Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Nonno on June 27, 2011, 12:18:18 AM
-
It is incredible how you can still find people who make the claim that Catholicism is racist against Jews. You only have to ask such people how can they possible say that considering Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the Apostles were of that race.
-
Straight thinking is not a strength of moderns, or of fallen men in general. Let us be thankful that many are finally waking up to the fact that the Zionαzιs are lying, murderous thieves.
BTW, Nonno, welcome to the site :)
-
It is incredible how you can still find people who make the claim that Catholicism is racist against Jews. You only have to ask such people how can they possible say that considering Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the Apostles were of that race.
There are Catholics who give every appearance of being anti-semitic. I find the confusion understandable, not absurd at all.
-
Catholics are not Catholicism, but the confusion of which you speak, Jayne, is understandable because fallen men, myself included, are, at times, easily confused.
-
That is a good point, Jaynek. There is a huge confusion, and it is such an emotional issue most don't want to stop to clear it up, even when you try to make the proper distinctions.
The word "Jew" has basically two different meanings. One meaning is purely religious, the other biological. Catholicism is against Judaism, as any other false religion. Some people may emotionally call Catholicism antisemitic for that reason, which is most clearly mistaken.
Judaism is unique among false religions. It is so closely bound to race because originally God designed the true religion to be preserved among that specific race. After the Redemption, Judaism should have given way to Christianity as a caterpillar gives way to becoming a butterfly, and the true religion to be open to all men without regard to race - universal. However, those Jews insisting on sticking with so-called Judaism (without a biologically traceable priesthood any longer), became тαℓмυdic, and particularly anti-Christian in character. It wasn't until around the 18th or 19th centuries when Jews started up other branches, such as "Reformed Judaism" and even though they were basically non-religious and even atheistic, it became sort of "religious nationalism", keeping a semblance of race & holiness alive, and still being very anti-Christian.
This is where the major confusion comes in - even Jews brought up in families of atheistic Jews are brought up in handed-down/instilled anti-Christian attitudes based upon family sociological heredity. Statistically these Jews are also feared, but it is not because of "blood" that they are. It is because of what they happen to believe in that was naturally instilled by parents and their parents' parents, etc.
Today, however, this is very much thinned out, and the statistical fears are much lower.
-
Nonno, I think that is a good analysis of the confusion. And I also agree with GV's point about fallen human nature.
I look at this issue from the perspective of a person who was born and raised Jєωιѕн. After a few years as a Protestant, I became Catholic in my early 20s. So I have personally experienced that Jews need conversion. I strongly disagree with those who call it anti-semitic to say that Jews must accept Jesus Christ for salvation.
If all Catholic talk about Jews were focused on their need for salvation, I would have no concerns. I am concerned with people talking about Jews running the world and having all the power and being evil, untrustworthy and greedy.
-
I am concerned with people talking about Jews running the world and having all the power and being evil, untrustworthy and greedy.
If someone believes there is dominating Jєωιѕн power that is working on the wrecking of Christian society do you believe that is a sign of hatred?
I recommend you read Richard F. Burton's The Jew, the Gypsy and El Islam and Ariel Toaff's Bloody Passovers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Francis_Burton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Toaff
The Jew the Gypsy and El Islam (http://books.google.com/books?id=VHUWAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+jew+the+gypsy+and+el+islam&hl=en&ei=WZsITvCqHoaTtwezl93UDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)
http://www.bloodpassover.com/
In fact most of Richard F. Burton's book (about the Damacus Trial) was suppressed and the manuscript was acquired and remains in the hands of Jews to this day.
FYI Sedetrad is also someone who is ethnically Jєωιѕн.
-
I am concerned with people talking about Jews running the world and having all the power and being evil, untrustworthy and greedy.
The Judaics are concerned about it, too, because it is making it harder for them to complete the final stages of their ages-long plot.
These things are facts, Jayne, easily proved from Judaic docuмents. It is not called the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan for nothing.
-
If someone believes there is dominating Jєωιѕн power that is working on the wrecking of Christian society do you believe that is a sign of hatred?
Historically these beliefs are associated with people who feel the must defend themselves from this alleged Jєωιѕн power, often by violent means. And the conclusion follows logically enough from the premise. If Jews were a threat to Christianity, then we would have a right, even a duty to destroy them.
-
I am concerned with people talking about Jews running the world and having all the power and being evil, untrustworthy and greedy.
The Judaics are concerned about it, too, because it is making it harder for them to complete the final stages of their ages-long plot.
These things are facts, Jayne, easily proved from Judaic docuмents. It is not called the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan for nothing.
And what do you think is the solution to this problem?
-
Historically these beliefs are associated with people who feel the must defend themselves from this alleged Jєωιѕн power, often by violent means. And the conclusion follows logically enough from the premise. If Jews were a threat to Christianity, then we would have a right, even a duty to destroy them.
No, limiting their power to harm does not mean destroying them.
-
It is not "alleged", Jayne. It is an easily-discoverable fact. Who created WWs 1 and 2, and for what reasons? WHo is now arranging WW3 and for what reasons? Who do you think controls fiance? It isn't the Irish. Do you grasp how enormous it is to control the financial strings of the world? The Judaic system has brought the entire world to the brink of destruction. Read what the Popes said about the Judaics, who habitually pay kindness back like the proverbial rat in the sack (that phrase is not my own, but is from one of the Pontiffs).
-
What do you who believe this about Jews propose to do about it? How are you going to contain this threat? How are you going to stop these people you think are evil?
And while you are taking these steps, what are you going to do that will help them to understand that Christ is the Saviour of humanity and they must accept Him?
-
What do you who believe this about Jews propose to do about it? How are you going to contain this threat? How are you going to stop these people you think are evil?
Well the first thing is to let people know the facts about things so that they are no blind to what is going on in the world.
And while you are taking these steps, what are you going to do that will help them to understand that Christ is the Saviour of humanity and they must accept Him?
That's a good question, it's not easy to oppose Jews and evangelize them, but if they can be convinced of certain facts about the world and recognize the evils that a relatively small group of leading Jews are perpetrating, then the terrible fear of persecution that they are raised with can be moderated, and they can themselves can help to resist this rising spirit of Antichrist that the Church contends with.
-
What do you who believe this about Jews propose to do about it?
IMO, it is too late in the game to do much of consequence. Our forefathers allowed themselves to be ensnared and this will not stop until the Chastisement and the restoration that will follow.
How are you going to contain this threat?
Again, it is too late.
How are you going to stop these people you think are evil?
Just so we are clear, no one is saying all of the individuals are evil, Jayne. The overall ideology is certainly demonic and has perverted the formerly-Christian West.
And while you are taking these steps, what are you going to do that will help them to understand that Christ is the Saviour of humanity and they must accept Him?
Such a thing can only be accomplished in a case-by-case manner. For my part, I seek to do the truth in charity as well as I can. For the most part, however, their blindness and hardness of heart will not be overcome until the Chastisement has run its course.
Those with ears to hear will be led, by the grace of God, to the truth. This is happening more and more each day.
Opposition to the тαℓмυdic Zionαzιs and their satanic ideology is not the same thing as opposition to individuals who have been raised, completely or partially, under the influence thereof. As hard as it is to pull off in the practical order, it is possible to hate the evil ideas and love those who are deluded by them.
-
If you see Jews as a group that must be opposed that means you are an αnтι-ѕємιтє. When I say that I am anti-abortion it means that I am against abortion. When I say I am anti-pornography, it means I am against pornography. To be an αnтι-ѕємιтє means to be against Jews. If you see Jews as an evil to be opposed (as I see abortion and pornography) then you are an αnтι-ѕємιтє.
I am not talking about recognizing that Judaism is a false religion. Judaism rejects Christ and is a false religion. It is therefore evil as all false religions are. But believing that Jews as a race are an enemy to be opposed is anti-semitism. Even if what you believe about Jєωιѕн power were true, seeing Jews as an enemy to be resisted means you are anti-semitic.
-
If you see Jews as a group that must be opposed that means you are an αnтι-ѕємιтє. When I say that I am anti-abortion it means that I am against abortion. When I say I am anti-pornography, it means I am against pornography. To be an αnтι-ѕємιтє means to be against Jews. If you see Jews as an evil to be opposed (as I see abortion and pornography) then you are an αnтι-ѕємιтє.
I am not talking about recognizing that Judaism is a false religion. Judaism rejects Christ and is a false religion. It is therefore evil as all false religions are. But believing that Jews as a race are an enemy to be opposed is anti-semitism. Even if what you believe about Jєωιѕн power were true, seeing Jews as an enemy to be resisted means you are anti-semitic.
Firstly Semite dosn't mean Jew. Semite means any race originating from the semitic river. It also refers to those who speak semitic dialects. Ancient Hebrews did not speak a semitic dialect, Philistines did. Arabs are the largest semitic race.
Most modern Jews are decended from Kazar converts and they are of turkic origin.
Modern 'Hebrew' has more in common with Pheonician then ancient Hebrew, Philistines were Pheonicians, so were Carthaginians if you know history.
