Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: PinoyMonk on July 11, 2007, 09:18:32 AM
-
Don't get confused, here. One can be very much, pro-Israel, and be Catholic at the same time - even though orthodox rabbis in Israel may have little good to say about Catholics (what they say about Roman Protestants, is beside the point).
What does everyone make of Dust-7's assertions?
-
I have been happily surprised at Dust 7's fresh perspective and erudition. But being a pro Israel Catholic is like being a liberal Catholic, or a satanic saint.
-
On the face of it, as you have quoted it, this statement is completely incorrect. Perhaps he will provide some sort of answer for you.
-
Perhaps. I hope soon.
-
On the face of it, as you have quoted it, this statement is completely incorrect. Perhaps he will provide some sort of answer for you.
I'd like to know why it is completely incorrect. As I said, I too worry about future schemes involving a physically rebuilt Temple. And I'm not unfamiliar with various takes on prophecy concerning these times - because surely we're in them, or right at the start.
But, I have to say that Buchanan, Sobran, and similar bother me in what seems an almost knee-jerk opposition to the state of Israel. I also considered it grossly unfair that certain people will report on IDF 'atrocities' which later will inevitably prove to have been fabricated events and reports. And so on.
Justice is served by an Israeli state. That doesn't mean that the Israelis will always be just. But the injustice is done more to them, in these times, than anything else.
Why is it wrong?
-
being a pro Israel Catholic is like being a liberal Catholic, or a satanic saint.
I also hope for stability in Iraq, which already has sworn the state to Islam in their re-founding docuмents. The same for Afganistan. That doesn't mean that I approve Islam. I don't approve threatening to behead some guy who returned to Afganistan because he had the temerity to convert to Protestantism from Islam. Apparently, for Muslims, that's a killing offense. I don't approve of that. I don't approve of any future Lubavitcher 'jihad' against the Protestant Jews for Jesus, either. But that doesn't mean that, as faithful Catholics, we ought not support Israel, now, in 2007.
That also doesn't mean that one says to the Jews - don't convert. That is a Roman Protestant belief, not a Catholic one. It doesn't mean get rid of all calls for the Jews to convert. That still remains a Roman Protestant belief, despite Ratzinger's recent docuмent. And it doesn't mean that Catholics can expect sympathy or understanding, or anything less than jealous cruelty from orthodox rabbis actually living in Israel. But that doesn't matter.
Why would you equate support for the state of Israel with liberalism and even satanism? In fact, those Jews most opposed to many Israeli policies are themselves very liberal, and very unreligious. As they have moved to Israel and begun voting, Israel has weakened as a result, and is now less able to defeat those who attack it (but as long as the US provides the arms, which we refused to do for the S. Vietnamese under Gerry Ford, just as counter-example).
-
To keep the record straight I wasn't equating support for Israel with liberalism or satanism. I was naming things which cannot be. Like you can't have a sunny night, or instant water.
I think I shall shed copious tears over you, Dust 7. You have so much promise, such a unique (even amusing) perspective, and a wonderful way with words. You are like a breath of fresh air in a stale room. But you believe in something which cannot be. At least tell me you don't believe in ʝʊdɛօ Christianity. Drop me that crumb.
-
Waiting to hear from you, Dust. :ready-to-eat:
-
Justice is served by an Israeli state.
Please elaborate, as the bold is a bit on the gob-smacking side. "Justice" according to whom?
Why is it wrong?
Because the still-aloof and faithless existence Jєωιѕн Nation - which refused to carry out the very mission for which it was created - is objectively contrary to the Divine Plan, for which Our Lord Jesus Christ died on the Cross. The fact that He has foreseen this, and intends to (and will) convert them en masse, does not change the fact that the Jєωιѕн Nation is the most active and powerful force in the anti-supernatural camp, at least among the visible agents.
-
Because the still-aloof and faithless existence Jєωιѕн Nation - which refused to carry out the very mission for which it was created - is objectively contrary to the Divine Plan, for which Our Lord Jesus Christ died on the Cross.
So you actually dispute Israel's right to exist. I agree that this was the position of Pope St. Pius X, and even surprisingly that of his less than orthodox successor. But The Church was less vocal about this 'continuing judgment' following the secrets uncovered under former nαzι rule. I don't believe that Pius XII lobbied against the UN partition. But correct me if I'm wrong. And in any case, I don't think you'd argue this is a matter of dogma, or even something somewhat less, that a Catholic is in any case bound to oppose the 'zionism' that consisted of creating an independent Jєωιѕн state (again, whatever Jєωιѕн actually meant, in fact, when compared with antiquity).
