CathInfo.com

How the Lubavicher Rebbe and his followers are to be pitied for God’s curse, the veil of ignorance over their eyes.  They indeed are clever, seeing many things, but blind to the Gift of God, their Savior, Jesus Christ.  They wander in darkness, unable as yet, to see the forest for the trees, unable to discern between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Man, for, when given the opportunity to submit to God’s rule, they stubbornly chose the broad path of self-destruction. The unseen truth of the Rebbe’s 1980 talk is that his own people, the Jews, are the lion, and those who sin seven times a day are the Catholics (Christians).  

While the Rebbe quotes the Ba’al Shem Tov, he speaks of the lion crouching down before lifting up his prey, it is not for spiritual victory or for charity to his fellow man. Perhaps in his life, the Rebbe never visited the Bronx Zoo, watched the Discovery Channel, or observed alley cats stalking mice behind his complex at 770 Eastern Pkwy?  St. Peter likens the lion to Satan who goes about seeking souls to devour. [1Peter 5:8] In Genesis 49:9, the word “crouches” is used in the willed sense, the man lowers himself down for the purpose of lifting his prey, “lifting” also an action willed by the man. Why does he will to go down before going up?  It is to hunt down, lift up, and devour!  Righteousness is not the motivation for the actions of either the actual lion or by analogy, the man.  The lion follows instinct, the man, his fallen nature stained by Original Sin.  

The Rebbe refers to Proverbs 24:16, but again, paraphrases the Ba’al Shem Tov who incorrectly interprets the verse regarding the word “falls.”  The righteous man indeed falls seven times a day, but the word is not the same as “crouches (down).”  His fall is an unwilled action imposed upon him by acquiescence to an outside force, namely, the devil. Then he “rises (up),” rises being in the passive sense, that the Lord does the raising, upon recognizing both the weakness and the righteousness of the soul who desires Him over the enemy. Not only is the man restored to grace, (sorrow, confession, desire for amendment), but in his raising up, he blesses and inspires his fellow man.

St. Paul, once known as Saul of Tarsus, Pharisee of Pharisees, clarifies the matter, proving the verses are not analogous, but diametrically opposed to one another so that they cannot be reconciled.  The contrast is of the Hell-bound man of reprobate heart and the Heaven-bound man whose heart is righteous, like Noah of old, finding grace in the eyes of God.

Saint Paul, who refers to himself as “the least of the apostles,” writes,

“What shall we say, then?  Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?  
God forbid!   For we that are dead to sin, how shall we live any longer therein?
Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death?
For we are buried together with Him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection.”  [Romans 6:1-6]

Good question SM,
St. Paul the Jew actually accused St. Peter of "judaizing".  

Found some good posts that clearly he was a Jew.

The gospels say that Peter’s birth name was Simon, which is generally assumed to be Semitic, but it can also be Greek. In the gospels, his brother is called Andrew, which is a Greek name and therefore an important guide to the ethnic background of Peter. At this point, the evidence would point to Peter being a gentile. Peter is portrayed as being a Galilean fisherman, but Galilee was a province populated by both Jews and gentiles. On the other hand, Peter seems to have been an observant Jew, familiar with Jєωιѕн teachings. In Mark 8:29, Peter calls Jesus the Christ (Messiah), which surely only a Jew would do.

In his epistles, Paul portrays Cephas (Peter) as the apostle to the Jews, a role for which a gentile would hardly be suited, and with Jerusalem as his base. This is very strong evidence that Peter was a Jew.

In summary, there is mixed evidence in the gospels as to whether Peter was a Jew or a gentile, but Paul’s testimony indicates convincingly that he was a Jew.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Yes, Simon Peter was a Jew.

Church tradition says that Peter’s wife was named Perpetua. Her father, Aristobulus, was a son of Andronicus, who was the son of Miriam, the daughter of Jacob, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who was the father of Joseph of Nazareth.

So Peter already had an indirect relationship with Jesus through his wife.

In addition, he and his brother, Andrew, were business partners with Zebedee and his sons. Zebedee was the older brother of Mary the mother of Jesus

So, here again, Peter was already well acquainted with Jesus before he was ever asked to become a disciple.

The only differences I can readily see, according to John's Last Gospel, when "Christ came unto His own", Peter received him, unlike the others.

Related to that, I would think he would have been exempt from the Pharisee's racial curse, of, "Let His blood be upon us and our children!"

Last point is that there is a Church custom, that converted jews cannot go in clerical rank beyond the priesthood.   I don't have the Church source for this, but I've spoken to ex seminarians who are aware of it too.   Why would this custom or provision be?   Because of the jew's propensity to fall back to judaism.  It appears to be a genetic weakness and I would attribute that to the blood curse mentioned above.

There's Jєωιѕн lineage in the modern popes, from Pope Pius XII onwards.  Not sure about John XXIII, but he was clearly masonic.  Francis very likely is Jєωιѕн.

Good information.  I had never heard all of this before.  Forgive me if I'm being simplistic or showing streaks of Novus Ordo brainwashing, but I thought it was just a "given" that all of the twelve Apostles were Jews.  Looking at it from another angle, how common would it have been, in first-century Palestine, for a gentile --- and what kind of gentiles would these have been, Greeks, Arabs? --- to take up with a nascent Jєωιѕн-derived religious sect, led by Someone Who was perceived as just a Jєωιѕн teacher, albeit a teacher who taught as no other teacher had taught before?  I suppose anything's possible.

And what would the "genetic weakness" be?  I know the late comedian Jackie Mason (he was good, quite conservative, pity he couldn't have been one of us) said "I have never known a completely healthy Jew", and that seems to bear out --- I had a Jєωιѕн boss (though ostensibly Christianized) before I retired, and that girl had everything in the world wrong with her, morbid obesity, digestive issues, allergies, you name it, even seemed to have misophonia and a narcissistic personality disorder.  (The short, terse word I would use to sum her up cannot be repeated here, but hint, it's very common in Australia.)

And keep in mind that, according to many accounts, JP2 was not the first Polish pope, St Pius X was.  His family name was Sarto, which was an Italian calque of the common Polish name "Krawczyk" (krov-chuk), which translates to "tailor".  It's always been common for Jews to be in the garment trade, indeed, my wife and I surmised that she might have distant Jєωιѕн ancestry, and her maiden name was one that evoked the garment trade as well (it wasn't Krawczyk).  I opined that she looked about as Jєωιѕн as Goldie Hawn or Amanda Bynes, but as it turns out...  and I would never in a million years taken Alyson Hannigan to be Jєωιѕн, Irish name, red hair, and all, but now that it's called to my attention, yeah, I can see it, there is something distinctive about the mouth, think Milton Berle, only less exaggerated.  We have a local news anchor, same thing, now that I know, it jumps out at me.  Gwyneth Paltrow would be another example, note her teeth and mouth sometime.  It's obvious.

So you never know.  My grandfather and uncle would not have looked a bit out of place at any ѕуηαgσgυє, in fact, I always thought of my uncle as kind of Jewy, picked up a fast, choppy Cleveland accent (think Dr Oz or Bob Hope) from years of living there, but no, Southern Appalachian hillbillies, not a drop.  My father, God rest his precious soul, always looked so Native American that we just took it for granted (somewhat resembled Bob Barker), but when we ran AncestryDNA, nope, not a drop of that either.