our relation with Israel has derailed what might otherwise be a rational foreign policy. Pace the authors, our ties to Israel are characteristic of how American foreign policy is conducted, on the basis of internal ideological and ethnic pressures. AIPAC is simply better at doing what the Black Caucus, gay and feminist groups, Armenian and Greek Americans, American supporters of the IRA and other special pleaders have tried to achieve for many decades—influencing American foreign policy. The problem is that in a mass, pluralistic democracy this situation is all too normal. It would be happening even if the Israeli lobby were not around.
But what makes this lobby especially obnoxious, and this is the one valuable series of revelations in the book, is not only its money and power. It is also the lobby’s arrogance and sheer viciousness, which extends to issues going beyond Israeli security, and which is manifested in its close ties to such shrieking gentile-haters as Abe Foxman and Alan Dershowitz. AIPAC enjoys and cultivates the support of some very unpleasant types, who specialize in maligning those they disagree with. On page after page, the authors document AIPAC’s defaming of politicians such as Charles Percy and Paul Findlay (both from Illinois) who dared to question our “special relation” with Israel. These and other politicians were routinely smeared as “anti-Semites,” and most of them were brought down by the charge. Incidentally, the authors, to their credit, don’t bother to distinguish between AIPAC and its numerous slanderous front organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League. These groups act in unison not only by backing what the Israeli government, and especially the Israeli nationalist Right, wants but also by wielding what Pat Buchanan has called “the branding iron of the charge of anti-Semitism.”
What is frequently omitted from the larger picture, but something that the authors notice, is that such charges as Jew-baiting or being a “self-hating Jew” are often leveled at unlikely targets. For example, the Anti-Defamation League in 1998 tried very hard to keep Metropolitan Books from publishing Norman Finkelstein’s and Ruth Bettina Birn’s A Nation on Trial. A closely researched refutation of Daniel Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners the work has nothing to do with endangering Israeli security. It simply discredits Goldhagen’s preposterous thesis, that “the Holocaust was not simply the product of Nazi beliefs and Hitler’s own madness but was rooted in a pervasive ‘eliminationist ideology’ rooted in German society that predated the Nazi period.” AIPAC and its affiliates, and the Central Committee for Jews in Germany, worked overtime trying to keep this refutation, by honorable Jewish authors, from being published and circulated. The reason for this zeal was not that Finkelstein and Birn were defending Israel’s interests but that their would-be censors hated Germans.
My tribulations ten years earlier when I was trying to obtain a graduate professorship at Catholic University of America indicated the same thought patterns among my enemies as those of Finkelstein’s. Those who blocked my appointment complained to administrators that I was “not entirely reliable on Israel.” But at the time I had expressed no views about Israel that were different from those of my accusers. What made them attack me at least in one demonstrable case was that my writings had questioned Germany’s “sole responsibility” for the origins of World War One. The subject had nothing to do with Israel but everything to do with certain tribal prejudices that those associated with AIPAC hoped to keep alive.
In the end it didn’t matter whether my accusers were the employees of AIPAC, of the ADA or of the American Jewish Committee, or in this case merely misguided Zionistic neoconservatives. Making such distinctions among all of these interlocking groups is about as useful as trying to distinguish in the 1940s between the Lawyers’ Guild or the Soviet-American Friendship League and the American Communist Party. Further, as Peter Novick has shown in a book on the reactions to the Holocaust in America, American (and even more opportunistically European) Zionists have been eager to highlight the collective guilt of Christians for the killing of European Jewry because the resulting guilt feelings are thought to help the Israeli cause. Although obviously true, another reason for this invidious focus is that those who apply it are expressing a gut reaction to Christians. This may be even more critical for their behavior than the desire to exploit Christian guilt for Zionist ends. The blown-up charges against Christianity as the fons et origo of Nazi anti-Semitism and the generally meek reactions that these accusations elicit, as my book Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt suggests, illustrate a quintessential sadomasochistic relation, which AIPAC has not hesitated to exploit.
This brings me to a final observation, which much of the material in the Mearsheimer-Walt volume can be cited to underscore. For many Americans, and particularly those on the Old Right, it is difficult to distinguish the Israelis from their partisans in this country. The fault is not entirely that of the Israelis. Being a vulnerable, beleaguered small country, they will take aid where can, and particularly from generous overseas patrons who have the ear of politicians. And these patrons have come through time and again, shutting up Israel’s critics and making sure that the foreign aid and military equipment keep rolling in. But this has been achieved at a high price—part of which in this country has been allowing the neoconservatives to lord it over a cowardly and fearful American Right, whose members live in fear of being called “racists” or “anti-Semites.”
But even within the existing sadomasochistic relation that the Israeli lobby has heretofore milked, there are other possible developments that may not favor the Israelis in the long run. Weakening Christian institutions, while opening the Western world to Islamic and other Third World influences, does not help the Jews here or in Israel. It might also be helpful for the Israelis if the U.S. had a more deeply Christian character and more secure borders. Admittedly, pushing for a less Western West may satisfy particular inveterate hates—which cause their bearers to exaggerate Christian anti-Semitism and to encourage the resettling of Western countries by non-Western populations (a policy that in Europe means Moslems). But such policies destroy what remains of the substance of the only civilization that is likely to assist the Israelis out of genuine affection.
Moreover, the victimized pets of the guilt-ridden, often culturally illiterate Christians do not have to remain Jewish victims. In Europe the victim card is already going over to the Muslim immigrants, who usually dislike Jews even more than they do Christians. No matter how strenuously European Zionists may blame Christians for Muslim vandalism against Jewish targets, the truth might be more important than the pleasures of goy-bashing. These are facts that the Israelis themselves should take into consideration. Their supporters in other lands show defective long-term political judgment because their heads are not screwed on straight. And if the gentiles ever awaken from their stupefying, self-inflicted politics of guilt, God help those who have tried to use it!
Comments
Well done.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I have been on the reciving end of this charge of anti-Semitism.
It doesn’t matter to those levelling it that most American Jews did not vote for the War Party, insofar as they had any option not to, at either the last Presidential or the last Congressional Election. Nor that large numbers of Israeli Jews make a point of voting against the War Party at every opportunity.
No, the levelling of this ridiculous charge, apparently even against anyone who so much as uses the term “well-funded”, is one of, shall we say, their Protocols (do your worst!).
Look at the list of signatories to the Project for the New American Century, just for a start. If Francis Fukuyama (a partially lapsed but now returning neocon), Dick Cheney, Steve Forbes, Dan Quayle or Zalmay Khalizad is Jewish, then I for one will be extremely surprised. Never mind Jeb Bush. Even people whose names look as if they might be - George Weigel, Donald Rumsfeld, Gary Bauer - are not.
The Elders of Zion never existed at all. The World Masonic Conspiracy has never existed, whatever the Lodge might have acted as an organising tool for in individual countries or cities.
Neither the Catholic Church generally nor the Society of Jesus specifically has ever been at the centre of any sort of political network, whatever individual Catholics or Jesuits might have done; the same is true of Opus Dei (although what if it weren’t?).
There is no “global terror network” called “al-Qaeda”; there is simply Islam doing what Islam does, because it is Islam.
And so forth.
But there really is the neoconservative network as set out above. It exists. It functions. British MPs are among those under its daily direction, and the consequences are clear in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and as we prepare to detain people for months without even charging them with anything.
None of this is any sort of secret, as a “conspiracy” must be: it is loudly proclaimed with pride.
To say this is not anti-Semitic: here in Britain, few of the Euston Manifesto Group, and even fewer of the Henry Jackson Society, are Jewish. It is simply anti-neoconservative.
And that, of course, is the problem. Hence the smears, however ill-executed and laughable.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The book “The Israel Lobby” is indeed rather boring, repetitious, and not that great on analysis. But it is also an extremely detailed one-stop source for the activities of the lobby, so for that I would recommend it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Fascinating essay by Professor Gottfried. A question
arises: especially in Professor Gottfried’s last point,
regarding Jewish support for weakening traditional
Christianity, I am curious if he sees any correlation
to the theses of Kevin McDonald (in his trilogy, and
more recently in his “Understanding Jewish Influence")?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The israel lobby is an excellent book and very much needed at this time in america. any revelation in print which reaches the american public is very much needed.
any book which elevates the argument against unconditional support for israel will be much welcomed. americas imprisoned politicians who are probably anxious to break out of that strangle hold that aipac has on them could benefit from having this issue front and center and out of the closet.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
In response to Boyd’s spirited question, the answer
is this: I find MacDonald’s work to be a mixed bag. The
author is correct when he looks at the social
behavior of today’s Jews living in Western countries.
He overshoots the mark when he generalizes about Jews
ever since antiquity and tries to treat biblical
figures as illustrations of unchanging Jewish
character. He finally never proves that the behavior
he sets out to exmaine is reducible to the
socio-biological drive that he assumes lies behind it..