I don't defend Begin. I don't defend the King David. I don't defend ginning up Final Solution death tolls to the point of exaggeration - because that's fuel for the 'deniers', now, at this point. I don't defend the Lubavitchers or their schemes to get the Jews for Jesus should the 3rd Temple be built and a new Sanhedrin created to pass such a death sentence. I don't defend what Netanyahu and the orthodox rabbis have to say about true Catholicism - whatever they say about Ratzinger or the Roman Protestants.
So, none of that. But I do think that Catholics can support the right of Israel to exist. I most certainly do. This doesn't mean that one supports modern, post-Temple Judaism or its exclusive claims going back to the 'chosen people' which were abrogated even before The Last Supper.
And again, this doesn't mean one supports that militant Judaism which roughs up Catholics or Orthodox in the old city just because some official or some troops had a bad day. And generally, the Israel military seems very composed, and professional, and prone only to receiving calumny from a leftist establishment, worldwide, that you might think would be almost unthinkingly in their corner. It doesn't even mean one supports their socialist ways, or various other things. It doesn't mean that one supports their destruction of holy places, should that be legitimately accused, any more than one would accuse the Palestinians prior to partition when the 'mandate' was in force.
-
At least tell me you don't believe in ʝʊdɛօ Christianity. Drop me that crumb.
I do confess Catholicism, which I think is synonymous with the term Christianity in a way that Protestantism is not. I do confess that Our Lord fulfilled many of the old prophecies and fulfilled the practices in new ways, with a new Temple, and new Sacrifice - which is rejected by Roman Protestants, and all Protestants.
So to the extent that Catholicism carried on from Judaism, at least that faithful to God and not the treacherous leaders of the Temple complex in Our Lord's day, you could easily say that Catholicism IS Judaism, true Judaism, but also more because it simply is not only the Jews who now can be saved. Instead, a false and substitute Judaism arose after the Temple, with Scriptures altered to downplay the Incarnation, Life, Passion and Resurrection of the great Promised Messiah - the masoretic texts, so full of error when scribes are taught to commit no error; and so full of intentional error, because there is no other explanation.
The idea of including ʝʊdɛօ- prior to Christian is less objectionable, in my opinion, than equating Christian with Protestant. Call it ʝʊdɛօ-Catholic. Call it Catholic - because that's all one needs to say.
-
You get into a world of hurt there, Dust. You make sense and I can agree with maybe everything you said. BUT there is simply no winnowing these things out anymore. I am of the opinion that the Catholic Church became the "Jews" at Christ's passion. So the real "Jews" are actually the real "Catholics".
Now what is known as Jew is the enemy of the Jew, if you know what I mean. Kind of reminds me of the mind boggling ways our political parties swapped names. Anyway, there is no way you are going to straighten these things out in real time. It's best, in my opinion, to just use the words as they mean for the majority of people. So a ʝʊdɛօ Christian is a person who is split into two warring factions. Can't exist.
As for supporting Israel or being pro Israel, yuck. Nowadays that means we send them everything that isn't tied down, fight their cockeyed wars for them, and let them run our country and make our laws. And those laws are not conducive to our good, either. And again, you can't really tease that out of the simple idea that we shouldn't want them wiped off the face of the map. There's gotta be a better word for what you mean than "pro Israel".
-
So you actually dispute Israel's right to exist. I agree that this was the position of Pope St. Pius X, and even surprisingly that of his less than orthodox successor.
Yes, as they stole land from the rightful owners, the occupants during 13 centuries, basing their "right" to the land on a covenant that they themselves broke via infidelity 2000 years ago.
As for Benedict XV's being "less that orthodox", you might want to elaborate upon such a monumental claim.
But I do think that Catholics can support the right of Israel to exist. I most certainly do. This doesn't mean that one supports modern, post-Temple Judaism or its exclusive claims going back to the 'chosen people' which were abrogated even before The Last Supper.
I disagree. Who do you think is behind Israel, if not the тαℓмυdic, Rabbinical elite? That is what/who you are "supporting".
-
So to the extent that Catholicism carried on from Judaism, at least that faithful to God and not the treacherous leaders of the Temple complex in Our Lord's day, you could easily say that Catholicism IS Judaism, true Judaism, but also more because it simply is not only the Jews who now can be saved.
Catholicism never "carried on from Judaism". Judaism is a man-made perversion of God's revelation to the Israelites. It is not the religion of the OT - the religion of the Israelites.
What you can say is that the Catholic Church is the true Israel, and Catholics are the true Israelites.
Instead, a false and substitute Judaism arose after the Temple...
Judaism IS the false/substitute religion. It is what our Lord was talking about when castigating the Pharisees for making void the word of God, substituting the laws of men.
-
Instead, a false and substitute Judaism arose after the Temple...