The term αnтι-ѕємιтє was created by the Jews in the late 19th century.
-
Jews are not the only semites and most modern Judaics are not, in fact, semitic.
To be an αnтι-ѕємιтє means to be against semites, or words do not mean anything.
I have studied this issue rather thoroughly and had this discussion 100 times before. I know what I am talking about.
-
If you see Jews as a group that must be opposed that means you are an αnтι-ѕємιтє. When I say that I am anti-abortion it means that I am against abortion. When I say I am anti-pornography, it means I am against pornography. To be an αnтι-ѕємιтє means to be against Jews. If you see Jews as an evil to be opposed (as I see abortion and pornography) then you are an αnтι-ѕємιтє.
Opposition to their collective action. If someone pretends they do not act collectively, and that these collective actions are not often harmful and in fact directly opposed to Catholicism, then there is a problem facing reality. (from what I've seen)
I am not talking about recognizing that Judaism is a false religion. Judaism rejects Christ and is a false religion. It is therefore evil as all false religions are. But believing that Jews as a race are an enemy to be opposed is anti-semitism.
Well, they do to a large extent constitute a "race" in the sense that they have a common origin and genetic similarities. But they are not opposed because they are a race. If they become true Christians then there isn't a problem.
Even if what you believe about Jєωιѕн power were true, seeing Jews as an enemy to be resisted means you are anti-semitic.
It all depends on how antisemitism is defined.
If I were to think the Jews are a biological pest like the nαzιs, that's a great deal different than thinking they have a certain character, organization, ideological tendency as a people.
-
Even if what you believe about Jєωιѕн power were true, seeing Jews as an enemy to be resisted means you are anti-semitic.
Judiac concentration of power is indisputable, Jayne. The end of your comment does not actually follow, no matter how much you think it does.
-
„Antisemitism ... if antisemitism is bad ... it is against truth. If something is true, it is not bad. I am not interested in the word antisemitism. The word is very dangerous.“
Bishop Williamson, 21.01.2009
-
Jews are not the only semites and most modern Judaics are not, in fact, semitic.
To be an αnтι-ѕємιтє means to be against semites, or words do not mean anything.
I have studied this issue rather thoroughly and had this discussion 100 times before. I know what I am talking about.
The etymology of a word is not necessarily it's lexical meaning. I majored in linguistics as an undergrad. I know what I am talking about. Words mean what they are used to mean. This may or may not be related to what the word's component morphemes mean. A grapefruit is not a kind of a grape. A donut is not a kind of a nut. An αnтι-ѕємιтє is not a person opposed to semites.
The word αnтι-ѕємιтє was coined to refer to Jews, not semites. It is irrelevant if Jews actually are semites. What the word means is opposition to Jews and it applies to you.
-
The word αnтι-ѕємιтє was coined to refer to Jews, not semites. It is irrelevant if Jews actually are semites. What the word means is opposition to Jews and it applies to you.
As Catholics we're interested in the meaning that Pope Pius XI gives to it.
Since Catholic Tradition would be called "antisemitic" as it was in opposition to "the Jews" (as Christ deniers, and in other respects that come from that), it couldn't be the meaning he was intending.
St. Pius V expelled the Jews from the Papal states. Was that antisemitism?
Is war with Germany anti-Germanism?
-
Well, they do to a large extent constitute a "race" in the sense that they have a common origin and genetic similarities. But they are not opposed because they are a race. If they become true Christians then there isn't a problem.
If I had all this power when I was a Jew, where did it go when I became a Catholic?
-
If I had all this power when I was a Jew, where did it go when I became a Catholic?
I have no idea what "power" you had as a Jew, but you were certainly a member of the group. Being no longer part of the group you cannot function as part of it. Like a soldier in an army, once he deserts, he no longer is part of the FORCE he once belonged to.
However, you have a characteristic Jєωιѕн love of discussion and debate, and you take it to cathinfo. Which is a fine thing. ;). I'm sure you influence people on the sites you post on.
-
As Catholics we're interested in the meaning that Pope Pius XI gives to it.
What meaning is that? Do you have a quote from him?
-
As Catholics we're interested in the meaning that Pope Pius XI gives to it.
What meaning is that? Do you have a quote from him?
What is he talking about in Mit Brennander Sorge?
It cannot be a condemnation of previous Christian attitudes towards Jews which are today called antisemitic.
-
If I had all this power when I was a Jew, where did it go when I became a Catholic?
I have no idea what "power" you had as a Jew, but you were certainly a member of the group. Being no longer part of the group you cannot function as part of it. Like a soldier in an army, once he deserts, he no longer is part of the FORCE he once belonged to.
When I was Jєωιѕн and since then, I have never personally seen any evidence of an organized force of Jews. I never took orders from anyone and never saw any reason to think any of my relatives were part of a functioning group. I have only seen an ethnic identity.
However, you have a characteristic Jєωιѕн love of discussion and debate, and you take it to cathinfo. Which is a fine thing. ;).
What is everybody else's excuse for being here? :laugh1:
-
If I had all this power when I was a Jew, where did it go when I became a Catholic?
Jayne,
I have read enough of your posts here and elsewhere to know you are both intelligent and good-willed. However, on this issue there seems to be some sort of disconnect. No one is saying that the rank and file Judaics are powerful -- in fact, many are the most oppressed, brainwashed people on earth, as they are endlessly processed by rabbinical insanities. To be fair, some or all of us may be doing a poor job expressing ourselves, but it is also possible that you are misunderstanding what we are saying. I have confidence that all will be well, provided all proceed with good will. Godspeed, dear.
-
When I was Jєωιѕн and since then, I have never personally seen any evidence of an organized force of Jews. I never took orders from anyone...
No one is saying all Jews gets memos about these things. As for an organized force, your lack of awareness does not mean it does not exist.
Do you grasp that the Money Masters are working together to enslave us all via debt servitude? Do you understand that this is but a means to an end? Do you know or even suspect what the end is? This a very big kettle of very smelly fish. Perhaps we could try to take it bit by bit.
-
The etymology of a word is not necessarily it's lexical meaning. I majored in linguistics as an undergrad.
I studied them at the graduate level. What now?
I know what I am talking about.
So do I, love.
Words mean what they are used to mean.
The Judaics have intentionally altered many words and this one they have filled with a certain 'charge' that serves their nefarious ends.
The word αnтι-ѕємιтє was coined to refer to Jews, not semites.
Who coined it? Uh, that would be self-serving Judaics, who admit to using it to get their way.
It is irrelevant if Jews actually are semites.
No, it is not. it is particularly germane and shows that those who coined the term, and use it to beat the world over the head for pretended crimes, are lying sacks.
What the word means is opposition to Jews and it applies to you.
If you say so :)
For my part, I am an anti-тαℓмυdist. I don't care what their racial makeup is or is not.
Do you grasp that Judaism -- i.e. rabbinical тαℓмυdism -- is NOT the religion of the OT Israelites? It did not even exist in the days of the OT, except in seminal form.
-
When I was Jєωιѕн and since then, I have never personally seen any evidence of an organized force of Jews. I never took orders from anyone and never saw any reason to think any of my relatives were part of a functioning group. I have only seen an ethnic identity.
I never claimed all ethnic Jews are consciously organized.
That there are such organizations though, and that they seek to have a dominating influence, is indisputable.
I strongly recommend you carefully read those links I posted. And also Leon de Poncins Judaism and the Vatican.
-
If you see Jews as a group that must be opposed that means you are an αnтι-ѕємιтє. When I say that I am anti-abortion it means that I am against abortion. When I say I am anti-pornography, it means I am against pornography. To be an αnтι-ѕємιтє means to be against Jews. If you see Jews as an evil to be opposed (as I see abortion and pornography) then you are an αnтι-ѕємιтє.
The fallacy in this statement is that Jews can be redeemed if they convert to the catholic religion. Abortion cannot, and neither can watching vile pictures. I am not against a particular race. I am against the collective crimes of the тαℓмυdics.
A catholic is not αnтι-ѕємιтє because he is the true semite spiritually. Otherwise it would be quite schizophrenic of us to venerate Abraham and the other Patriarchs etc.
If you read what St. Paul says about Cretans, surely you do not derive from that that he was 'anti-cretan'?
-
If I had all this power when I was a Jew, where did it go when I became a Catholic?
Jayne,
I have read enough of your posts here and elsewhere to know you are both intelligent and good-willed. However, on this issue there seems to be some sort of disconnect.
The disconnect is that it does not ring true to my personal experience in any way. When people say that Judaism is a false religion, that makes perfect sense to me. I can immediately think of countless examples that I have personally lived through. When people talk about Jews running the world, there is nothing in my life of knowing innumerable Jews to support it.
No one is saying that the rank and file Judaics are powerful -- in fact, many are the most oppressed, brainwashed people on earth, as they are endlessly processed by rabbinical insanities. To be fair, some or all of us may be doing a poor job expressing ourselves, but it is also possible that you are misunderstanding what we are saying. I have confidence that all will be well, provided all proceed with good will. Godspeed, dear.