Click to flag this comment as abusive
First I thank Paul Gottfried for sparing me the reading of the book he reviews.
Second, I call him a courageous, erudite man who can see the shades of grey and who knows that subtle distinctions are often the most important. He knows that there is a considerable difference between support for Israel and support of the Lincoln-Wilson-Neoconservative program of US expansionism. Some Neoconservatives and some Antisemitic and Judeophobic writebackers both do not know these shades of grey. He also knows that a lot more happened in Mitteleuropa, and a lot of things of equal important happened, than just the genocide of Jews, as appalling as that crime doubtless is. He also knows that the Catholic Church teaches, clearly, in the Magisterial document Nostra Aetate, that there is absolutely NO blood guilt against the Jews; and those who say so are guilty of heresy and liable, and thus they are not Catholic. His keen ability to see the shades of grey and the fine nuance has prompted his restrained fairness to the loathsome MacDonald.
I invite him to consider other shades of grey.
Speaking of “Shades” of “Grey” (and Butternut): Long live the memory and the example of Judah P. Benjamin!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid, we have discussed this before, I do not wish to
crowd up this thread with hundreds of writebacks! But,
very simply, you are not correct. Nostra Aetate of Vatican II
while distinguishing between the culpability of those
Jews who were directly responsible for Christ’s death, and
others who “cannot be charged” with the Crucifixion, did
NOT reject the traditional theology of Deicide (cf.
Nostra Aetate, no. 4). In fact, the proposed rejection
of this traditional theology was taken OUT of the
final schema (the one that was voted on and accepted by
the Council). Excellent accounts of this process of just
how the schema was modified substantially are
found in Joseph Roddy’s article, “How the Jews Changed
Catholic Teaching, LOOK, vol 30, no. 2, January 25,
1966; in Leon de Poncins, JUDAISM AND THE VATICAN
(Britons, 1966); and in Fr. Romano Amerio’s classic
account, IOTA UNUM; A STUDY OF CHANGES IN THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH IN THE XXTH CENTURY (English translation, Sarto
House, 1996) I recommend you go read these.
Lastly, once again you simply do not understand theology.
Specifically, regarding Vatican II, I refer you to a
document of the Council, attached to the Council’s
declarations, the Nota Praevia, of November 16, 1965
(issued under the signature of Msgr. Pericle Felici, on
behalf of both the Fathers and the Pope), which explains
the theological standing of the doctrines taught by the
council. This critical declaration states that in
view of the “pastoral nature of the council,” “Sancta
Synodus tantum de rebus fidei vel morum ob Ecclesia
tenenda definit quae ut talia aperte ipsa declaravit.”
That is, nothing in the council’s documents is declared
to constitute a doctrinal definition unless the council
openly and formally declares it such. And the Nota continues,
--unless it reaffirms the already defined teaching of
the Church.
You and I have sparred over this in past threads, and I
will NOT get into a written shouting match with again.
I will say this: your statement that anyone who questions
the theology of a “pastoral” declaration---which itself
contains serious questions of expression and syntax,
in additional to material differences with previous
teaching by the Church on the subject---is a “heretic”
and “outside the Church” is completely wrongheaded, and
a misunderstanding of both the continuity of Catholic
doctrine and history. You turn Vatican II into dogma,
but conveniently forget the doctrinal and dogmatic
teachings of the Church of nineteen centuries.
You may write back all you want to; I am NOT going
to debate this with you AGAIN. For those interested,
I recommend going back and re-reading earlier threads
from, I think, September.
No more.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Could one of the reasons for the problems described by Mersheimer and Walt be that Judaism has drastically changed? With the spread of Zionism around 1900, Judaism in effect followed German Protestantism in abandoning the core morals of the Judeo-Christian tradition and turning into a prop of nationalism.
One of the lost morals was the idea that pride is the worst of sins—this idea is stated emphatically and repeatedly in the Torah. The acceptance of pride again produces the personality traits you describe, such as arrogance, loss of empathy, hypersensitivity to criticism and its associated loss of the ability to do self-criticism, and an inability to think through the consequenses of one’s actions. In the lobby’s actions, we are now beginning to see the results of this development.
An example of what I have in mind: when Dershowitz recently discovered hostility toward Israel among British academics, he threatened to bring in 100 lawyers and start suing them. Did this announcement increase or decrease the hostility toward Israel and Jews among British academics? (Note that the loss of empathy operates unconsciously. Dershowitz very probably does not realize that his actions are massively counterproductive.)
The lobby’s behavior seems to be just a symptom of an attitude change that is occurring in modern west. As you note, the harsh, brutal, arrogant “take no prisoners” attitude is now widely accepted by many Protestant denominations. Maybe Jews should have been more critical when they started abandoning their old traditions and assimilating with the West.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Boyd Cathey makes a curious statement. He first says that Nostra Aetate says his x, not my y, and that this x is authoritative. Then he says that Nostra Aestate is a fudge, (if not a plot by “perfidious” Jews?), and thus by implication is NOT authoritative. We call this in logic a contradiction. He also says that clear teaching by an authoritative Ecumenical Council is not authoritative teaching. This too is a contradiction. Pastoral guideline (and Nostra aetate is more than these) are based on dogmatic principles. Find me an authoritative Church Document that is recognized today by the Magisterium as binding, or one after Nostra aetate, that would endorse “deicide”. And don’t quote me Paul IV, who deserved to be in a glass booth in Jerusalem.
Readers can read Nostra aetate#4 for themselves, and see that I am correct. Then readers should read the official Vatican document Guidelines of Religious Relations with Jews from 1 December 1974, a commentary on Nostra aetate #4, especially in the Third Section. I have myself argued in the past, with many Denzinger references and citations, that the consistent teaching to the Church is not what my interlocutor says it is.
Boyd Cathey has make no secret that he is not in full union with Rome. And for that he’s an honest man. I thank him. I myself am not a sedevacantist or a mentevacantist.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The following was left off my last message; it is a
statement of Pope Paul VI, several weeks after the
cloture of Vatican II:
“Given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided
pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed
with the note of infallibility.” [Insegnamenti di Paolo VI,
v. IV, 790, (January 12, 1966)] Such references can be multiplied.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
And take a look at this link from the official Vatican website:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrst
uni_doc_20040708_declaration-buenos-aires_en.html
“THE 18th INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC-JEWISH LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETING
Buenos Aires, July 5-8, 2004
“JOINT DECLARATION
“[...] As we approach the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate - the ground-breaking declaration of the Second Vatican Council which repudiated the deicide charge against Jews, reaffirmed the Jewish roots of Christianity and rejected anti-Semitism - we take note of the many positive changes within the Catholic Church with respect to her relationship with the Jewish People[...]”
And since when is every official and binding Church teaching is infallible? We’ve been over this as well: the false understanding of infallibility, a falsification that keeps many from becoming Catholic, and the true one. Infallibility has been invoked only twice, in 1854 and 1950.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
rephrased:
And since when is every official and binding Church teaching infallible?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid,
I said I would not respond to you, and I break my promise
here, but only to clarify some things.
My statements were completely clear and there was not
absence in logic in either point. First, I stated that
Nostra Aetate did NOT say what you seemed to say that
it said [that is, that it rejected the appellation of
Deicide, which it does not do]. It uses the words “not
all” when referring to the Jewish people of Our Lord’s
time being culpable. Thus we are NOT talking about
exculpation of the totality, as you implied. I did
not either endorse or reject that formulation....
I wished only to clarify it.
My second point was not related to that statement. It
was rather that you do not understand theology, in partiuclar,
as refers to Vatican II. Vatican II, pace Paul VI and the cited Nota
Praevia, did not seek to define and bind on the level
of previous councils. Only insofar as it confirmed
previous teaching, or specifically and self-consciously
declares doctrine, did it do so. Paul VI, on several
occasions (as I cited earlier) makes this clear (as
did the Nota Praevia). And he stated, on more than one
occasion, that the council avoided issuing such teachings.
What we are talking about, then, are pastoral directives
but the problem is that, in some cases, they materiall
contradict previous teaching of the church. Such directives
do not enjoy the privilege of indefectibility, and to
respectfully criticize them (as has, indeed, the present
supreme pontiff Benedict XVI!) is in no way heretical.
Indeed, one could suggest that NOT to adhere to and
believe in the traditional teachings of the church would
be more apt to cast one into heresy and schism....
You, it seems, enjoy red-herrings, and tossing in little
insulting asides...words like “sedevacantist” or (and
what a nice one!)"mentevacantist" and then stating that
I am “not in full union with Rome"---which, I must say,
is a damnable lie on your part. The Church, and in
particular, the head of the Congregation Ecclesia Dei
(Cardinal Trujillo Castillon) have repeatedly corrected
certain liberal bishops who have made that assertion
about the Society of St. Pius X. Your comments remind
me eerily of the statements of those liberals.