Judaism IS the false/substitute religion. It is what our Lord was talking about when castigating the Pharisees for making void the word of God, substituting the laws of men.
It couldn't have been, because Our Lord remained faithful and taught in the ѕуηαgσgυєs. But He did so as He wished, as God wished, not in a false and hypocritical way. The early and faithful Church - was Jєωιѕн. The Holy Family were faithful. And so on.
If you want to say that - judaism - describes the post-temple or тαℓмυdic Judaism that came into existence partly to deny that the Messiah had come, I might agree. But to say that Our Lord taught against the Temple, and against the Law, would be to contradict Our Lord.
-
Our Lord was teaching and explaining at the age of 12. Obviously the religious leaders were well off the path. I don't see the discrepancy between Jesus' righteous teaching and the Pharisees, etc, erroneous teaching in the same synogogue.
But in a way I have wondered that myself, because Jesus often said, "you have heard", and He quoted scripture to satan. So the proper teaching was there, somewhere, although incomplete, but I think it was well on the way to being buried under the diabolical teachings of the тαℓмυd. Some of this I am very fuzzy on, but I'm not fuzzy about them hating Jesus because He contradicted them. What Judaism is today is the logical conclusion of the derailment they were already accomplishing when Jesus tried to set them straight.
-
If you want to say that - judaism - describes the post-temple or тαℓмυdic Judaism that came into existence partly to deny that the Messiah had come, I might agree. But to say that Our Lord taught against the Temple, and against the Law, would be to contradict Our Lord.
The latter idea, in bold, has been nowhere expressed in this thread - until your own mentioning of it.
-
But in a way I have wondered that myself, because Jesus often said, "you have heard", and He quoted scripture to satan. So the proper teaching was there, somewhere, although incomplete, but I think it was well on the way to being buried under the diabolical teachings of the тαℓмυd.
The early Church was Jєωιѕн. There was actually a question, even debate, as you can read in The Acts, about extending the franchise of the chosen people to the gentiles. But such was the mandate from God. The тαℓмυd, instead, is the product of post-Temple Judaism; or whatever other word one would prefer. It is a more elaborate commentary on the Mishna and other things, being created shortly after the Roman destruction of the 2nd/Herod's Temple, but really apparently coming to fruition centuries later, primarily in Babylon (not the ancient city though), but also with works coming from Jerusalem. This could be considered the spiritual descendant of the Pharisaical writings of Our Lord's day and particularly as the тαℓмυd would attempt to explain or excuse the behavior of the same, and other sects, with regard to Our Lord. It's from the тαℓмυd where the Lubavitchers and their 'Education Days' and other official Congressional honors derive their Noahide Laws, apparently to be applied to gentiles when the 3rd Temple and new Sanhedrin are formed, which is the dream of many within Israel and without. And the TNK, or 'tanach', this new Jєωιѕн version of the Old Testament, as The Church had it, is corrupt in various places in an effort, clearly, to attack Our Lord, Jesus Christ, and deny various claims and prophecies by rewriting the old texts.
-
Agreed, except the тαℓмυd in oral form was already many years old when Jesus was born. It was centuries later that they wrote it down, and I believe I read that they wrote it in such a way as to keep gentiles from understanding what they were saying. Not surprising since they didn't have one good word to say about gentiles, and many bad words to say about Jesus and Mary.
-
Agreed, except the тαℓмυd in oral form was already many years old when Jesus was born. It was centuries later that they wrote it down, and I believe I read that they wrote it in such a way as to keep gentiles from understanding what they were saying.
Some might claim that. But it's generally understood that the тαℓмυd and Mishna, and the masoretic texts, post-date the destruction of the Temple, and certainly the Ascension of God.
They clearly did have a bone to pick. But it was very much after the fact.
-
The traditions of men that made void the Word of God were not from post-70 A.D., etc. Yes, there was even more elaborate and excessive codification of them, but they were 'part of the deal' for centuries.
The tendency of the rabbis to pretend there was a second, unwritten revelation to Moses - which the rabbis alone safeguarded - was ingrained by the time of Our Lord. That is why he blasts them for it.
-
The traditions of men that made void the Word of God were not from post-70 A.D., etc.
No one said that. The question had to do with the Mishna and тαℓмυd and the revised TNK. These post-date Our Lord's Ascension by many decades, even post-date the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Roman legions responding to the Jєωιѕн revolt.
As I said, they carry on the defense of the Temple priesthood and leadership in how they treated the great Promised Messiah of prophecy. What Our Lord condemned would apply equally to what post-Temple or тαℓмυdic Judaism created, as well, even moreso.
-
Justice is served by an Israeli state. That doesn't mean that the Israelis will always be just. But the injustice is done more to them, in these times, than anything else.