After seeing this post, I am fairly certain that I am misunderstanding you. But I do have good will, so I hope you are correct that this will suffice.
-
Do you grasp that the Money Masters are working together to enslave us all via debt servitude? Do you understand that this is but a means to an end? Do you know or even suspect what the end is? This a very big kettle of very smelly fish. Perhaps we could try to take it bit by bit.
I think that multi-national corporations run the world and that governments are their puppets. Is that what you are talking about?
-
I think that multi-national corporations run the world and that governments are their puppets. Is that what you are talking about?
In a way, yes. Those corporations, however, are controlled, in turn, by the mostly-Judaic Money Masters. He who controls the money supply is king -- and the Rothschilds (Meyers), among others, control the money supply.
As for good will, I have no doubt about your own, sweetheart. These matters are not what we might style shallow. Still, many good-willed folks will end up on the right side of this war, even if they never understand very much about what has really been going on in the world, especially during the last few centuries. No biggie, as what is important is that things get set right so the average man many have a reasonable chance to support his family and save his soul. Right now, that is far, far too difficult -- and it due to the well-organized attack upon the Mystical Body and God's plan for a rightly-ordered world.
-
When people talk about Jews running the world, there is nothing in my life of knowing innumerable Jews to support it.
Do you have any idea what the тαℓмυd, which is THE sacred text of Judaism, says about non-Jews, or about Judaic women?
Many rank and file Judaics are completely ignorant of what their own 'sacred' texts say -- and what they say is UGLY. Further, this demonic philosophy is what drives the rabbinic elite, the policies of Zionαzι Israel, etc.
-
The etymology of a word is not necessarily it's lexical meaning. I majored in linguistics as an undergrad.
I studied them at the graduate level. What now?
Since this is a pretty basic concept in linguistics, I don't think that graduate studies are necessary to understand it.
Words mean what they are used to mean.
The Judaics have intentionally altered many words and this one they have filled with a certain 'charge' that serves their nefarious ends.
Everybody with the skill to do so uses language to support their ends. In your sentence above you use the non-standard "Judaics" and derogatory "nefarious". This is a sentence with a charge.
The word αnтι-ѕємιтє was coined to refer to Jews, not semites.
Who coined it? Uh, that would be self-serving Judaics, who admit to using it to get their way.
I do not dispute that accusations of anti-semitism are used to manipulate. I especially notice this in the interactions with the State of Israel. But they could use another word just as easily. According to Wikipedia (which is admittedly a questionable source) anti-semitism replaced "Judenhass" i.e. "jew hate". I don't see why they couldn't use this word in the same way.
It is irrelevant if Jews actually are semites.
No, it is not. it is particularly germane and shows that those who coined the term, and use it to beat the world over the head for pretended crimes, are lying sacks.
The same Wikipedia article claims the reason for replacing "Judenhass" was they wanted something more scientific sounding. I don't see that as especially dishonest.
Do you grasp that Judaism -- i.e. rabbinical тαℓмυdism -- is NOT the religion of the OT Israelites? It did not even exist in the days of the OT, except in seminal form.
Yes. I know that.
-
When people talk about Jews running the world, there is nothing in my life of knowing innumerable Jews to support it.
Do you have any idea what the тαℓмυd, which is THE sacred text of Judaism, says about non-Jews, or about Judaic women?
Many rank and file Judaics are completely ignorant of what their own 'sacred' texts say -- and what they say is UGLY. Further, this demonic philosophy is what drives the rabbinic elite, the policies of Zionαzι Israel, etc.
I have seen some "тαℓмυd-expose" type articles. But I have seen accusations against Christianity that gather out-of-context quotes in a misleading way, that seem quite similar so I am skeptical. When it concerns Christianity I know enough to recognize it is misleading. I do not know enough about the тαℓмυd to judge the correctness of these accusations.
I have a low opinion of the policies of Israel, but I never knew anyone who took rabbis very seriously, so I find it hard to imagine there is a rabbinic elite.
-
I think that multi-national corporations run the world and that governments are their puppets. Is that what you are talking about?
In a way, yes. Those corporations, however, are controlled, in turn, by the mostly-Judaic Money Masters. He who controls the money supply is king -- and the Rothschilds (Meyers), among others, control the money supply.
I find it plausible that there is a small group of people controlling the corporations. It would not surprise me if some of these people are Jєωιѕн. I still don't see how you get from that to what you were saying.
Maybe I need a break from writing about this to take some time to follow up some of the links I have been given. Maybe I should pay attention to real life a bit too.
If somebody ever tells you to get a life, don't listen to him. They are way too time-consuming. :laugh1:
-
Modern 'Hebrew' has more in common with Pheonician then ancient Hebrew,
What is your source for this? I have studied both ancient and modern Hebrew and they seem pretty similar to me, especially in vocabulary. The grammar of modern Hebrew seems to have been influenced by European languages
-
I've been reading the book Tele suggested a few days ago (Judaism and the Vatican, by ) to familiarize myself with the subject. Here's a quote I believe sums up, quite well, what has aided in much of the confusion of describing, and referring to, the Jєωιѕн people.
(http://efreepix.com/images/untitled.)
-
your image link is broken.
-
Yikes- It wont let me correct it- here it is:
(http://efreepix.com/images/untitlbvb.jpg)
-
So the reason I've quoted this is because, as you can see, speaking of the "jew", we speak of two persons- the jew religious, and the Jew national. We rarely make the distinction, and the distinction sometimes is not needed, as we are able to speak to both at the same time. Add on top of this, the "Zionist", and it can be very confusing.
I think Raoul coined the term, "Anti-Zionist", as being the term he uses (if it was someone else, forgive me), and I try to use this to. Why give power to the "Jew"(do you know which one I'm speaking of ? lol) in letting him continue to confuse by defining himself as something he's not?
-
The meaning of the term "Semite" is then apparently as meaningless as the term "Jew". If being "αnтι-ѕємιтє" doesn't refer to "semites" then it could refer to anything at all. Abandoning etymology is as wise as it is necessary, yet the perplexity still remains, not the least of which involves the intentional use of the term as a more precise and scientific expression while simultaneously admitting that it really has no concrete reference to the semitic race. But if it refers to Jews, or a definite "people" (unlike using an anlalgous term) one wonders how one might define a Jew today. Even the Jews cannot define the term with any precision or authority. Appealing to lineage is as useless as appealing to religion. The tiny nation of Israel was destroyed over 2,000 years ago, therefore defining a Jew by nationality is absurd. So what are we left with? A long line of deluded mean who fancy themselves to have some kind of relationship with an extinct biblical nation.
We refer to these men as Jews as a mere convention, as they wish to be identified, because they are Jews by mere intention or imputation. It is of divine revelation that this group of people form what Our Lord deemed the "ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan." So we take the intention as fact, but without really thinknig too deeply about it.
Just as there is a Kingdom of God on earth, which is the Catholic Church, so too is there a Kingdom of Satan ever warring against God's Kingdom. Those who identify themselves as Jews form the principle part in this Kingdom whether they realize it or not. Why? It is because of who the Jews were 2,000 years ago; after the Messiah, in the ideal order, the Jew would have seemlessly converted to Christianity. As it stands, those who dare to attempt to form this people, after the fact, form a special kind of enmnity against God. To assert that one is Jєωιѕн today, to attempt to identify oneself with a Nation that directly rebelled against God and was destroyed, is to align oneself, unwittingly or not, with the principle work of Satan against the Christ. Thus, it was not the Greeks who formed this "ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan" or the Turks or any other nation, but rather the rebels from the nation of Israel who were dispersed and ultimately rendered extint.
Now this sounds strange to ears of those who are worldly or define people by the light of natural reason and indeed, if the Jews were not what they were and Christ was not what He was, the above would be nonsensical. But we judge reality by the light of divine Faith and reality thus viewed, from this supernatural perspective, the doctrine of Jesus Christ and the Apostles makes perfect sense.
If I considered myself a Jew and honestly looked at this doctrine, I would at least admit that it is perfectly logical from a Catholic's perspective. If the Jew is correct, then the entire Catholic religion is a man-made myth. Thus, the poor man who thinks himself the "vicar" of a poor deluded Jew who thought himself to be the Messiah represents nothing but his own imagination, claiming to be something he is not in reality. The same goes for the Jew. The two are mutually exclusive. Thus, I deny "Jews" are true Jews and a Jew denies that which identifies me as a Catholic, the very reason for my existence and the fulfillment of my true supernatural end, the very thing for which the Messiah was incarnate; why He taught men the way of salvation and then finished His work by dying an ignominious death on a cross like a common criminal. I think we can see why Our Lord would use such words to describe this "people".
And conversly, that is why traditional Catholics find all this theological "dialogue" with the Jews or more precisely its content and basic premises as a grotesque offense against our divinely revealed religion.
-
JayneK --
It doesn't matter if you haven't seen any organized force of Jews in your own life, Jayne, because you being born Jєωιѕн doesn't give you any special insight. Those who want to know the truth can observe the facts on their own.