Now, once again, let’s agree to end this; it is not
the topic of this thread. You and I do not agree. Let us
leave it that.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Small correction: in my last message, I should have written
Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hojos (and not Trujillo Castrillon).
Click to flag this comment as abusive
What is this? Praising with faint damnation?
“I found nothing particularly original about the expanded version. Their 500-page book is noticeably repetitious and by the time one reaches the conclusion, one has heard it all before.”
Well, one place you haven’t heard it all before is the American “mainstream” media, which took pains to ignore this book despite its performance on the bestseller lists.
And the reaction certainly “detonated with force” in Mearsheimer and Walt’s faces – when they were accused of being every vile thing up to and including robed, raving Klansmen. “The Israeli Lobby” is an expression of extreme – and, yes, subversive – courage.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid,
Anyone with a knowledge of Catholic theology would know
that “infallibility” can and does exist in more than just the formal,
self-conscious invocation by the pontiff ex cathedra (from the
papal throne). Once again, you speak about something that you do not
know. Doctrines may also be infallible if they: (1) reaffirm the
constant and consistent teaching of the Church, (2) on matters of
faith and morals, (3) are addressed to the all the faithful,
(4) demonstrate the will to bind, and (5)invoke with solemnity the
authority of the Church. One learns this in Fundamental Theology.
Thus, even though the proclamation of the Assumption of the BVM and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception were self-consciously proclaimed via the charism of papal infallibility ex cathedra, there are other doctrinal teachings of the Church which
would certainly qualify. Thus, Fr. Lucien Choupin in his authoritative
VALEURS DES DECISIONS DOCTRINALES ET DISCIPLINAIRES DU SAINTE SIEGE
(Paris: Beauchesne, 1913), the DICTIONNAIRE DE THEOLOGIE CATHOLIQUE,
and numerous others (e.g. Fernand Mourret, R. Aubert, Reginald Garrigo-
Lagrange, Cardinal Journet), not to mention various pontiffs (e.g St.
Pius X), have carefully explained this.
Thus, as I explained in a long-passed thread, the encyclical Quanta
cura of the Blessed Pius IX, is considered, because it satifies in full
each of the conditions above listed, to convey infallible Catholic
teaching on religious liberty. Fernand Mourret, surveying the teaching
of fourteen pontiffs and dozens of theologians, states as follows:
“The encyclical Quanta cura, which, being addressed to the Catholic
world to condemn errors, has the characteristics of an ex cathedra
act.” [Histoire Generale de l’Eglise, vol. VIII, p. 501]
Your view is constricted, and untenable in Catholic theology.
Finally, even if some constant teachings of the Church are not, per se,
“infallible,” they are, if constantly taught by the Magisterium,
considered “indefectible,” and demanding of the same internal assent
that an infallible teaching demsands. Again, Fundamental Theology 101.
Secondly, I really don’t give a fig what some “International Catholic-
Jewish Liaison Committee” says about “deicide.” I could call a meeting
of a few priests and bishops, and declare the world flat, too, but
that wouldn’t make it so. The fact is, Sid---and it is FACT, just go
and read any of the sources I listed or any of the resulting commentary
after the council---the council removed the condemnation of deicide
from the final schema.
WE need to end this diversion, Sid; we shall only go round and round,
and bore everyone else.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr Cathey did NOT reject the traditional theology of Deicide
It is hard to reject that which never existed. If you think it did,post the Magisterial Teaching.
repeatedly corrected certain liberal bishops who have made that assertion
about the Society of St. Pius X
Oh, Ok. I see. You succor the sspx schism which teaches that Jews as a race are cursed.
That has never been part of Tradition. It has been a heresy advanced by the likes of Fr Fahey, but his ideas were never adopted by the Church and despite The Angelus and The Remnant</I>, and a few other schismatic scandal sheets promoting that racial hatred, nine Catholics believe the Catholic Church ever taught such hatred.
Scratch a SSPX’er, find an antisemite.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Armstrong has compiled a few useful links vis a vis infallibility and Vatican Two. I give the link for those interested.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030202182544/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ382.HTM
When it comes to those walking the plank off either the Port or Starboard side of the Barque of Peter, ignore whatever the private judgment individual yells as he plunges towards the schismatic seas.
The Church teaches. They don’t. And anyone can read what the Church teaches because it is all online for free.
If anyone wants to know what we believe, they can read The Catechism and the most recent Ecumenical Council.
As for those who think themselves at liberty to either accept or reject what is in the Documents, here is Card Ratzinger in The Ratzinger Report
++++++++++++++ begin quotes +++++++++++
Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger): Vatican II Has the Same Authority as Trent (if one goes, both go)
It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican
I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in
communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is
in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their
texts word for word in decisive points . . .
Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood
itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic
Church, particularly also the two previous councils . . . It is likewise
impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II.
Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism,’ also in its extreme forms. Every partisan choice
destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can exist only as an
indivisible unity.
To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the
Council. It is our fault if we have at times provided a pretext (to the ‘right’
and ‘left’ alike) to view Vatican II as a ‘break’ and an abandonment of the
tradition. There is, instead, a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward, neither anachronistic longings nor unjustified
impatience. We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the
yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them . . .
I see no future for a position that, out of principle, stubbornly renounces
Vatican II. In fact in itself it is an illogical position. The point of
departure for this tendency is, in fact, the strictest fidelity to the teaching
particularly of Pius IX and Pius X and, still more fundamentally, of Vatican I
and its definition of papal primacy. But why only popes up to Pius XII and
not beyond? Is perhaps obedience to the Holy See divisible according to years
or according to the nearness of a teaching to one’s own already-established
convictions?
+++++++++++++ end quotes +++++++++++++
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I myself am not a sedevacantist or a mentevacantist.
Stop hijacking every thread with discussions about Roman Catholic issues.
And since when is every official and binding Church teaching infallible?
This is a cop out. Even if not infallible, church teaching must at least be trustworthy. My little section of Christendom has not changed its official teachings since 1646. Unlike Rome, we Calvinists do not twist in the wind.
Scratch a SSPX’er, find an antisemite.
This is a cheap shot. I think SSPX is wrong, but I don’t use uncivil invective like that. Instead of trying to keep a dead tradition that Rome repudiated, SSPX should start questioning the Tridentine system. Luther and Calvin were right. Human works do not merit justification. Throw down the idols of human glory and run to the Cross!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“While one might readily concede that American Indians were expelled from their tribal territories in the nineteenth century, why would anyone but a self-hating white Christian call for allowing Indian tribes to take back sizable chunks of the U.S.?”
no we FOUGHT the indians, over hundreds of years for the land. israel was GRANTED it’s own state in the middle of the 20th century. But I agree israel should decide it’s own borders IF and only if, we stop sending them aid and weapons. other wise they shold give whatever benfits US, their benfactors, in that area, which is to go back to their actual borders.
a better use of your analogy would be this: imagine the pilgrims had been surrounded by 300 million indians who KNEW they wanted to kick off of their land. they would have been wiped out at plymouth rock. israel shuld be ingratiating themselves with their neighbors, not leaning on us. If they don’t they are doomed. whether modern and western or tribal and backward ALL muslims resent the US and israel and througha combination of western and tribal they will drive them out.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@"I am not Spartacus”...First, you know very little about
the Society of St. Pius X; I suggest you go read what
Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, acting on behalf of the pope,
said in response to ignorant souls just like yourself. The SSPX is
not “heretical” nor “schismatic.” [By the way, Father
Denis Fahey was never condemned by the church, but rather
praised by Pope Pius XII. You wanna condemn him, too, and
call him an “anti-semite.” That’s what you leftwing liberal
Catholics enjoy doing, isn’t it? And that’s exactly the tactic
that Paul Gottfried was writing about.]
As to Deicide, shall I begin to name the Fathers of the Church who
employed the term or its equivalent? And what about St. Paul (see, e.g.,
I Thess. 2; 14-15, and various other passages). Would you, like your
liberal brethren, expel St. John Chrysostom, St. Jerome, St.
Gregory the Great, even St. Paul. Go back and read the earlier
threads on this. I really don’t have the time or patience
to deal with you. In those earlier threads (back in September,
I think) I cited various detailed essays from The Catholic
Encyclopedia and specific works by the Fathers of the Church.
I refer you to those items.
Your argument (regarding Vatican II) is with the fathers
of that Council, and what the Council said of itself, and what
both John XXIII and Paul VI said about it. You may quote
Cardinal Ratzinger all you wish, but it doesn’t change the
facts.
You should change your name to “I AM Spartacus.” It would
befit you better....
