Quote from: Cletus

I don't think that St Aloysius Gonzaga would have called me stupid for saying that if language is not good enough for the Blessed Virgin it is not good enough for one's neighbor.

Well, I do not see him posting on this forum.  St. Aloysius would also refrain from being a stooge of the Judaics.  Would you?

The fact that you do not see St Aloysius Gonzaga posting on this forum has nothing to do with the fact that it is very wrong of you to befoul a previously clean Catholic forum.

My invocation of St Aloysius pertains to Catholic faith in the Communion of Saints. Your inane reply to that invocation puts you in league with the sordid wiseacre Martin Luther, who grumbled against "puritans", "God is in Heaven. You are on earth."

It is not a question of St Aloysius' posting here or not posting here. It is a question of the members here wanting to see the Christian virtues of chastity and modesty as exemplied by that holy youth maintained here.

And to answer your question: Yes.

Why do you ask?

I believe I have pointed this out before, but here goes again.  How is it possible to be loyal to Jesus and Mary and also to the people who call them "whore, blasphemer, worker of black magic, illegitimate and have tried for 2,000 years to wipe Jesus and His followers off the face of the map.  How is it possible?

Maybe only a handful of the Orthodox in the entire world would stand by those ancient blasphemies in the тαℓмυd. Even anti-"Judaics" admit that the rabbis have subsequently attempted to expunge them.

Jєωs found Jesus not guilty in one of their courts not long ago. They tossed out the finding of the ancient Jєωιѕн court. This is how modern Jєωs behave towards our Divine Rabbi in the main. Not that too much else good can be said about the way any group of moderns other than orthodox Catholics  deal with the Son of Man.

But still, so much for Blood Guilt as something humans can comprehend. The Jєωs have called out that Jesus is NOT worthy of death. Only the mystery of St Matthew's clear implication that there is some sort of collective guilt with The Jєωs as a People remains. But there is no need to harp on that mystery. Catholics would do better to harp on the Sermon on the Mount and the Golden Rule.

Jesus and Mary were "loyal" to the Pharisees who called Him a Samaritan, Beelzebub, and a blasphemer. "The Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore that they command you to do, do ye them."

It is always best simply to follow in the foosteps of Jesus and Mary and not get all nerved up about ancient insults that can easily be ignored.

We should get nerved up only about the blasphemies against Jesus and Mary of which so-called Catholics are guilty. Earlier this year someone on a Traditional Catholic forum opined that it is heretical to DENY that Jesus, as True Man, shared the erroneous opinions of the ancient world.

Catholics should get hot and bothered only over things that could harm souls NOW. They should lay off the тαℓмυd and concentrate on the neo-Nestorianism rampant even in Traditionalist circles.

My own opinion is that it would do great honor to the Master to take a charitable view towards those ancient Jєωs who were guilty of those horrible blasphemies. We should imagine that bad Christians had raped their daughters and that good Christians had burned down their homes. We should apply to them the Divine Command" "Thou shalt not reproach the man who has spoken in the bitterness of his soul."

As American Catholics, we are especially obligated to view these matters as enlightened modern humanists.

Jєωs found Jesus not guilty in one of their courts not long ago. They tossed out the finding of the ancient Jєωιѕн court. This is how modern Jєωs behave towards our Divine Rabbi in the main.

What a relief!  Who re-tries a 2000-year-old case, in a court that is utterly meaningless?

You asked only one question in the post I quoted. And it was that question I answered. It was of that question that I asked you, "Why do you ask?"

I see that I misunderstood.  Apologies.  

The post itself had five (5) questions, although you quoted (and answered) one.  Two of them (in the original post) could have been answered 'yes'.

Quote from: Cletus

Jєωs found Jesus not guilty in one of their courts not long ago. They tossed out the finding of the ancient Jєωιѕн court. This is how modern Jєωs behave towards our Divine Rabbi in the main.

What a relief!  Who re-tries a 2000-year-old case, in a court that is utterly meaningless?

It is meaningless only if it is meaningless that a follower of Jesus of Nazareth should turn a single high-flown comment by one member of the mob that cried out for His death (most of them only following the orders of their Lawful Superiors) into a a Dictum of Revelation of the proportions of "Let there be Light" or "On this Rock I will build My Church."

The People cried out, "Let His Blood be upon us and our children."

The People. Not "The Jєωs."

And we are supposed to believe that two or three thousand Jєωs chanted that in unison as though it were Palm Sunday and they were at Novus Ordo Mass?

Hardly. Not even two people could have said THAT precisely. We can't be sticklers against St Matthew's veracity and the Holy Spirit's clear intention to teach some mystery about collective guilt. But we can't be sticklers against The Jєωs either.

Reading St Matthew's account of the calling of Peter and Andrew and James and John we never would get the impression that Jesus knew those men already and that He did not just happen to see them as He walked by. St Matthew is all about artificiality and without warning going from the observable and historical (The CROWD cried out) to the mystical and theological (the PEOPLE cried out).

Only in church may it be fairly and safely said, by learned priests and theologians, that The Jєωs killed their Messiah and God and that The Jєωs called upon God to bring His Blood upon them and their children. Elsewhere it is almost always a profane libel. Elsewhere it is almost always nothing but bad sport for bad Christians.

But if we are going to go down that Collective Jєωry route, then we have to say that The Jєωs found Jesus Not Guilty of the charges of the ancient court and we may well opine that the Curse may well have been lifted.

See the "Judaizing" QUEST FOR HAPPINESS excerpt in the Hoffman thread. That is 1956 American Catholicism at its best (though not without its own problems).

By Steele's logic, the fact that The Jєωs cried out that the Blood of Jesus is Innocent Blood should matter more to us than the ancient taunt recorded and theologized by St Matthew. It happened more recently.

Catholics rightly scorn Evangelicals for the way in which they work different bits and pieces of Scripture into an entire Frankenstein  theology of Rapture. But it is no better to rob the theological cemetery, to dig up rotting things that are best left to rot, and whip up a Frankenstein theology of Jєωιѕн Blood Guilt and Sempiternal Jєωιѕн Wandering.

It is SO so.

Most Jєωs for centuries never heard of those blasphemies.

The general Jєωιѕн thought about Jesus in modern times among the less sophisticated was expressed by the mother of Edith Stein. He was a good man, but why did He have to call Himself God and cause all that trouble for the Jєωs, including Himself?

James. Who he?

Don't call me James. My name is Cletus in this forum and that's all anyone here needs to know.

But just for the record, there is nothing particularly interesting or relevant about the fact that my Christian name is indeed James.

Gladius is appropriately acting like a member of the Gestapo. "We know who you are. We know your name."

I can't be the only grateful American who resents his pathetic attempt at Brown Shirt tactics as a matter of American principle. We just don't go for this sort of thing in this country. "You had an expectation of a certain privacy when you came in here as Cletus and I am going to dash that expectation to pieces."

Still, God brings good out of evil. Thanks for the shameless plug about what "James" has been up to on the other thread, Glad. You bring a whole new meaning to the term "shameless plug." I do think that most Traditionalists who would not find it hopelessly shattering to become just Catholics and forget the specific "Traditionalist" connection, would benefit by an open-minded perusal of my "rantings." (And that is a fair way to characterize some of them.)

Or maybe they would stay as they are but just think, "Well, he makes a good point there..." about issues on which they been mistaken.