"Israeli state," as in 'secular Zionist state?' Modern Israel got going in 1948 with a huge land grab and the driving out of at least 700,000 native Palestinians. Emerging Israel was reported in the Western press as a tiny new state under seige by the reportedly much larger combined forces of the surrounding Arab nations. However, such was not true. Nascent new Israel, from my understanding, was stronger and better organized militarily from the very beginning. They were stronger in the air and on the ground. So, if "in these times," you are referring to new Israel's relatively short existence, I think that real history teaches that the latter has perpetrated injustice throughout its entire history.
-
Modern Israel got going in 1948 with a huge land grab and the driving out of at least 700,000 native Palestinians. Emerging Israel was reported in the Western press as a tiny new state under seige by the reportedly much larger combined forces of the surrounding Arab nations. However, such was not true.
It would have necessarily been the case, and as was seen in a number of wars.
The mistake the 'zionists' made, in my opinion, was giving back the Sinai, or attempting 'land-for-peace' in any fashion at all. It merely encouraged further aggression against them.
I think that real history teaches that the latter has perpetrated injustice throughout its entire history.
I don't deny the heretical sects, 'illuminati' or 'masonry' or other usurpation schemes aimed at particular monarchies, throughout history. People like to dismiss such as 'mere conspiracy'. They like to blame those defending themselves and paint the aggressors as 'victim's. I realize that. But sometimes cօռspιʀαcιҽs are also seen where there are none, or where those who not primarily Jєωιѕн were really pulling the strings.
There is a sect, and secret societies, that have put forward ideas to a) destroy just society and b) introduce a sort of тαℓмυdic 'justice' in its place. No doubt. The TNK is falsified in certain passages. The тαℓмυd does not always preach justice. And there are those like the Lubavitchers who have very clear plans in mind should Israel ever rebuild the Temple and reinstate the Sandhedrin. In short, if you are a Protestant with 'Jews for Jesus', you better take a pretty good-sized group of bodyguards if in that time you plan a vacation in the Holy Land.
But that time hasn't come. And I've known people who were Jєωιѕн from the Fairfax area of Los Angeles, decades ago, not a few transplanted from the east coast, hard working, generally good in business, mostly, proud of the Israeli Air Force, but not out to destroy the Faith, nor separate Church and state, nor sign some death warrant for someone working for Jews for Jesus, and so on. I realize there are these others. I've never personally met them. I've read about them. I've seen their photos. I've read their opinions. But those Jews I've met have always seemed to be, as they call them, menches.
Maybe they were just putting on a front?
In other words, there is no denying that Jews, and others, have been about the business of Revolution, for centuries. It has been concerted, planned, conspiratorial. The 'plan' has outlasted many of them, and is continued by the next generation, with some variation. Popes have often condemned this. Kings have had to fight this. But other Jews - and others - have fought this, or otherwise been indifferent to it. And I believe that many in Israel, at least some years ago when last I visited (and it's been a while), are not those attempting to corrupt, destroy, or bring down. I think they wish to build up, to create, to produce and constructively add to what they have been given. If too many of the 'whiners' have migrated to Israel, then it's a shame. If too many of the cloak and dagger conspirators have relocated to Israel, again, a shame.
But I think the time to resist Israel is when there is just cause to do so. And now all aggression against them is unjust. Saddam's attacks were unjust. His threats of the 'bomb' were unjust. And those same today from Iran - are equally unjust, and must be opposed.
-
I just go back to your original words:
Justice is served by an Israeli state
The question of individual Jews, or regional blocks of Jews living here or elsewhere, and their interior motives and modi vivendi, is not at issue. The focus here is the "state" of Israel. I contend that NO justice is served by a Jєωιѕн state. I look upon modern Israel as the main perpetrator of turmoil, unrest, and, yes, injustice, in the ME. It is a government run by grasping, ruthless, unprincipled, prevaricating, Zionist ideologues, whose true racist motives and program of territorial expansion are generally hidden or camouflaged to the world. But actions should speak louder than propaganda.
That is not to say that I support the surrounding Islamic regimes, including Iraq and Iran. Islam is inimical to Catholicism. It has always been and will always be. But these Islamic countries never posed a danger or security threat to the secular U.S. government and its peoples.
I think the jury is in on Iraq. The groundwork laid in preparation for the destruction of that country was done for, and on behalf of Israel. The current alleged "nuclear threat" posed by Iran is Israeli-inspired and Israeli-generated, greatly intensified by U.S. and Euro-based Zionist propaganda organs. The only nuclear threat in the ME is posed by the state of Israel.
-
But I think the time to resist Israel is when there is just cause to do so. And now all aggression against them is unjust.
Israel is the supremely terrorist nation, mate. Their very existence came about as a violation of justice, and it continues as such to this day.