Really, I do think we should get back to the topic. I really
don’t think we are going to convince each other.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
the council removed the condemnation of deicide from the final schema
We call this the fallacy of “an argument from silence”. Otherwise Boyd Cathey cherry picks from obscure documents. I cite mine, give the location within them, and links. The document boldfaced by me is an authoritative one. And for Nostra Aetate, #4 see http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
I’ll look up the link for the Guidelines on Religious Relations with the Jews
Readers can read the documents I’ve quoted, in the places I’ve quoted, and judge for themselves. They don’t have to take it from me.
Boyd Cathey’s idea of infallibility is flat wrong, perpetuates a popular misunderstanding, and keeps otherwise good souls out of the church. It’s only been used twice. Period. Full Stop.
And a Catholic or Catholic organization that does not recognize Vatican II, does not Church documents as authoritative (such as the one I quoted and linked), or does not accept the authority (Magisterial and Pastoral) of the current Bishop of Rome is not in union with Rome. And thus rejects the First Vatican Council as well. Period. Full Stop.
The SSPX, by the way, has done us a great service with liturgy, and I’m grateful to them. The members whom I’ve met are fine folks and very praiseworthy. AND the ones whom I know are not Antisemites. So I cannot support what “I am not Sparticus” says about the SSPX, at least from my experience. He’s correct about some other matters. And I thank him for his link.
The Society is now working with Rome toward a compromise. This is a delicate period. Let’s pray for that reconciliation. Such a reconciliation will benefit the whole Church.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The link to “Guidelines” is above in my earlier writeback. See also http://www.papalencyclicals.net/vatican2.htm Click on the Link under Nostra aetate, the “Guidelines on Religious relations with Jews”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The Society is now working with Rome toward a compromise.
Mr. Cundiff. It is because the Pope is searching for the lost sheep that Mr. Cathey even has an opportunity to cite Cardinal H’s language in romancing the schism.
That aside, lefevbre and the gang were excommunicated and Ecclesia Dei remains unchanged.
In any event, the sspx is wrong on the Mass. Card. Ratzinger was moved to condemn a book on the liturgy published by the sspx because they have a faulty understanding of the mass.
Schism is proximate to heresy and leads to spiritual and intellectual blindness. It is ineluctable
+++++++ begin quote +++++++++
“I mention this strange opposition between the Passover and sacrifice, because it represents the architectonic principle of a book recently published by the Society of St. Pius X, claiming that a dogmatic rupture exists between the new liturgy of Paul VI and the preceding catholic liturgical tradition. This rupture is seen precisely in the fact that everything is interpreted henceforth on the basis of the “paschal mystery,” instead of the redeeming sacrifice of expiation of Christ; the category of the paschal mystery
is said to be the heart of the liturgical reform, and it is precisely that
which appears to be the proof of the rupture with the classical doctrine of
the Church. It is clear that there are authors who lay themselves open to such
a misunderstanding; but that it is a misunderstanding is completely evident
for those who look more closely. In reality, the term “paschal mystery”
clearly refers to the realities which took place in the days following Holy
Thursday up until the morning of Easter Sunday: the Last Supper as the
anticipation of the Cross, the drama of Golgotha and the Lord’s Resurrection. In the expression “paschal mystery” these happenings are seen synthetically as a single, united event, as “the work of Christ,” as we heard the Council say at the beginning, which took place historically and at the same time transcends that precise point in time. As this event is, inwardly, an act of worship rendered to God, it could become divine worship, and in that way be present to all times. The paschal theology of the New Testament, upon which we have cast a quick glance, gives us to understand precisely this: the seemingly profane episode of the Crucifixion of Christ is a sacrifice of expiation, a saving act of the reconciling love of God made man. The theology of the Passover is a theology of the redemption, a liturgy of expiatory sacrifice. The Shepherd has
become a Lamb. The vision of the lamb, which appears in the story of Isaac, the
lamb which gets entangled in the undergrowth and ransoms the son, has become a reality; the Lord became a Lamb; He allows Himself to be bound and sacrificed, to deliver us. ...
+++++++++++++= end quotes ++++++++++
Click to flag this comment as abusive
As to Deicide, shall I begin to name the Fathers of the Church who
employed the term or its equivalent?
Mr. Cathey. Quote away. All you will be doing is citing their personal opinions. And, when you are finished citing their personal opinions, please quote a Magisterial Document which adopts their personal opinion as teaches it as Catholic Doctrine.
You can not. Such a thing does not exist.
And I don’t care if you have the patience to deal with me or not. You have an obligation to source your claims or you will justly suffer damage to your reputation.
If you can cite ONE Magisterial Teaching ( you can’t) you can prove wrong those of us who think the sspx schism a poisonous perversion of Tradition and a servant of Satan.
The SSPX. Protestants in Fiddlebacks.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Cathey. Fr Fellay calls the normative Mass intrinsically evil in direct opposition to Trent (I assume that Council is ok by you.)
Fellay rejects Vat Two out of hand.
The sspx teaches the Jews as a race are cursed.
The sspx has wrong ideas about the Mass
The sspx is never coming home. The dance with Rome is mean to keep folks like you in line.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Amen not Spartacus,keep up the good work.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid, let me ask you something in good faith, I haven’t read much about the deicide doctrine, I may in fact be quite ignorant of what it means exactly, but from what I gather above Boyd Cathey says that the Church recognizes the culpability of “some” jews in the death of Christ, which seems to be right if you believe in the historical value of the Gospels. I’m pretty sure that you admit the historical value of the Gospels. I’d like to ask you then what’s the right position on this issue.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Please quote a Magisterial Document which adopts their personal opinion as teaches it as Catholic Doctrine.
Catholic Doctrine is like Jell-O, you can mold it any way you want. Rome wants to look conservative as it pushes progressivism left and right. It is nonsense. It is a system of power that could care less about the Cross of Christ. Who cares what Ratzinger, an overeducated paper pusher, says anyway? You owe him no loyalty. C’mon, people. Snap out of it!
The SSPX. Protestants in Fiddlebacks.
Come home to the True Tradition. Rome is just an empty shell. SSPX is antiquarian. The Gospel of grace lives on!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
People!!! Hello!!! We’re fighting a idiotic war in Iraq, the dollar is falling through the floor and abortion is our national pastime. All the Latin Masses in all the cathedrals won’t change that. Please, let’s put aside these ultramontane fantasies. Fave the real world: Rudy Giuliani sucks! Alan Dershowitz sucks! Ralph Reed sucks! Can I get an amen from this crowd?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
What does the above exchange have to do with Paul’s review of Mearsheimer’s and Walt’s book? You in effect ended up blocking what could have been an interesting discussion on an important subject.
A suggestion: could TakiMag structure the comments in such a way that threads which drift off the subject do not block the whole discussion?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Spartacus:
How I do appreciate the wonderful Christian charity of
progressive liberals such as yourself! It is so cheering
to know what you folks, so imprisoned in your modernist
mindset, really think about us poor, benighted traditional
Catholics.
Let me add, personally, that I was a seminarian at the Seminaire Internationale
Saint Pie X, in Econe, from 1975 until 1979 (and previous to that, at the
University of Navarra). I taught at the Seminario San Pio X in Argentina, so
I do have some first-hand knowledge of the SSPX...and I don’t recognize the
“hatemongers” you make them (us) out to be. You really do sound like Morris
Dees and Abe Foxman, you know.... are you sure that you aren’t a Dees plant?
So, you suggest that the Magisterium contradicts the Fathers of
the Church. Now that’s a novel twist...and St. Paul, too, no doubt.
You modernists are just brimming with (non) surprizes.
In an earlier thread I listed a number of pontiffs, Fathers
of the Church, with citations. Because you state, with
fearsome tones!! that my VERY reputation will be in play (I shudder!),
let me hasten to state again that there were at least fifteen popes,
between St. Gregory and 1715, who condemned various aspects
of Talmudic Judaism, including Innocent III, Gregory X, John XXII,
Julius III, Paul IV, Pius IV, St. Pius V, etc. Let me cite just
one at the moment, St Pius V, in his bull Hebraeorum gens (First Paragraph):
“The Hebrew people, elected in a previous time by the Lord to particate
in the celestial mysteries...by its incredulity, was then brought down and
humiliated; when the fullness of time arrived it was condemned as perfidious
and ingrate, having killed its Redeemer and Lord....” For your information, the “killing of its Redeemer and Lord” is what some theologians call “deicide.”
I assume you accept the teaching of Saint Pius V as part of the Magisterium? Actually, the statement of St. Paul (I Thess. 2, 14-15--go read it) is also
clear; was he lying? Does he contradict the Magisterium and the teaching of
the Church?
I use almost exclusively the classic Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique and
the 1912-1914 Catholic Encyclopedia. But numerous other sources exist online.
You could refer to: http://www.romancatholicism.org/popes-jews.htm
for instance. Also, http://www.fisheasters.com And there are more.
