Topic: Cardinal: Vatican-SSPX talks do not signal toleration of anti-Judaism

[ialmisry]

OK, now Abe Foxman cozy's up with the Koch over his expression of affirmation of Nostra Aetate.

You're in real good company there these days aren't you "cardinal".

ADL says "jump", Vatican says "how high?'.

How can these "men" at the Vatican even look themselves in the mirror these days and call themselves "christian".

One day they will be held accountable.




http://www.adl.org/PresRele/VaticanJewish_96/6427_96.htm
ADL Praises Cardinal Koch's Reaffirmation(capitulation) Of Positive(submissive) Relations Between Catholics And Jews

"We commend(command) Cardinal Koch's sentiments on coping with crises collectively(covertly(for Judaics)) and resolving conflicts positively( there's that word again)," said Rabbi Eric J. Greenberg, ADL Interfaith Director.  We also respectfully urge( demand) that any potential rehabilitation( re-education) of the SSPX include the requirement(threat) that the Society publicly reject their decades of hatred (truth), and that as an expression of their affirmation of Nostra Aetate, be required to remove all anti-Semitic(truth-telling) rhetoric from both their online and print publications."

It is embarrassing and quite revealing. At least 50 years of teachings which can't be reconciled with previous teachings and almost the whole visible structure taken over by the Modernists....
Aren't you starting to ask yourself if the church in which you have believed and to which you have given your fidelity, may not be true church?

Speaking of tradition, you do know that the Orthodox Church allows its members to use artificial birth control right?

Leaving aside the articificial distinction of "artificial birth control," and?

[ialmisry]

Yes. I just read both of those passages. Neither of those texts is an overt approval of contraceptive use. I'd parse it more exactly, showing the thought processes, but I'd rather spend that time writing about the Western Rite.  

The first and the second one, accordingly to the Head of the Synodal Department for Church and Society Relations, also is: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/russian-orthodox-church-approves-condom-use-in-wake-of-pope-benedicts-remar

didn't someone in the Russian Orthodox Church directly repudiate Humanae Vitae, though not by name, recently (last couple years)?

[Charles Martel]

Seems "antisemitism" is whatever Abe Foxman and the ADL says it is. And even this changes and morphs continuously.

I'm almost inclined to believe that "antisemitism" is basically being against the  semitic peoples based on racial reasons.


Ironically the majority of "semites" aren't even Jews.

[Peter J]

So no one can point to anything anti-Semitic about this man?

Not necessarily; sometimes it takes a little while for someone to get around to responding to a post.

Have you already read this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Williamson_(bishop)#Jews_and_Holocaust_denial

[Fr.Aidan]

Now I have read it. And it does not contain enough data to allow anyone to come to a conclusion whether or not this man is anti-Semitic. Let's take the wiki article point by point:

"Williamson condemns the Jews."

So does the Orthodox Church, in her official liturgical texts. And?

"He called them the "enemies of Christ" and urges their conversion to Catholicism."

The Orthodox Church calls them the same in her liturgical texts and urges the conversion of all peoples of the world to Orthodox Christianity. And?

"He claims that Jews and Freemasons have contributed to the "changes and corruption" in the Catholic Church."

I think the Vatican's latest actions in barring him from communion over traditional Christian views, is actually proof that Williamson is correct.

"He has also stated that Jews aim at world dominion"

… which is undeniable… not ALL Jews, of course…

"and believes The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to be authentic."

His bad. Still not anti-Semitism by any definition I've ever seen.

He stated, "The Church has always understood the definition of anti-Semitism to be the rejection of Jews because of their Jewish roots. This is condemned by the Church."

Well, that's awfully anti-anti-Semitic, no?

"Williamson has denied that millions of Jews were murdered in Nazi concentration camps…"

Even Red Cross records still agree with Williamson, not the propagandists who would have us believe, despite all empirical evidence, that six million Jews perished under Hitler, which is bunk.

"and the existence of Nazi gas chambers"

Odd, but not anti-Semitic.

"… and praised Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel…"

Praised him for what, exactly? Nothing conclusive here.