These facts, no longer even hidden, show that Jews dominate the media. They own almost all the newspapers and all the movie studios. They dominate the media, as well as finance, they buy up what they want, and when one Jew gets in a position of power he helps other Jews, just like in Vatican II, when one homo becomes head of a seminary, he filters in other homos.
"The Jєωιѕн conspiracy" doesn't mean that Schlomo Finkelstein and Sammy Rothsbart meet in a back room and rub their hands together with evil glee, saying "Let's take souls to hell!" I'm not sure they have that much comprehension. Basically the Jews follow the money and in order to get the money they rely on demonic inspiration, perhaps without knowing it. Money is how the devil manipulates his pawns, hence Christ constantly focuses on it: "You can't serve God and mammon," etc. The Jews seek money to get power; in the pride of their insane false "religion," it is okay to trick the Gentiles for business purposes. They see Gentiles as animals. So for them, to earn money by debasing Gentiles in their sick films, and with their sick films, perhaps even in pornography, is all okay because it advances the master race, what they believe in their scarcely comprehensible pride-driven blindness is God's chosen people -- them. They don't see it as wrong, any more than it would be wrong to slaughter a cow to make a hamburger out of.
They are so blind that they don't see how putrid and hellish the spirit that drives so many of their actions really is. And they are indeed the children of the devil, the actions they undertake have a cunning, twisted, psychologically manipulative quality, unlike with the Muslims who are just barbaric. Like the devil, they don't go after the body but the soul itself. Hollywood and television are spiritual murder, spiritual genocide, on a level that dwarfs any physical genocide. Hollywood is the true heart of darkness on a scale never seen before. Gone on Facebook lately, have you seen the apocalyptic mess that humanity has become, the narcissistic, blind, fornicating hordes of people? It is the media that conditioned them. The media is the greatest enemy the Church has ever had, this is why people are so repelled by scipio defending these filthy films. Anyone with even a shred of Catholic sense can see the media is of the spirit of anti-Christ, and the media is Jєωιѕн. Put two and two together.
Being an ostrich isn't good enough. People think that if they just refuse to see something and then act real nice that no one will call them out. You can present them with overwhelming evidence and they scratch their heads and act like you never said anything. Can you imagine a jury trying to get away with that trash? They'd be thrown in jail themselves.
Are you good willed? It is oh so easy to find out if you are. I have just told you, Jayne, that Jews control Hollywood -- type "Hollywood" and "Jews" into a search engine and the names of 95% of all celebs you've ever heard of will be revealed to be Jєωιѕн, and behind the scenes virtually everyone is Jєωιѕн. You can also see that almost all newspaper companies are owned by Jews. The Jews, historically the most virulent enemies of Catholics, control virtually ALL mainstream sources of information, which they are using to dumb people down and make them act like wild animals.
Are you going to acknowledge this fact that can be proven with two seconds of Internet research or are you going to persist in pretending that you are unaware of any Jєωιѕн domination? And if you do, do you really think you're going to have any credibility here?
I know there are certain Jєωιѕн converts who are unaware, or act unaware, of any Jєωιѕн conspiracy. I have seen this in trad chapels. They come in and bat their eyes and say "Gee, there's nothing wrong with the Jews." Perhaps I'm extra-special and extra-smart and I can do two seconds of Internet research that they cannot do... But somehow I don't believe it. Unlike others in this thread, not only did I not go to grad school, but am a college dropout. Yet figuring out that Jews run the government, the economy and Hollywood is about as difficult as figuring out that my hair is brown -- it takes about that much intense investigation to determine. So how am I to believe that a converted Jew doesn't know these things?
-
While his tone is stern, and I think many know I will say when I believe Raoul is wrong (or acting wrong), I would like to make sure all who read this post of his (which is quite good) and feel offended, take a step back, and really read what was said, without taking it personally (which I believe may be easy to do in this case, and is why I am writing this).
Raoul- great job.
-
Since this is a pretty basic concept in linguistics, I don't think that graduate studies are necessary to understand it.
I was neither arguing the point nor claiming that official study at any level is necessary to do so. Indeed, one does not necessarily need formal study at all to grasp basic concepts. In this particular instance, if you know what etymology and lexicology are, you are pretty much good to go...
In your sentence above you use the non-standard "Judaics" and derogatory "nefarious". This is a sentence with a charge.
As you perceive, I meant it to be charged. As you also likely perceive, I intentionally avoid the word "Jew" because those who call themselves such are, in fact, not what they claim to be.
FWIW, the fact that your knowledge of the тαℓмυd is limited only confirms my point. It is the ultimate ideological handbook for racists, sexists, etc. -- and its grotesque spirit influences all aspects of society in the formerly-Christian West.
-
Are you good willed? It is oh so easy to find out if you are. I have just told you, Jayne, that Jews control Hollywood -- type "Hollywood" and "Jews" into a search engine and the names of 95% of all celebs you've ever heard of will be revealed to be Jєωιѕн, and behind the scenes virtually everyone is Jєωιѕн. You can also see that almost all newspaper companies are owned by Jews. The Jews, historically the most virulent enemies of Catholics, control virtually ALL mainstream sources of information, which they are using to dumb people down and make them act like wild animals.
Are you going to acknowledge this fact that can be proven with two seconds of Internet research or are you going to persist in pretending that you are unaware of any Jєωιѕн domination?
OK. I did the Google search and you are right. I acknowledge that a disproportionate number of Jews are in involved in the entertainment and news media. And I can't deny the media are anti-Catholic and a constant source of evil values.
-
I was neither arguing the point nor claiming that official study at any level is necessary to do so. Indeed, one does not necessarily need formal study at all to grasp basic concepts. In this particular instance, if you know what etymology and lexicology are, you are pretty much good to go...
Note to self. Do not try to impress GV with linguistics jargon. :)
-
As Catholics we're interested in the meaning that Pope Pius XI gives to it.
What meaning is that? Do you have a quote from him?
What is he talking about in Mit Brennander Sorge?
It cannot be a condemnation of previous Christian attitudes towards Jews which are today called antisemitic.
I just read through Mit Brennender Sorge and I do not understand the point you are making. I do not see anything about anti-semitism. Could you be more specific?
-
One thing I find very significant is that all the popes since the mid-1800's, even though they knew statistically how the Jews tended to gravitate towards movements that were opposed to the Catholics Church, nevertheless were quite silent about it. Again, this I find very significant, and I believe there is a great, pious wisdom to follow suit, especially today. This fact is probably worth discussing in a thread all its own.
-
Again, this I find very significant, and I believe there is a great, pious wisdom to follow suit, especially today.
Good for you. I disagree. Silence, especially at this late hour, as the satanic Money Masters seek to complete the enslavement of the entire world, is the wrong course. There are times when silence is criminal; this is one of them.
If you think silence is the wiser course, I feel certain that no one will stop you from pursuing it :)
This fact is probably worth discussing in a thread all its own.
There is only one way to find out, eh? I am sure many will join you for your discussion about whether or not certain discussions should even take place.
-
One thing I find very significant is that all the popes since the mid-1800's, even though they knew statistically how the Jews tended to gravitate towards movements that were opposed to the Catholics Church, nevertheless were quite silent about it. Again, this I find very significant, and I believe there is a great, pious wisdom to follow suit, especially today. This fact is probably worth discussing in a thread all its own.
Fear is not always pious. When Pius XI told the Cristeros to make peace, that was not a pious act.
Popes of earlier times, such as St. Pius V, did not hesitate to address the issue. If the issue of the Jews has become more serious in modern times, then the failure of the Popes to address it has to do with the fact that the power of the Jews increased to a menacing degree.
Nevertheless, don't think you can say the Popes have been silent:
It is from them that the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, which gathers its troops against the Church of Christ, takes its strength. In the past Our predecessors, vigilant even from the beginning in Israel, had already denounced them to the kings and the nations, and had condemned them time and time again, and even We have not failed in this duty. If those who would have been able to avert such a deadly scourge had only had more faith in the supreme Pastors of the Church!
If the Pope is not referring to the power we're talking about, who is he talking about?
Finally, it is a fact that the Church encouraged anti-masonic writings in which the role of the Jews was discussed.
The fact that the Popes did not address the Jews directly was a political decision, but one that did not absolve Catholics from facing reality.
-
If one disagrees, that one would have to express why he things it was "good" for the Church to have been silent about it until 1958.
-
One thing I find very significant is that all the popes since the mid-1800's, even though they knew statistically how the Jews tended to gravitate towards movements that were opposed to the Catholics Church, nevertheless were quite silent about it. Again, this I find very significant, and I believe there is a great, pious wisdom to follow suit, especially today. This fact is probably worth discussing in a thread all its own.
Drawing theological inferences from silence in complex history is a precarious proposition that will certainly end in some sort of fallacy.
-
From Richard F. Burton's book - The Jew, the Gypsy, and El Islam:
It remains now only to touch upon the future prospects of the Jєωιѕн race. This important consideration is still subject to two widely different opinions.