I reject out of hand your other comments; I have heard your arguments made
by libs since the mid-1970s. Your comments are replete with warmed-over modernism, and do nothing to assist either your salvation, or mine. You can keep this controversy going as long as you wish, but, frankly, I’ve heard it all before,
except that you manifest a certain hatred and disdain for traditionalists.
As this colloquy is going nowhere, I don’t intend to engage you any further.
That’s it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid Cundiff’s comments are typical of left-wing Catholics in my experience.
Almost all the conservative Catholics I know reject Vatican II. I thought this was the norm for real conservatives. Isn’t it?
Vatican II documents are some of the most left-wing manifestos of the 20th century. I tend to agree with Peter Ramos that these result in a de facto manifesto for universal human rights.
The blood guilt for the Jews is there. But there is recourse: they can convert. That is the only way to remove the stain.
Abe Foxman is an enemy to the White Race. He supports Jews fostering their racial / kin loyalties, but denies the same for Whites.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Peter,
I agree with you...we should be talking about the subject
of Paul Gottfried’s excellent essay, and not about Catholic
theology. I bear part (but only part) of the blame for that,
in that I can’t resist answering Sid when he throws out certain
phrases about Vatican II, etc. I apologize for “taking the bait,”
and running with it. We did this back about five weeks ago, and it
went on ad infinitum. I’ve ended my participation in this “debate,”
and will get back to topic....
I’ve got (and read) several of Norman Finkelstein’s books, including
THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY, BEYOND CHUTZPAH, etc. Along with Avi Shlaim,
Albert Lindemann, Timothy Cole,and Peter Novick, he offers an intelligent
analysis (and critique, if only indirectly) by able Jewish scholars of the Israeli
Lobby as it attempts to stifle debate and silence opponents. Lindemann and
Arno Mayer offer additional insights, historically, as does I. Shamir.
Although the Walt-Mearsheimer volume can be legitimately faulted at points,
as Paul Gottfried has detailed, still I think it a valuable work, by undoubted
“establishment” academics. The reaction of the ADL, etc. has been predictable,
and Walt and Mearsheimer have not been spared the calumny. Still, a major
work that opens the door wider on a subject that needs discussion.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Well, I’m not going to get involved in the Esau [Edom] Jacob [Israel] thing.
Thanks for the review Paul. Lobbyists have become all too powerful and its not just the Israeli one as they, lobbyists, represent special interest groups that undermine majority rule Democracy.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Kari Konkola, if you don’t like what people write, then don’t read it. Simple enough. The so-called “blood guilt” of the Jews is a grave issue. It is not a teaching of the Catholic Church. To say so defames the Church and gives antisemites their ammo and accusers of putative antisemitism their ammo. To accuse the Church of fostering this heresy is one of the tricks of Goldhagen & Co. To discuss it fits in just fine with Paul Gottfried’s theme. All the same I’ll help out Kari Konkola and advise that she not read what follows.
Paul, to answer your question, “who is responsible for Our Lord’s death?” I shall have to discuss the complex dogma of the Redemption, discuss it the best I can as a Catholic Christian. Two preliminary remarks.
1. The Jews are not the one who committed Deicide, not even a few of them. Not even the candidate that the NT text singles out, Pilate, a Roman, was responsible. “Father, forgive. They know not what they do,” renders the Jews and Pilate innocent.
2. As bad as the “Jew as Deicide” theory is, there is a worst one called “Penal Substitutional Atonement”, originating in Calvin: that supposedly the Father wishes to kill us and decides to kill his Son instead. This theory thus has the Father responsible for killing the Son, the Father as the Deicide. Were this theory true, then the Father Himself, per impossibile, would need the Redemption for killing an innocent man.
So we need to work our way there the correct dogma of the Redemption, step by step. Call this theory the Kenosis (“emptying”) theory, based on the very early Christian hymn that St. Paul quotes in Philippians 2: 5-11.
1. Start with the Blessed Trinity, the inner life of the One God. In the Blessed Trinity that relation called “Son” always gives Himself totally ("empties" Himself) to the Father. This means that from eternity The Son is always the Self-Emptying One, always the obedient Crucified One. The Father, in turn, always bestows upon the Son glory. This means that from eternity The Son is always the Resurrected One.
2. Upon His incarnation through the Mother of God and throughout His entire earthly life, the Son continued always to give Himself totally to the Father, and to live always totally for the Father. This means that throughout His entire earthly life He was always the Crucified One. And, as the Transfiguration proves, He was also always the Resurrected One. The Eastern Church is particularly good about this matter, taking the dogma from St Irenaeus, sometimes called the “recapitulation theory of the redemption”. And the instrument of the incarnation is the Blessed Virgin, and hence the emphasis upon her in the Eastern Church.
3. Satan wars with God. Satan could win only by making the Son not live for the Father and not give Himself totally the Father. When the Son was on the Cross, Satan did the ultimate to get the Son to curse the Father. Satan failed. The Son lived for the Father and gave himself totally to the Father to the end on the Cross. The Western Church is right to put special emphasis on the Cross as the supreme moment in the Redemption, when the temptation was strongest not to live for the Father. Von Balthazar goes even further in his theology. On Holy Saturday the Son descended into Hell, and thus went as far from the Father as one can go, and He stilled lived only for the Father.
4. Thus the Father raised the obedient, meritorious Son in glory from the dead.
5. Now for what I shall call the “unification” theory of salvation, salvation being how the Redemption is applied to humans: We do not live for the Father and give ourselves totally to the Father. This is, existentially, what sin is. We cannot do so, and this is, existentially, what original sin is.
6. How is this overcome? Because the Son overcome all temptation not to live for the Father, then it is by our union with the Son, by our becoming sons in the Son, filii in Filio, that we are enabled to live totally for the Father. This is effected first by the Son becoming man (and only in this sense is His sacrifice to the Father vicarious); it is effected second, normally and normatively, by reception of the sacraments, beginning in Baptism. (Romans 6:1-4, the Paschal Mystery). In a sacrament, one is united in and with the Son, and dies and rises in and with the Son, and thus gives oneself to the Father in and with the Son, and thus receives through the Son what was bestowed upon Him by the Father: glory and eternal life. Thus this is what is correctly meant by “Jesus saves”.
Now my sketch is indeed very sketchy. I don’t have the time or space to tie up the lose ends and cite all the proofs. As I said, the Redemption is a very complex dogma, with many aspects. I ask readers therefore for their indulgence and for their reflection.
For our purposes, to answer the opening question, we can say that it was Satan, in attempting to get the Son to not live for the Father and give himself totally to the Father, who killed the Son; and thus Satan is the Deicide and the only Deicide. But because the Son kept on giving Himself to the Father, Satan lost, his power was killed, and the Son and those in the Son live.
Enough then with the heretical teaching of “Jew as Deicide”. Enough with Goldhagen’s liable of the Church for a supposed teaching which she does not teach. Some other charges of Antisemitism are equally false, as Paul Gottfried discusses.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thanks Paul,while far from perfect, Jimmy Carter’s book and the Walt and Mearsheimer report have brought the issue to the forefront.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
there is a worst one called “Penal Substitutional Atonement”
It’s just called “the Atonement.” Adam sinned and left us with the curse of original sin. Christ is incarnate, lives a sinless life, died, rose and takes away sin. I rejoice in it—and I don’t have to rely on speculation on the inner life of the Trinity. Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet, in as much as He was given by the Father for them; and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both, freely, not for any thing in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
About Kenosis: Christ did not empty Himself of the form of God. Instead, human nature added to Christ’s divine nature. “When we see the glory and majesty and power of the One who is here condescending to enter into creaturely existence when He Himself is the Creator, we can begin to appreciate how this act of being made nothing is properly described as taking the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of man.”
This “deicide” stuff implies the heresy of patripassionism and I don’t think much about it. Only the doctrine of substitutionary atonement in Calvinism and Lutheranism does justice to the facts. The issue of AIPAC pales in comparison. To those who have an ear, let them hear.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It is always good to go to the Horse’s mouth about Deicide:
“...from the Jews who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets” I Thes. 2.14-15, Nestle-Aland, Greek-English.
Who in the words of St. Paul killed Jesus Christ? The Jews.
“And it shall come to pass when all these things shall have come upon thee, the blessing AND THE C-U-R-S-E, which I have set before thy face, and thou shalt call them to mind among the nations, wherein the Lord shall have scattered thee...” LXX, Deut. 30.1
Here it is to the Leftist Vatican II heretical Catholics---The Jews are the bearers of a Curse! The Jews are an Accursed race! It is right there in black and white.
The Jews are Deicides and they are accursed. I find it funny, their perpetual hypocrisy. It is a crime to be a “Holocaust-denier” yet they deny that they killed Christ!! These hypocrites throw anybody in jail for DENYING THEIR ersatz religion of the Holocaust but turn around and deny they killed Christ and are responsible! They are semper hypocritalis. The Jew never lets the German forget about the Holocaust but about the Jew killing of Christ--not only are we NOT to remember it, we are to forget it.
What is that Parable that Jesus spoke about the merchant that owed a person money? He begged forgiveness but when he went out a free men starting harrasing his debtors!!! This is the sign of Hypocrites!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Wow!........................... I am not here to argue Catholic
doctrine, as I am an Alabama Protestant disgusted enough with
Televangilists draining the elderly while assisting the “Lobby”
in it’s efforts to encourage Christian Zionist....I very much appreciated
the book, hopeing that Southerners will take the time to understand
how America’s foreign policy has been hijacked! Not a very dogmatic person
myself, it horifies me when I ask fellow protestants the difference in
a Hebrew, an Israelite, and a Jew? Most think Zionist is an ethnic
slur word used by Arabs such as wop, or kike. Most of the intelectuals
on this site may not realize that the book may be somes first introduction
to the “Lobby”, and help cancel out their misplaced sympathy for
false beliefs.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Oh dear, lost in the arcana of Catholic theology again. Just call me a Austra-whiskypalian.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
And here’s a serious question for my friends Sid and Boyd (and others), whose discussions about the spiritual state of “the Jews” gave rise to so much theological dispute beyond my poor capacity to follow:
Personally I’m a bit addicted to Occam’s Razor - or more accurately, to Ball’s machete - so I just wonder, why should Christians care about the spiritual status of “the Jews” at all, except insofar as Christians are obliged to profess the Gospel to all Mankind?
Judaism isn’t Christianity; therefore Christians ought to hope for the conversion of the Jews, and witness to them just like to everyone else. But otherwise, why bother to devote so much energy to analysing Vatican doctrines and Church councils concerning the Jews? Why not simply say they’re not Christians, and leave it at that?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
As this colloquy is going nowhere, I don’t intend to engage you any further.
I knew you could not produce ONE Magisterial Document supporting your antisemitism.
So, the schism is reduced to giving more authority to the private opinions of a priest - Fr Fahey - than to the Teachings of an Ecumenical Council.
Protestants in Fiddlebacks following the personal opinions of an excommunicated priest. And that, for you guys,is what Tradition means.
As you folks also have an extreme (and wrong) idea about EENS, what does it say that your leader, Lefebvre, died EENS?
And does it make any sense that y’all followed lefebvre in walking the plank off the Barque of Peter even though he signed every one of the Documents of Vatican Two?
Do you even begin to realise how kooky that is?
He signed the Documents BEFORE he repudiated them is, I guess, what y’all think constitutes Tradition.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
why should Christians care about the spiritual status of “the Jews” at all, except insofar as Christians are obliged to profess the Gospel to all Mankind?
The sspx schism promotes the heresy the Jews as a race are cursed. They promote themselves as representing Tradition.
So, as a Catholic, I take every opportunity that I can to grab them by their Fiddlebacks and spin them around so the world can see the face of evil.
The idea God cursed the Jews as a race is stormfront theology.
So, Mr. Cathey has been exposed as a fraud succoring a schism. He can’t cite ONE Document from an Ecumenical Council, he can’t cite ONE Catechism, he can’t cite ONE Encyclical teaching the heresy he and the sspx promote.
Schismatic orcs are Protestants in Fiddlebacks drowning in a schismatic sea and all they can do, in their death throes, is to scream hatred at the Jews.
Antisemitism is the rennin binding the schism.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@ Mr “I am not Spartacus”, who wrote:
“The idea God cursed the Jews as a race is stormfront theology.”
I agree, although I disagree with your invective calling Boyd Cathey a “fraud succoring a schism.” In my opinion, Boyd Cathey is a real Christian, and a Gentleman, even if I don’t agree with 100 percent of his nut-job theology. Aren’t ALL Christians a bit insane? Isn’t Christianity a kind of Divine Madness?
To Hell with all of these temporal disputations about the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is where I can come in and demonstrate how we Anglo-Catholics have an indispensable role to play in the Christian Church, by reminding our Christian brethren about COMMON SENSE in a very English way ("non Angli, sed Angeli"):
1. God is reality, and vice versa.
2. God became Man and - in some mysterious way which NO MORTAL MAN WILL EVER REALLY UNDERSTAND - God chose to die on the cross.
3. The Cross of Christ is the centre of the universe and of all History, throughout the universe.
4. Salvation of Humans - who are born as beasts with original sin - comes only through the cross of Christ
5. All else is intrigue and political bullshit.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
For those who can read, I refer you back to my response
to Spartacus; specific references are given and cited. His
hatred and bitterness are transparent for all to see.
Filii hominem,usquequo grave corde? Ut quid diligitis vanitatem, et
quaeritis mandacium?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
John,
Thank you for your comment, which I reciprocate. You and I have not
always agreed, but I respect you and your intelligence, as well as
your contributions to these threads.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
What does “fiddleback” mean in the context of this thread?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
1. If anyone believes a few Jews and a few Romans guilty of Deicide, the only response if that such a view isn’t New Testamental. Luke 23: 34 “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” means “they” are not guilty of Deicide. They may well have been guilty of killing an innocent man, but not of Deicide. Thus Lindsey Wheeler is quite wrong, aside from taking Bible verses grossly out of co-text and context. And if a few Jews and a few Romans are not guilty of Deicide, then who the hell (so to speak) is? Are we to understand Good Friday as some sort of tragic, horrible, calamitous misunderstanding, as in the case of Oedipus? Such a view is also not New Testamental. I have identified the most likely suspect for the crime of Deicide: Satan.
2. If someone believes that a god intentionally killed his innocent divine son, then the rest of us, having some moral sensibility, would rightly ask, Why should such a god be worthy of any glory, laud, and honor? This view of “Penal Substitutional Atonement” is also not New Testamental. In the sentence, used often enough in the NT, “Christ died for us”, the preposition “for” is ambiguous in English. It is not ambiguous in the Koine Greek. The word is hyper, which NEVER means “instead of”, “in place of”, or “as a substitute for”. It always means “on behalf of”, “on account of” and “in the interests of”. Sometimes for “for” the NT uses peri, “concerning” or “about” and drifts in soteriological use to being largely synonymous with hyper. dia and heneka “because of” never occur in the NT in a soteriological meaning. See John McIntyre (a Scottish Presbyterian), The Shape of Soteriology, 1992, chapter 4. Also “atonement” is not a Biblical word. Yom Kippur means “the day of the removing [of blame, guilt]”
3. If someone believes that the event of Good Friday means that the religious leaders of tribe X killed the religious leader of tribe Y, and that thus tribe Y must forever hate tribe X, then I know of no Christian group who teach such, if for no other reason than nothing redemptive can be found in such a view. Nor is it New Testamental. Were a Christian group to so teach, they would rightly be accused of “Antisemitism”. But the charge of Goldhagen does not stick. And it certainly does not stick to the Catholic faith. Were some Catholic leader to have said such a thing, so much the worse for him.
4. If Peter Ramus rejects Deicide, then for the purpose of this discussion, he and I come out at the same place.
5. John Ball is correct, though he may not know it. Jews await the coming of the Messiah, the Christos. That makes them Christians. Paul beautiful reflection on the Jews and Christians in Romans, chapters 9-11 ought be everyone’s spiritual reading today.
6. I again beg Spartacus to cool it with respect to SSPX. We are in a delicate period of negotiation that obliges lowered voices and diplomatic language. The SSPX has a wonderful gift to give to the Church.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“fiddleback” is a kind of vestment, a style of a chasuble, and is popular with the Mass in the Extraordinary Form.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid, thank you very much for your reply. I understand the limitations of such an effort. I will reflect upon your words, which are pretty straightforward in opposing the deicide doctrine. If I come to a different conclusion I’ll try to post it here. However, I would like to notice that in your last post you seem to hold that the jews are christians. If you really think that, I should tell you that you are wrong, and most certainly wrong.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid, just to clarify my post: I ask if you really believe that jews are christians in any sense other than the one according to which they are christians because they await the Christos, which is a terrible and quite irresponsible misappropriation of the term.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Man, oh man.
What is it with the Catholics and the Jews?
When are you two going to stop arguing over
who runs the temple?
You want to carry the money bag? Fine. Just
keep it down, ok? The rest of us are trying
to enjoy ourselves.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid,
Rejecting Penal Substitutionary Atonement is heresy. It is the obvious teaching of the Bible. Why did Christ die if not as a sacrifice for our sins? Why were there sacrifices in the Old Testament if not to be a type of the once for all sacrifice that was to come? This is Gospel 101.