The first, which may be called the vapid utterance of the so-called Liberal School speaks as follows: “In this century we are battering down the ponderous walls of prejudice which nations and sects have erected in past times, for the separation of themselves from their neighbours, or as a coign of vantage from which to hurl offensive weapons at them. Roman Catholic and Jєωιѕн emancipation have been conceded, though tardily, and we may fairly hope that in the next generation our political, social, and commercial relations with our fellow‑men will be conducted without regard to their religious belief or their ethnological origin.” The trifling objection to this “harmonious and tolerant state of things” is that, though the Christian may give up his faith and race, the Jew, however readily he may throw overboard the former, will cling to the latter with greater tenacity, as it will be the very root and main foundation of his power.
The second is the Judophobic or Roman Catholic view of the supremacy of Jєωιѕн influence in the governments and the diplomacy of Europe. It openly confesses its dread of Judaic encroachments, and it goes the full length of declaring that, unless the course of events be changed by some quasi‑miraculous agency, the triumph of the Israelite over Christian civilization is inevitable—in fact, that Judaism, the oldest and exclusive form of the great Semitic faith, will at least outlive, if it does not subdue and survive, Christianity, whose triumph has been over an alien race of Aryans. “Gold,” it argues, “is the master of the world, and the Jєωιѕн people are becoming masters of the gold. By means of gold they can spread corruption far and wide, and thus control the destinies of Europe and of the world.” For the last quarter of a century the dominant Church in France seems to have occupied itself in disseminating these ideas, and the number of books published by the alarmists and replied to by Jєωιѕн authors is far from inconsiderable. Witness the names of MM. Tousseuel, Bédarride, Th. Halliz, Rev. P. Ratisbonne, and A. C. de Medelsheim, without specifying the contributors to the Union Israëlite and the Archives Israëlites of Paris—a sufficient proof of the interest which this question has excited, and of the ability with which it has been discussed in France.
But these are generalisms which require the specification of particulars. Where, however, the field is so extensive, we must limit ourselves to the most running survey of Europe and the Holy Land. Throughout this continent the career of the Jew is at once thriving and promising. The removal of Jєωιѕн disabilities in England and the almost universal spread of constitutionalism throughout Europe have told mightily in favour of the Jews. An essential condition of all reform is that the reformer never can say, “Thus far will I go, and no farther.” In sporting parlance, he took off the weight from a dark horse, and the latter is everywhere winning in a canter. The father kept a little shop in the Ghetto; the son has palaces and villas, buys titles, crosses, and other graven images utterly unknown to the Mosaic Law, and intermarries with the historic Christian families of the land. The great, if not the only, danger is that in the outlying parts of Europe, where men are not thoroughly tamed, and where the sword is still familiar to the hand, the Jew advances far too fast; nor is it easy to see how his career can be arrested before it hurries him over the precipice. At this moment Hungary is a case in point. The Magnate, profuse in hospitality, delighting in display, careless of expenditure, and contemptuous of economy, sees all his rich estates, with their flocks and herds, their crops and mines, passing out of his own hands, and contributing to swell the bottomless pocket of the Jєωιѕн usurer. But the Magyar is a fiery race; and if this system of legal robbery be allowed to pass a certain point, which, by-the-bye, is not far distant, the Jews must prepare themselves for another disaster right worthy of the Middle Ages. And they will have deserved it.
-
One thing I find very significant is that all the popes since the mid-1800's, even though they knew statistically how the Jews tended to gravitate towards movements that were opposed to the Catholics Church, nevertheless were quite silent about it. Again, this I find very significant, and I believe there is a great, pious wisdom to follow suit, especially today. This fact is probably worth discussing in a thread all its own.
Fear is not always pious. When Pius XI told the Cristeros to make peace, that was not a pious act.
I don't think fear is always pious either. But, it is certain one can be mistaken about the facts of a situation and still piously intend to give correct advice. On that note, I think we can drop the subject of the Cristeros since Pius IX did not act in the name of "the Catholic Church". Nor am I saying Pius IX was necessarily mistaken in his advice. That is entirely another subject.
Popes of earlier times, such as St. Pius V, did not hesitate to address the issue. If the issue of the Jews has become more serious in modern times, then the failure of the Popes to address it has to do with the fact that the power of the Jews increased to a menacing degree.
Funny, but what you say tends to have some implications against St. Pius X as a pope. That is one reason why I say you are mistaken, Telesphorus. St. Pius V was addressing different issues in a different time period. There is no necessary logical connection centuries later other than the world contained biologically Jєωιѕн descendents from those at the time of St. Pius V.
Nevertheless, don't think you can say the Popes have been silent:
It is from them that the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, which gathers its troops against the Church of Christ, takes its strength. In the past Our predecessors, vigilant even from the beginning in Israel, had already denounced them to the kings and the nations, and had condemned them time and time again, and even We have not failed in this duty. If those who would have been able to avert such a deadly scourge had only had more faith in the supreme Pastors of the Church!
If the Pope is not referring to the power we're talking about, who is he talking about?
I said "quite silent", not absolutely silent. The degree of silence is grand and consistent. I looked into your quote about the "ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan" and I am convinced you are mistaken. If that had been about Jєωιѕн ѕуηαgσgυєs, it would have not ceased to cause an uproar from then until today. The syllabus was a compilation of previous statements, and that quote appears to have really come from the 1873 encyclical, "Etsi multa luctuosa", and the various translations differ. It was an encyclical about Germany, Italy and Switzerland, and it mentions the synogogue of Satan being "formed". Further, I see at the Council of Constance in the 15th century condemnation of Wycliff's error about Rome being "Satan's ѕуηαgσgυє", and he wasn't referring to Jews.
Finally, it is a fact that the Church encouraged anti-masonic writings in which the role of the Jews was discussed.
The fact that the Popes did not address the Jews directly was a political decision, but one that did not absolve Catholics from facing reality.
Not political. Prudent, wise and truthful. Surely statistics show that Jews are predominant in movements that oppose Catholic principle. Yet, it is not reality to base one's conviction on "predominance" to run around and exaggerate and say Jews rule and run the show. That is rash, and nobody can prove such a thing. That is why the Church has been silent. That is why St. Pius X was silent, because he was virtuous and truthful in this regard.
-
Drawing theological inferences from silence in complex history is a precarious proposition that will certainly end in some sort of fallacy.
Well, this is a matter of historical fact, not theology. I would agree about its precariousness, though I disagree that it will "certainly end" in some sort of fallacy. The Church is "holy", and it is an entity, so She cannot sin by silence, as we sinners are capable of sinning by our silence. Just a for instance, here is a quote from an encyclical that shows this to be true:
Apostolicae Curae, 1896:
"it was accordingly quite impossible that the Apostolic See should tacitly allow or tolerate such a custom."
It does depend upon the matter and circuмstances, but when it involves things directly pertaining to the Church, such as the liturgy, silent allowance is approval. That is also why Feeneyism is dead upon the mere reflection that St. Alphonsus wrote teaching baptism of implicit desire in manuals for the clergy because it is "quite impossible that the Apostolic See should tacitly allow" teaching that called in doubt previous solemn teaching.
-
Now that I have had a chance to sleep on it, I am realizing how much of my childhood conditioning I bring to this topic. Just thinking about it rationally is very difficult for me. I am impressed with how patient and gentle everyone has been with me. Thank you.
-
I don't think fear is always pious either. But, it is certain one can be mistaken about the facts of a situation and still piously intend to give correct advice. On that note, I think we can drop the subject of the Cristeros since Pius IX did not act in the name of "the Catholic Church". Nor am I saying Pius IX was necessarily mistaken in his advice. That is entirely another subject.
Except the question of the Church struggle against ʝʊdɛօ-masonic governments has a great deal to do with actions of the Popes such as telling the Cristeros to surrender and be murdered. It is not a different subject as all, just as the expulsion of the Jews by Pius V is not a different subject. A different time and place doesn't change morality. Either it is wrong for the Popes to speak to oppose Jews or it is not wrong.
Funny, but what you say tends to have some implications against St. Pius X as a pope.
I never specifically mentioned him.
That is one reason why I say you are mistaken, Telesphorus. St. Pius V was addressing different issues in a different time period. There is no necessary logical connection centuries later other than the world contained biologically Jєωιѕн descendents from those at the time of St. Pius V.
That is preposterous. Why not say there is no necessary connection between the Jews of today and those of 1900? IF it was right for Christ, the Apostles, the Fathers of the Church and for Saints like Pope Pius V to speak against the Jews, it remains right. Now it is more right than ever. Those who refuse to speak are failing to tell the necessary truths that must be heard, and enabling those who have imposed the taboo that forbids speaking of Jєωιѕн power.
I said "quite silent", not absolutely silent. The degree of silence is grand and consistent.
What matters in speaking of what the Church teaches, is what the Church has always taught. That they have not been assertive on a particular point for some length of time does not mean they have not taught us what we need to know on this point. The words of Christ and of the Apostles, against the Pharisees and the Antichrist remain Catholic teachings. We know that the Jews will continue to be the enemies of the Church until the end of time.
Recent Popes may not have officially addressed the issue in unequivocal terms, speaking of the Jews as Jews, nevertheless Pope Pius X did say he could not support Zionism.