And people wonder why Fundamentalist think Catholics preach a different Gospel. It is because they do.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“"fiddleback” is a kind of vestment, a style of a chasuble, and is popular with the Mass in the Extraordinary Form.” - Sid Cundiff
Whew - I’m relieved. I thought maybe the SSPX people were being called a breed of poisonous spider.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Kirt...we ARE. You should see my tentacles.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Paul Gottfried wrote:
“It is highly unlikely that certain delicate missions, e.g., bombing Iraqi nuclear installations in 1978......”
A correction is in order as that is not the date of the attack on Iraq. June 7, 1981 was the date of the Israeli bombing of the Osirak reactor 18 miles south of Baghdad, on the orders of Prime Minister Menachem Begin.
A comment; gezzz guys, the Catholic pilpul is tired and trite already. You sure know how to mess up a thread; how about staying on topic.
On the Israeli Lobby, a comment; Zionism has destroyed Judaism and The Lobby is front and center in that destruction. When Rabbi Hillel was told by a gentile that he, the gentile, would convert to Judaism if the Rabbi could teach him the Torah while standing on one foot the Rabbi replied:
“That which is abhorrent to you do not do to your neighbor. All the rest is commentary, now go and study the Torah.”
The Israeli state was founded through mass, illegal immigration of eastern European Jews and terrorism by the various Jewish terrorist organizations in British Mandate Palestine between the world wars. Every Israeli prime minister except for the current one, Ehud Olmert, started their careers as terrorist. The Israelis have been destabilizing the Arab world since the founding of the modern state of Israel. Many documented false flag operations have been undertaken by the Israelis to drag us into their mess; Lavon Affair, USS Liberty, etc., as well as con fellow Jews from around the world to march to Zionist ideology.
The Arabs are not like the Vietnamese. They will not likely forget nor forgive like the mostly Buddhist influenced Vietnamese. The more the IDF brutalizes the Palestinians the harder it will be to reconcile the issues that must eventually be faced and reconciled. America will soon loose its dominance due to its reckless actions internationally and declining economy; a function of diminished productive capacity and imperial hubris. The bill for the US’s profligate behavior will come due and when it does, if the Israelis have not made an honest peace with their neighbors, the future does not seem bright for them. As we sow, so shall we reap.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
IF Y’ALL ARE LOOKING FOR HERESY, JUST LOOK AT THIS:
John Hagee Says Jesus Isn’t the Messiah but the Apostle Paul Disagrees
Published November 4th, 2007 by Ken Silva in False Teachers, Word Faith
Who are you going to believe? Because in his book In Defense of Israel John Hagee writes:
Jesus refused to drink the Messiah’s cup… In refusing to drink the cup, Jesus rejected to the last detail the role of Messiah in word or deed. The Jews did not reject Jesus as Messiah; it was Jesus who rejected the Jewish desire for him to be their Messiah. (144, 145, emphasis his)
But the inspired Apostle Paul disagrees:
there was a synagogue of the Jews. And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” (Acts 17:1-3)
See also: John Hagee Says: “Jesus Did Not Come to be the Messiah”
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/10/john_hagee_says.html
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/10/john_hagee_says.html
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I agree, although I disagree with your invective calling Boyd Cathey a “fraud succoring a schism.” In my opinion, Boyd Cathey is a real Christian, and a Gentleman,
You are right to call me on that, Mr. Ball. I apologise. And I apologise to you Mr. Cathey. I ought not have used the word “fraud.” It is obvious you truly believe what you write. And it is just as obvious what you believe has never been taught as Doctrine by the Catholic Church.
In fact, just the opposite has been taught by the most recent Ecumenical Council.
Sometimes, I enjoy fighting too much and I get a bit splenetic.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
John Hagee, heretic in chief and the Sidster, Perfect Together.
TO QUOTE THE SIDSTER:
5. John Ball is correct, though he may not know it. Jews await the coming of the Messiah, the Christos. That makes them Christians. Paul beautiful reflection on the Jews and Christians in Romans, chapters 9-11 ought be everyone’s spiritual reading today.
6. I again beg Spartacus to cool it with respect to SSPX. We are in a delicate period of negotiation that obliges lowered voices and diplomatic language. The SSPX has a wonderful gift to give to the Church.
Posted by Sid Cundiff on Nov 13, 2007.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I again beg Spartacus to cool it with respect to SSPX. We are in a delicate period of negotiation that obliges lowered voices and diplomatic language. The SSPX has a wonderful gift to give to the Church.
Mr. Cundiff. I think you are correct vis a vis the Church trying to romance the schism back home and I think it is very apparent just by reading their public words.
However, when it comes to my response (and it is always a response, I don’t start the fight) the gloves are off.
I treat the schism like the Early Church Fathers treated a schism. With masculine forcefullness.
St. Irenaeus:
He shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, [positively] destroy it,—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. Matthew 23:24 For no reformation of so great importance can be effected by them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism. He shall also judge all those who are beyond the pale of the truth, that is, who are outside the Church; but he himself shall be judged by no one. For to him all things are consistent: he has a full faith in one God Almighty, of whom are all things; and in the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom are all things, and in the dispensations connected with Him, by means of which the Son of God became man; and a firm belief in the Spirit of God, who furnishes us with a knowledge of the truth, and has set forth the dispensations of the Father and the Son, in virtue of which He dwells with every generation of men, according to the will of the Father.
The SSPX thinks itself the preserver of tradition. I am just using the traditional approach they supposedly cherish.
But, of course, that is not what they want. They roar when they attack and mewl when they are counter-attacked. They can not tolerate being called to account for their perfidy and their doctrinal perversions, their inanities and hatreds, their prideful preening about Tradition.
I want nothing to do with them back as they currently are. They have a LOT to be called to account for but they will not admit doing a single thing wrong.
Besides, all the happy talk about we-are-almost-in-agreement BS is promoted by THEM.
You know what Pope Benedict believes about the Jews and the Council and the Mass. Do you really think he has not privately read the riot act to these clowns?
Remember, No Jurisdiction, No Ministry remains Traditional Orthopraxis.
Of course that had to be abandoned once he who had no Jurisdiction (lefebvre) decided to try and create his own Bishops.
A wise-guy,like myself, could point out how similar in behavior to Kerry was Mons. Lefebvre, who voted for every Vatican Two Document.
“I was for it before I was against it.”
Other than haughtiness, material and formal heresies, antisemitism, ignorance about the Mass, rejection of an Ecumenical Council, opposition to the Pope, what is it they bring to the Church?
The fact if the matter is they have no intention of a reunion. These little “Oh, we are SO close to a deal” plays are intended to keep the duped succoring the schism and filling the collection basket. It keeps them in line. “Support us or Tradition dies.” Imagine being so cruelly manipulated by those who ought know better? Imagine being propagandised that YOU are personally responsible for keeping Tradition alive? Very cruel and heartless, not to mention quite mad.
Do you really think Fellay desires to slip into anonymity? Come on...Were it not for the schism nobody would know or concern themselves with him.
Currently, the priest Fellay is sitting in Satan’s Schismatic Saddle, riding the
Pale Horse of Ecclesiastical Pestilence,until he is unhorsed by an Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus death. Astride the beast, he exhorts his followers to
reject the authority of the Pope; astride the beast, he exhorts his followers to
think the Mass evil; astride the beast he exhorts his followers to think an
Ecumenical Council heretical; astride the beast, he exhorts his followers to think all Jews are cursed as a race....and I will keep publicly confronting that
clown by mocking him, and by painting as stark and accurate a rhetorical
portrait of him, and the schism, as I possibly can.
Mr. Cundiff. The sspx is a joke. It acts like Martin Luther. In Exsurge Domine we read this error condemned (Mr. Cathey and his buddies specialise in aping Luther)
A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of Councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved, or disapproved by any Council whatsoever.
The SSPX has calcified into a permanent schism. Of course I desire individuals repent and return to the Church.
But the chances the sspx returns en masse?
There is a better chance the next Pope will be a female Eskimo.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Fred, that Hagee is a heretic has been much discussed here. His belief in a “dual covenant” is clearly heretical.
Sid, what are you arguing? That Jews don’t need to accept Christ (get saved, be born again, convert, choose your terminology)?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
1.)"Therefore Christians ought to hope for the conversion of the Jews” This was the position of every Christian tradition until Vatican II put it down the memory hole. Modern Catholics say that Jews and Christians are “spiritually linked,” in Neuhaus’ words, but they never define that.
2.) “Protestants in Fiddlebacks” refers to the claim that SSPX wraps itself in tradition ("fiddlebacks"), yet violates Catholic teaching. The problem wth SSPX is that it sees the problems in Vactican II, yet embraces the errors of Trent and Vatican I. Rome itself is in rebellion against the true tradition, which was salvaged by Luther and Calvin. Rather than reform, it split Christendom. Vatican II was blowback. Do you people really think that error and modernism appeared sui generis at the council?