Secondly, the Church encouraged and awarded those many priests who wrote about the machinations of Jewry. For example, Monsignor George F. Dillon's book was highly praised by Leo XIII, it speaks of the machinations of Jews in supporting anti-Christian conspiracy. There were many Catholic writers on the question of conspiracy, when speaking of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ they covered the Jєωιѕн question as well to varying degrees.
I looked into your quote about the "ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan" and I am convinced you are mistaken. If that had been about Jєωιѕн ѕуηαgσgυєs, it would have not ceased to cause an uproar from then until today.
There are two verses in the Apocalypse referring to the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan:
Behold, I will bring of the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee.
I know thy tribulation and thy poverty, but thou art rich: and thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan.
They were denounced, according to Pius IX: even from the beginning in Israel. Now Pope Pius IX says that the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan receives its strength from the Freemasons, he does not say that the Freemasons are that ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan. There were no Freemasons "in the beginning in Israel."
The syllabus was a compilation of previous statements, and that quote appears to have really come from the 1873 encyclical, "Etsi multa luctuosa", and the various translations differ. It was an encyclical about Germany, Italy and Switzerland, and it mentions the synogogue of Satan being "formed". Further, I see at the Council of Constance in the 15th century condemnation of Wycliff's error about Rome being "Satan's ѕуηαgσgυє", and he wasn't referring to Jews.
You seem to have a very serious problem with chronology. First you referred to Pius IX when I was speaking of Pius XI. The Syllabus of Errors was published in 1864, long before 1873. Pope Pius IX's writings at the end of the Syllabus, about the war that the Freemasons are waging against the Church, speaks of those enemies of the Church who have been condemned "even from the beginning in Israel."
Finally, it is a fact that the Church encouraged anti-masonic writings in which the role of the Jews was discussed.
Not political. Prudent, wise and truthful.
I suppose, if you really believe it was "prudent, wise and truthful" and not political, that you would not have believed that the predecessors of the Popes (from the very beginning in Israel) as Pius IX stated, should not have condemned the Jews who were the enemies of Christ's Church?
Surely statistics show that Jews are predominant in movements that oppose Catholic principle. Yet, it is not reality to base one's conviction on "predominance" to run around and exaggerate and say Jews rule and run the show.
Reality is that the great powers of the world have made it a taboo to speak against the power of the Jews. That is a morally unacceptable prohibition. There is nothing rash in speaking of the Jews as being the foremost enemies of the Church:
As Archbishop Lefebvre said:
And most recently, the Pope has been into the ѕуηαgσgυє of the Jews in Rome. How can the Pope pray with the enemies of Jesus Christ? These Jews know and say and believe that they are the successors of the Jews that killed Jesus Christ, and they continue to fight against Jesus Christ everywhere in the world
That is rash, and nobody can prove such a thing.
Nonsense. Simply stating that something can't be proven is a rash statement, not asserting the facts about Jews. One can infer with certainty the overwhelming power of the Jews. Whether or not that power constitutes a true supremacy has nothing to do with whether or not it's right or wrong to speak of a Jєωιѕн power that is assailing Christianity.
That is why the Church has been silent. That is why St. Pius X was silent, because he was virtuous and truthful in this regard.
The Church has not been silent. The Pope is not the only source of the Magisterium. Many Catholic priests have written on this topic with approval of the Pope and the Bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre was not silent. Although those who would prevent the publication of his sermons wish to silence him. Pope Pius X told Theodore Herzl that the Church could not support Zionism. As Pope Pius IX said:
In the past Our predecessors, vigilant even from the beginning in Israel, had already denounced them to the kings and the nations, and had condemned them time and time again, and even We have not failed in this duty.
Yes, from the beginning, from the Apostles, down through the Popes, and even in the 19th Century, the Popes have warned against the most ferocious enemy of the Church.
-
I just read through Mit Brennender Sorge and I do not understand the point you are making. I do not see anything about anti-semitism. Could you be more specific?
I was thinking of other comments that he made, I was mistaken to refer to Mit Brennenden Sorge.
I will try to find them.
-
Now that I have had a chance to sleep on it, I am realizing how much of my childhood conditioning I bring to this topic. Just thinking about it rationally is very difficult for me.
That is totally understandable.
I am impressed with how patient and gentle everyone has been with me. Thank you.
You are welcome, but it is your own manner that makes it very easy to be so.
-
Now that I have had a chance to sleep on it, I am realizing how much of my childhood conditioning I bring to this topic. Just thinking about it rationally is very difficult for me. I am impressed with how patient and gentle everyone has been with me. Thank you.
It takes a lot of courage to take a detached attitudes towards such questions. Even for people who aren't raised Jєωιѕн.
I think people are sensitized to the issue, because of the way it is presented. Expressions of opposition to Jєωιѕн power are not treated like expressions of opposition to other powers. The very existence of such a power is treated as a delusion. Because there is no established way of discussing it, it's inevitable that when ordinary people speak about it, they don't know how to express themselves in a manner that does not disturb people. It's similar slightly to the way talk about sex used to be - the Jews even try to call antisemitic writings "pornography" for that reason - people don't know how to discuss the question without extreme embarrassment, and those who do talk about it use a kind of language that is indirect, hinting and suggesting, rather than being blunt.
However, while there are good moral reason to use delicacy and discretion in discussions about sex, the taboo about Jєωιѕн power means that blunt statement of the issues is nearly impossible. Of course we should be delicate and discreet, yet we cannot allow truth to suffer for it.
There is no easy way to talk about the issue without appearing to some people to be indiscrimately venting hatred on Jews - yet the issue must be discussed. h0Ɩ0cαųst or no h0Ɩ0cαųst. Long before the h0Ɩ0cαųst the Medieval persecutions were waved as a "bloody shirt" to cut off all discussion of the h0Ɩ0cαųst. This unnatural suppression of the issue is a major reason for the explosion that finally happened.
How this suppression takes place shows the Jєωιѕн mastery regarding the manipulation of the public and its psychology. The exclusive domination of the money power over the press having been broken, the Jєωιѕн power is once again in the spotlight of scrutiny. They have so conditioned the people though, that there hardly seems to be a response to the information that has come out. The response has nevertheless occurred, and there have been many expressions of alarm over it. The clamp-down on the internet is coming, is ongoing.
As the SSPX has grown, we see now a fear to tread on the Jєωιѕн question, and the marginalization of Bishop Williamson.
Since we know, from books like Judaism and the Vatican, that the Jєωιѕн elite are irreconcilably opposed to the continuation of authentic Catholic Tradition, we must see change in attitude of the SSPX as a very grave development.
-
Drawing theological inferences from silence in complex history is a precarious proposition that will certainly end in some sort of fallacy.
Well, this is a matter of historical fact, not theology. I would agree about its precariousness, though I disagree that it will "certainly end" in some sort of fallacy. The Church is "holy", and it is an entity, so She cannot sin by silence, as we sinners are capable of sinning by our silence. Just a for instance, here is a quote from an encyclical that shows this to be true:
Yes, I should have said drawing "moral lessons". At any rate, your observation fails for want of comparison. The fact that the Popes made little or no comment regarding the activities of Jews, what "movements" they tended to, is not at all surprising. Why would they feel constrained to make such social observations? It is of little consequence to Catholics. The Popes didn't make official statements on all manner of non-Catholic activities or proclivities.
But we are discussing something entirely different which is the influence they now exert on society, and especially the Church itself, which is wildly disproportionate and consequently of some concern. The Jews exercised little to no influence during the time period you mention. But there were times in history when they did exert more influence, and without fail, the Popes spoke and even acted to suppress certain bad customs. The Jews were repeatedly expelled from lands where they corrupted the faith and morals of Christians. An irreligious worldly balks at such an idea, but when certain modern countries expelled several Jews working as intelligence operatives using false identification such an action is looked upon as wise and just. So when Jews were found to own Christian servants, the Popes vigorously opposed this practice. And St. Thomas observed that it is form of sacrilege for Christians to be under the political dominion of infidels. It is this doctrine and practice to which we refer. Observing these facts isn't some idle commentary on Jєωιѕн predilection. The fact that the Jews had a hand in starting the Freemasons is of little concern to us, but the work of the society itself and its evil influence was vigorously condemned. Therein lies the distinction you've missed. Thus, your profound insight is little more than an obvious truism with no real lesson attached.
-
Well, this is a matter of historical fact, not theology. I would agree about its precariousness, though I disagree that it will "certainly end" in some sort of fallacy. The Church is "holy", and it is an entity, so She cannot sin by silence, as we sinners are capable of sinning by our silence. Just a for instance, here is a quote from an encyclical that shows this to be true:
The Church approved and helped to propagate the writings of authors (many who were priests) who are today called "antisemitic conspiracy theorists."
That being said, it is impossible to ignore the fact that the conciliar Popes (if they really can be called Popes) have gone far beyond the alleged silence you attribute to previous Popes. What was once a refusal to overtly oppose the Jєωιѕн power has become an abject surrender to it. The crisis in the Church is inseparable from the Jєωιѕн question. In the gradual triumph of the modernists we must look at the negligence that allowed such a triumph to take place.