3.) God became incarnate and chose to die on the cross to atone for sin, as the New Testament explains. True, “Atonement” is not a Bible word, but neither is “Trinity.” Point is that without Christ’s shed blood on the Cross, humanity dies in its sins. There are no more sacrifices.
4.) To say “the Cross of Christ is the center of the universe” is a big step toward classical Protestantism there. We are the religion of the Cross. Catholicism is the religion of (false) glory.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Cathey and his buddies specialize in aping Luther.
The Missouri and Wisconsin Lutheran synods would love to have them. Come home, gentlemen, and find rest unto your souls. Please read “The Conservative Reformation” by Charles Krauth. tinyurl.com/2nrmxf
Click to flag this comment as abusive
1. And people wonder why Fundamentalist think Catholics preach a different Gospel. It is because they do.
Yep, and we also preach the New Testament’s Gospel on the Redemption, as I have demonstrated. Of course the Redemption involved sacrifice. It just was not a “penal substitutional” sacrifice of a meek, sweet, blue-eyed, blond Son who wouldn’t hurt a fly, and a vengeful, hateful Father zapping an innocent man. If someone wishes to believe this, that’s their privilege under the First Amendment, for it is not I who believes in coercing religion or a “Christian Commonwealth”. My point is that this view of the Redemption, with its origin in Calvin, just isn’t New Testamental. It doesn’t even appear into Church history until the 16th Century.
2. Even if I had said, more correctly, “makes Jews IN A SENSE ‘Christians’”, would little Sammy Spade then understand?
3. Red Phillips, what I preach about Christians and Jews is what St. Paul preached and prophesied in Romans, chapters 9-11. The Jews, Paul says, WILL accept Christ. You (and the 6th Session of Trent, the Degree on Justification) have correctly described the normal and normative way one receive the fruits of the Redemption (though I have heard some Evangelical “decisionists” state the matter in semi-Pelagian terms, but not most). But let’s not bind the Almighty to one method: cf. Romans 11: 33-36!
4. Spartacus, Rome has been very careful not to use the word “schism” in referring to the SSPX, and to this extent Boyd Cathey is correct, and for this reason I have used “not in full union with Rome”—a phrase factually correct, but maybe also not helpful. I have suggested that certain terms are attempts to facilitated good will as a prelude to negotiations, negotiations that may be already underway. Spartacus, lets lower our voices and see how things play out. Full disclosure: I am helping with a Mass in the Extraordinary Form (MEF), approved by the local Ordinary, myself serving as switch-board operator and usher. A number of fine members of the SSPX have stepped forward, are attending our local MEF, and have been more than generous with their time and resources. I’m not about to turn my back on these folk. I welcome them, with gratitude. And as I have said many times, they have a very precious liturgical gift to offer the Church.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It just was not a “penal substitutional” sacrifice of (blasphemy deleted).
Sid, without the active obedience of Christ, we have no hope. Christ is our perfect Prophet, Priest, and King. As Prophet, Christ preached personally during His life on earth, validating His word with miracles, especially His own resurrection—and through the preached Gospel today still proclaims Himself to be the Son of God and Redeemer of the world. As Priest, Christ fulfilled the Law perfectly in our stead (active obedience), sacrificed Himself for our sins (passive obedience) and still pleads for us with His heavenly Father (intercession). As King, Christ rules with His almighty power over all creation, governs and protects especially His church, finally leads His church to glory in heaven. Let anyone who denies this be anathema.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
My point is that this view of the Redemption, with its origin in Calvin, just isn’t New Testamental.
The NT teaches it repeatedly. Christ paid a debt I could never pay. How else may weak, perverse and guilty sinners find a gracious God?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Romans, chapters 9-11 ought be everyone’s spiritual reading today.
That section is a slam dunk for the Reformation. It makes no sense otherwise. Again, we have the tradition, while Rome has a huge payroll and real estate portfolio. Come and join us.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Rome hasn’t used the word “schism” because Msr. Lefebvre’s consecrations were not a schismatic act, as any well-informed catholic knows. However, the fact that SSPX set up courts to address matrimonial cases is considered by some as a schismatic act. I attend Mass celebrated by an SSPX priest, and, although I disagree with some doctrinal issues held by fraternity, I think their contribution is important not only in liturgy but also in doctrine.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I think their contribution is important not only in liturgy but also in doctrine.
So… how does this liturgical fetish affect the subject at hand? If a cleric says enough Latin Masses, will the peace process finally succeed? Will AIPAC pack up and go home? Will our troops come home?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Christ fulfilled the Law perfectly in our stead (active obedience), sacrificed Himself for our sins [emphasis added]
I’m not sure there’s much I disagree with Peter Ramus the first two replies to my most recent writeback. He ignores the real issue where we clash, what “for” means in the Greek NT, as I clearly stated. “in our stead” isn’t what hyper and peri mean. Check this out, Peter Ramus, in your Aland/Metzger edition.
Exactly how Romans chapters 9-11 is “Reformational” is beyond me. It deals with Christian-Jewish relations. What is more, the New Perspectives on Paul movement, a movement among Protestants like E. P. Sanders, demolished Luther and Calvin’s reading of St. Paul. Which means the entire Reformation has no basis.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
>>So… how does this liturgical fetish affect the subject at hand?
Ramus, Mearsheimer’s book is no longer the subject of this thread but this is no problem provided we keep the high level of the debate
>>If a cleric says enough Latin Masses, will the peace process finally succeed?
Not a chance, but this is not a good cleric’s concern anyway
>> Will AIPAC pack up and go home? Will our troops come home?
Not a chance, unless if you vote Ron Paul.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Not a chance, but this is not a good cleric’s concern anyway
This obsession is maddening. Latin Masses are the ultimate absurdity of high churchliness, a religion of straining gnats and swallowing camels. Quit building those altars and start setting up tables. Christ made the final sacrifice. Snap out of it, people.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
What is more, the New Perspectives on Paul movement, a movement among Protestants like E. P. Sanders, demolished Luther and Calvin’s reading of St. Paul.
That bit of sophistry only works if you boot large amounts of the New Testament out of the canon—or you bury your reader in postmodern jargon. Either way, it is a dishonest academic shell game.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Check this out, Peter Ramus, in your Aland/Metzger edition.
First, your whole theory rests on a speculative view of the Trinity. Second, if you follow Sanders, you are a modernist. Third, when God sees faith in Christ, he sees union with Christ, because the righteousness of Christ is our righteousness. God imputed our sins to Christ who is without sin – and He imputed his righteousness to those who were without righteousness. He takes our sin and we take his righteousness.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Ramus, you’re quite a good laugh. I like the way you proselytize, it’s funny. I especially liked the “overeducated paper pusher” thrown in on the Pope. Pity you’re a protestant, the Church could use an amusing proselytizer like you for the good cause…
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Pity you’re a protestant, the Church could use an amusing proselytizer like you for the good cause…
I’m Catholic, just not Roman. I’m following the True Tradition. I even oppose contraception, read scholastics and refer to Mary as the Theotokos. I do not accept the Tridentine retcon of Church history, just as many here reject the Vatican II order. They oppose the symptoms, while I oppose the disease. Even if I believed the Tridentine faith, what’s the point? That religion no longer exists. Luther and Calvin left us with a coherent faith, while Rome might as well be the Fourth International. I can secede, while you are prisoners of the system.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“The Jews, Paul says, WILL accept Christ.”
Yes, but the ones who aren’t doing so now are just as in need of a Savior as every other lost sinner.
What is all the extra that the Catholic Church adds to the clear message of the Gospel (Mass, confession, sacraments, priests, Purgatory, Mariology,) if not semi-Pelagian? The anti-Pelagian position is the Protestant position of Faith alone which you denounce.
As I pointed out before, the New Paulian Perspective has been roundly denounced as heretical. (Personally I see any kind of sacramentalism as extremely problematic.) It only “demolishes” Luther and Calvin if you are predisposed to believe it does.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“That religion no longer exists. Luther and Calvin left us with a coherent faith”
Traditional Catholicism is getting strong every day and Rome is aeterna. It is Luther and Calvin who don’t exist anymore.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Traditional Catholicism is getting strong every day and Rome is aeterna.
Well, last time I checked, Rome was peddling social justice, universal human rights, environmental “stewardship” and other wonderful bits of Holy Tradition. Mother Church is a big leftist bureaucracy, comparable to the United Nations and Norman Podhoretz’s cocktail parties. Phooey!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
You’re a bunch of loony, anti-Semitic cranks.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Rome hasn’t used the word “schism” because Msr. Lefebvre’s consecrations were not a schismatic act, as any well-informed catholic knows.
Ahem…
+++++++++++++ begin quotes +++++++++
Ecclesia Dei…
In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)
4. The root of thisschismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, “comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.(5)
But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the min