-
Now that I have had a chance to sleep on it, I am realizing how much of my childhood conditioning I bring to this topic. Just thinking about it rationally is very difficult for me. I am impressed with how patient and gentle everyone has been with me. Thank you.
The degree of your humility is edifying. You keep that up and you'll be a saint one day.
-
An irreligious worldly balks at such an idea, but when certain modern countries expelled several Jews working as intelligence operatives using false identification such an action is looked upon as wise and just. So when Jews were found to own Christian servants, the Popes vigorously opposed this practice. And St. Thomas observed that it is form of sacrilege for Christians to be under the political dominion of infidels. It is this doctrine and practice to which we refer.
Yes, it can't be wrong in principle to discuss the dangers of Jєωιѕн power.
If there were good reasons for relative silence on question of the Jєωιѕн power we must nevertheless concede that the policy has had a disastrous conclusion.
-
One thing I find very significant is that all the popes since the mid-1800's, even though they knew statistically how the Jews tended to gravitate towards movements that were opposed to the Catholics Church, nevertheless were quite silent about it. Again, this I find very significant, and I believe there is a great, pious wisdom to follow suit, especially today. This fact is probably worth discussing in a thread all its own.
Underlining the words in your posts, nice touch Father Ceda...I mean, Nonno.
-
There is no easy way to talk about the issue without appearing to some people to be indiscrimately venting hatred on Jews - yet the issue must be discussed. h0Ɩ0cαųst or no h0Ɩ0cαųst. Long before the h0Ɩ0cαųst the Medieval persecutions were waved as a "bloody shirt" to cut off all discussion of the h0Ɩ0cαųst. This unnatural suppression of the issue is a major reason for the explosion that finally happened.
You are articulating the problem very well and I find it very helpful. I really like this expression "unnatural suppression" for capturing what is happening.
Since we know, from books like Judaism and the Vatican, that the Jєωιѕн elite are irreconcilably opposed to the continuation of authentic Catholic Tradition, we must see change in attitude of the SSPX as a very grave development.
This book has been mentioned a couple of times already. How can I find it? Is it online?
-
Now that I have had a chance to sleep on it, I am realizing how much of my childhood conditioning I bring to this topic. Just thinking about it rationally is very difficult for me. I am impressed with how patient and gentle everyone has been with me. Thank you.
The degree of your humility is edifying. You keep that up and you'll be a saint one day.
I don't know how I'll become humble if people say things like to me. :laugh1:
-
I'd be happy to call you names, Jayne, if you think that would be more helpful... :wink:
-
I'd be happy to call you names, Jayne, if you think that would be more helpful... :wink:
Luckily I managed to leave a word out of my last post. That was kind of embarrassing so I can get by without any name-calling for a while. :)
-
I can get by without any name-calling for a while. :)
I am here when you need me, dear :)
-
Jayne, I'm curious, being brought up Jєωιѕн, did your family try to literally trace their lineage to the ancient Hebrews? Or did they just assume it? Do you know what the general practice is amongst Jews of today regarding this seemingly constitutive element of racial identity?
-
Jayne, I'm curious, being brought up Jєωιѕн, did your family try to literally trace their lineage to the ancient Hebrews? Or did they just assume it? Do you know what the general practice is amongst Jews of today regarding this seemingly constitutive element of racial identity?
My father's name in Hebrew has the addition "ben Cohen". Supposedly anyone with that title has lineage going back to the ancient Jєωιѕн priesthood. As I understand it, other Jews assume they go back to the other tribes but are unable to trace which ones.
I don't really know very much about Judaism though. I took Hebrew lessons as a child but minimal religious instruction.
-
Interesting, so in essence, they attach their lineage not to physical descent, but to names. So in theory, a name could have been added somewhere in the past and everyone following assumes they hold a substantial relationship with the ancient Hebrews because of the name.
Such accidents of history are pretty common. When my Father's side of the family migrated from Germany, all it took was a swipe of a pen at Staten Island and our family named changed from "Schneider" to "Snyder". Granted, it's not adding a new name or title, but names can easily be manipulated, modified, changed or attached by anyone at the slightest whim.
-
Interesting, so in essence, they attach their lineage not to physical descent, but to names. So in theory, a name could have been added somewhere in the past and everyone following assumes they hold a substantial relationship with the ancient Hebrews because of the name.
The name is how the descent is traced. A man with the title Cohen passes it to his sons. That is the only way to get that name.
-
But the ancient Israelites were identified based upon geographical location and the names followed therefrom. Take away the foundation for the name and what are you left with but a name that becomes common property.
-
I don't really know very much about Judaism though.
I am certain you have more important things to keep you busy at this time, but if you ever want to learn about it, let me know.
-
Let me back up a moment and clarify something. Even prior to the arrival of the Messiah, the identity of the Jew, the thing that made him what he was, a member of an elect Nation, never had anything to do with blood lineage, but was fact essentially reduced to the free election of God. The lineage and National identity formed but an accidental element in the whole scheme of things. The true formality (the thing which defined the term's essence) of a true Jew in ancient times was the possession of the true faith, true cult and moral law; the revelation and prophecies, all of which were given to them by God and could not possibly have been due to their flesh. Scripture repeatedly alludes, in many different ways, to the fact that blood lines did not constitute a proper formality, but was merely the material element preparing the world for the arrival of the Savior by forming a definite people. So the thing which made the Jew a true Jew was in reality always something pertaining to the free election of God, just as it is under the new dispensation.
I think this is where many people get confused and caught up in tracing blood lines as if that were enough to make one a Jew in the proper sense of the term. Abraham's calling was a purely gratuitous gift as well as the faith that he possessed amongst the gentiles. The cult was gradually revealed and taught them and was by design a transitory figure. When the Pharisees appealed to their lineage as if this alone gave them some sort of title, they were severely rebuked by God. That is where the discussion must start and that is why these references to blood lines are so unintelligible and contradictory. And this is the very reason why Jews fall into the error of Racism so easily. They have convinced themselves that the title comes by way of mere birthright. That was never the case, not even in the Old Testament. And it was this very error that was the ultimate cause of the Nation's destruction, prophesied, no less, in Scripture itself. So now we have the absurd phenomenon of men trying to label themselves as Jews when they haven't the slightest notion of God, cult or revelation. This is nothing less than a very ancient heresy.
-
An example of the superiority of the true faith, morals and cultus above carnal lineage can be found in Isaiah 56, 3-7.
-
„Antisemitism ... if antisemitism is bad ... it is against truth. If something is true, it is not bad. I am not interested in the word antisemitism. The word is very dangerous.“
Bishop Williamson, 21.01.2009
As I'm thinking about what I've been learning, I realize that this comment, much earlier in the thread, is important. The word "anti-semitism" is dangerous. We got distracted by the question of whether Jews are literally Semites, but the dangerous part of the word is the "anti." Any opposition, disagreement with or offense to Jews is labeled as antisemitism, that is, hatred of Jews. Anything that is against Jews in any way is identify as hate - irrational and sinful. It is a word used to silence discussion and stop thought.
Look at all things that are called antisemitism and silenced: Judaism as practiced today is based on rejecting Christ. The State of Israel has objectionable actions and policies. Jews are disproportionately represented among the most powerful people of the world. The nαzιs harmed other people as well as Jews. Other atrocities have taken place that are as bad or worse than what happened to the Jews under Hitler.
Any criticism or questioning of Jews is dismissed and silenced. And this is wrong. It is wrong because it is contrary to truth and it is wrong because it breeds resentment. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. People actually will start to hate Jews if reasonable discussion is prevented.
-
That is quite correct. The ironic but sad reality is that the тαℓмυd is hitlerite in nature. One race desiring to reign as 'gods' and kings over the other races, which they see as cattle to be exploited. The only difference is that Hitler wanted Aryans to be that race, while the zionists want it to be the Jews. But it is nevertheless the same sick spirit.
-
People actually will start to hate Jews if reasonable discussion is prevented.
As odd as it might sound, that is what the Inner Sanctum WANTS. They LOVE to foment persecution, whether real or imagined. They do everything possible to create and augment the impression that they are, always and everywhere, the supremely-persecuted victim, despite the fact that they are often the supremely-aggressive persecutor (see modern Gaza). On occasion, they will gladly slaughter a portion of their own in order to draw the rank and file closer to the center of the Boat of Insanity. You can see many of their ages-old tactics being used in the world at large, although the use of these tactics always serves the ONE agenda. 9/11, 7/7, Madrid...just to name a few recent examples.
-
The ironic but sad reality is that the тαℓмυd is hitlerite in nature.
Put another way, Hitler's ideas about the Master Race were тαℓмυdic in nature.
-
The ironic but sad reality is that the тαℓмυd is hitlerite in nature.
Put another way, Hitler's ideas about the Master Race were тαℓмυdic in nature.
Yes, that would be more chronologically correct.
-
It might also be advisable to see how the Church used to treat the Jews in a practical matter.
A few examples might be taken from Benedict´ XIV. A Quo Primum (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14aquo.htm) or St. Thomas Aquinas De Regimine Judaeorum (http://josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/ToDuchessFlanders.htm) .
I guess we all know the background for this special concerns the Church had, if not I strongly advise the reading of The Eight Homilies against the Jews (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html) by St. John Chrysostom.
-
The meaning of the term "Semite" is then apparently as meaningless as the term "Jew". If being "αnтι-ѕємιтє" doesn't refer to "semites" then it could refer to anything at all. Abandoning etymology is as wise as it is necessary, yet the perplexity still remains, not the least of which involves the intentional use of the term as a more precise and scientific expression while simultaneously admitting that it really has no concrete reference to the semitic race. But if it refers to Jews, or a definite "people" (unlike using an anlalgous term) one wonders how one might define a Jew today. Even the Jews cannot define the term with any precision or authority. Appealing to lineage is as useless as appealing to religion. The tiny nation of Israel was destroyed over 2,000 years ago, therefore defining a Jew by nationality is absurd. So what are we left with? A long line of deluded mean who fancy themselves to have some kind of relationship with an extinct biblical nation.
We refer to these men as Jews as a mere convention, as they wish to be identified, because they are Jews by mere intention or imputation. It is of divine revelation that this group of people form what Our Lord deemed the "ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan." So we take the intention as fact, but without really thinknig too deeply about it.
Just as there is a Kingdom of God on earth, which is the Catholic Church, so too is there a Kingdom of Satan ever warring against God's Kingdom. Those who identify themselves as Jews form the principle part in this Kingdom whether they realize it or not. Why? It is because of who the Jews were 2,000 years ago; after the Messiah, in the ideal order, the Jew would have seemlessly converted to Christianity. As it stands, those who dare to attempt to form this people, after the fact, form a special kind of enmnity against God. To assert that one is Jєωιѕн today, to attempt to identify oneself with a Nation that directly rebelled against God and was destroyed, is to align oneself, unwittingly or not, with the principle work of Satan against the Christ. Thus, it was not the Greeks who formed this "ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan" or the Turks or any other nation, but rather the rebels from the nation of Israel who were dispersed and ultimately rendered extint.
Now this sounds strange to ears of those who are worldly or define people by the light of natural reason and indeed, if the Jews were not what they were and Christ was not what He was, the above would be nonsensical. But we judge reality by the light of divine Faith and reality thus viewed, from this supernatural perspective, the doctrine of Jesus Christ and the Apostles makes perfect sense.
If I considered myself a Jew and honestly looked at this doctrine, I would at least admit that it is perfectly logical from a Catholic's perspective. If the Jew is correct, then the entire Catholic religion is a man-made myth. Thus, the poor man who thinks himself the "vicar" of a poor deluded Jew who thought himself to be the Messiah represents nothing but his own imagination, claiming to be something he is not in reality. The same goes for the Jew. The two are mutually exclusive. Thus, I deny "Jews" are true Jews and a Jew denies that which identifies me as a Catholic, the very reason for my existence and the fulfillment of my true supernatural end, the very thing for which the Messiah was incarnate; why He taught men the way of salvation and then finished His work by dying an ignominious death on a cross like a common criminal. I think we can see why Our Lord would use such words to describe this "people".
And conversly, that is why traditional Catholics find all this theological "dialogue" with the Jews or more precisely its content and basic premises as a grotesque offense against our divinely revealed religion.
The subtleties and distinctions in your arguments I found to be quite remarkable and in some degree, to my unpracticed mind, almost breath-taking. I am surprised that no one really commented on it. It deserves more than my thumbs up.
Also I wanted to thank everyone in this thread for making this discussion so enjoyable to read. I was beginning to wonder if there was such a thing as a civilized debate that made any real progress whatsoever. Unfortunately, I don't have anything to add to it that hasn't already been said (I've learned much myself), but I just wanted to point that out.
-
Oh yes, I would like to point out something that is probably obvious, but I find to be quite interesting. There seems to be a level of self-projection, in that the "Jews" who like to throw the word, "αnтι-ѕємιтє" around seem to be trying to bring everyone down to their level, whether they realize it or not. They themselves are racist, so they criticize others for being racist. The rich accuse the Church for being too extravagant, and Barack Obama accuses the Republicans of playing too much politics (seriously?). The level of hypocrisy alone should make one suspicious.
-
What do you who believe this about Jews propose to do about it? How are you going to contain this threat? How are you going to stop these people you think are evil?
And while you are taking these steps, what are you going to do that will help them to understand that Christ is the Saviour of humanity and they must accept Him?
STOP FINANCING THEM. All US citizens give money to these bankers (Zionist). All Us citizens do this voluntarily. You do not have to give them your money.
Transferring money from their pocket to yours and other tradCatholic's pockets allows for more education of the TRUE faith.
Less money gives them less power to bully Bp Williamson. Then Bp Williamson has more time to spend teaching, consecrating new priests, the more priests with knowledge of the Truth the more influence we have over the Jews.
We are to blame.
the smart sheep
-
What do you who believe this about Jews propose to do about it? How are you going to contain this threat? How are you going to stop these people you think are evil?
And while you are taking these steps, what are you going to do that will help them to understand that Christ is the Saviour of humanity and they must accept Him?
STOP FINANCING THEM. All US citizens give money to these bankers (Zionist). All Us citizens do this voluntarily. You do not have to give them your money.
Transferring money from their pocket to yours and other tradCatholic's pockets allows for more education of the TRUE faith.
Less money gives them less power to bully Bp Williamson. Then Bp Williamson has more time to spend teaching, consecrating new priests, the more priests with knowledge of the Truth the more influence we have over the Jews.
We are to blame.
the smart sheep
And Trad Catholics risk the blood of their young men - the blood of those who join the volunteer military in order to have a "future" - to fight wars for Zionism.
-
When I was Jєωιѕн and since then, I have never personally seen any evidence of an organized force of Jews. I never took orders from anyone...
No one is saying all Jews gets memos about these things. As for an organized force, your lack of awareness does not mean it does not exist.
Do you grasp that the Money Masters are working together to enslave us all via debt servitude? Do you understand that this is but a means to an end? Do you know or even suspect what the end is? This a very big kettle of very smelly fish. Perhaps we could try to take it bit by bit.
Jayne,
You DO know this organized force. The name of this force is the IRS.
They used "word art " to trick you and me (for many years anyhow).
There is a way out of this organized crime that you and millions of other are involved in. But I will have to agree with gv. The fat lady has sung, game over folks.
Still I believe you have to learn about this "bit by bit" because in the end we have to face judgment. Our naivete can not be used as an excuse.
I like your questions and ideas. You are representative of most good people. Your posts help to get this message through, so thank you.
the smart sheep
-
And Trad Catholics risk the blood of their young men - the blood of those who join the volunteer military in order to have a "future" - to fight wars for Zionism.
Yes, and did you know that for every US soldier that dies the US gov receives ten million dollars?
The Zionists have been doing this since the Revolutionary war. The Rothschilds figured this out and for every Hessian soldier that died they made money, like a life insurance. They set it up with the princes. Thieves and murderers. Still doing it.
Everything the us gov does (laws) is only for money not to protect you.
the smart sheep
-
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20110628/API/1106280798?tc=ar
-
If you see Jews as a group that must be opposed that means you are an αnтι-ѕємιтє. When I say that I am anti-abortion it means that I am against abortion. When I say I am anti-pornography, it means I am against pornography. To be an αnтι-ѕємιтє means to be against Jews. If you see Jews as an evil to be opposed (as I see abortion and pornography) then you are an αnтι-ѕємιтє.
I am not talking about recognizing that Judaism is a false religion. Judaism rejects Christ and is a false religion. It is therefore evil as all false religions are. But believing that Jews as a race are an enemy to be opposed is anti-semitism. Even if what you believe about Jєωιѕн power were true, seeing Jews as an enemy to be resisted means you are anti-semitic.
You are beating your head against a very thick brick wall here. I expect you will find, as I did, that it hurts you a lot more than it hurts the wall.
:boxer:
-
No, the argument was simply fallacious. That was pointed out before in this thread.
-
You are beating your head against a very thick brick wall here. I expect you will find, as I did, that it hurts you a lot more than it hurts the wall.
While it is understandable if you have not read the entire thread, if you do so, you will see that Jayne is neither beating her head against an imagined wall, nor is anyone being "hurt" by the exchange. This discussion has been calm, rational, and profitable for all, or so several comments seem to indicate.
-
And Trad Catholics risk the blood of their young men - the blood of those who join the volunteer military in order to have a "future" - to fight wars for Zionism.
As a bit of a gypsy, I have seen this phenomenon in several parts of the US. It is a bit mystifying. C'est la vie...
-
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20110628/API/1106280798?tc=ar
What a disturbing article. It is very wrong that a Jєωιѕн organization is demanding the Vatican excommunicate a priest for offending Jews At least it looks like nobody intends to do it.
It is good example of what we are talking about.