So, no one can point to any anti-Semitism in this man? A total witch hunt.

[Peter J]

Now I have read it. And it does not contain enough data to allow anyone to come to a conclusion whether or not this man is anti-Semitic.

A Wikipedia article that isn't stellar? What is this world coming to!

(Kidding.)

[mike]

Exactly, Michal. Believing that the Protocols of Zion is a real document from Jews, is not anti-Semitism.

Failing to believe individual pieces of the Holocaust propaganda, is not anti-Semitism. Even if someone believed that Jews were never targeted by Hitler's regime and that no Jews died in that genocide, I would think they were very odd, but I would have to know more facts, before I could declare that they were anti-Semitic.

So what is antisemitism accordingly to you?

[Fr.Aidan]

I think anti-Semitism could be defined as an ethnic hatred of Arab people, in which a person wishes harm to the members of that ethnocultural group, based on their membership in that group. It could also, secondarily, refer to such an irrational hatred for Jewish people. I'm thinking out loud, since I haven't really dwelt mentally on defining it.

[celticfan1888]

Exactly, Michal. Believing that the Protocols of Zion is a real document from Jews, is not anti-Semitism.

Failing to believe individual pieces of the Holocaust propaganda, is not anti-Semitism. Even if someone believed that Jews were never targeted by Hitler's regime and that no Jews died in that genocide, I would think they were very odd, but I would have to know more facts, before I could declare that they were anti-Semitic.

So what is antisemitism accordingly to you?

Not that.

It is: hostility toward or discrimination against Semites as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-semitism

[Frederic]

Exactly, Michal. Believing that the Protocols of Zion is a real document from Jews, is not anti-Semitism.

Failing to believe individual pieces of the Holocaust propaganda, is not anti-Semitism. Even if someone believed that Jews were never targeted by Hitler's regime and that no Jews died in that genocide, I would think they were very odd, but I would have to know more facts, before I could declare that they were anti-Semitic.

So what is antisemitism accordingly to you?

Fr.Aidan's point of view is theoretically possible, but I doubt whether it is possible to find a person holding such views. 99.9%(?) of the people acknowledging the authenticity of the Protocol and denying the existence of the genocide are anti-Semitic. Is it possible to find at least one counter-example?

[Fr.Aidan]

99.9%? I am surprised that you know so many of these people. I've run into only one or two in my lifetime.

[Frederic]

It was just a manner of speaking (and you know it). I simply cannot imagine a non-anti-Semite not believing in the Jewish genocide, although theoretically there can exist such a person (that is why I have written 99.9%).

[Charles Martel]

Exactly, Michal. Believing that the Protocols of Zion is a real document from Jews, is not anti-Semitism.

Failing to believe individual pieces of the Holocaust propaganda, is not anti-Semitism. Even if someone believed that Jews were never targeted by Hitler's regime and that no Jews died in that genocide, I would think they were very odd, but I would have to know more facts, before I could declare that they were anti-Semitic.

So what is antisemitism accordingly to you?

Fr.Aidan's point of view is theoretically possible, but I doubt whether it is possible to find a person holding such views. 99.9%(?) of the people acknowledging the authenticity of the Protocol and denying the existence of the genocide are anti-Semitic. Is it possible to find at least one counter-example?

His view is not just "theoretically" possible, it's sound reasoning using things like logic and rationality.

Something totally foreign to those running around squawking about "antisemites" the minute someone questions the veracity of the Judaics version of the "holocaust" or texts like the Protocols.

[Iconodule]

I agree with Frederic. Fr. Aidan is grasping at straws here.

[Fr.Aidan]

Okay, so what, precisely, must a person believe happened historically in the 1940s, regarding the Jewish populations, in order to NOT be an anti-Semite? Please be specific.

(And, merely as an aside, why is it that belief in one mythological version of events, as taught in schools, for example, is okay, no matter how untruthful, but belief in another mythological version is enough to call down wrath and accusations far afield from anything objective?)

[mike]

It could also, secondarily, refer to such an irrational hatred for Jewish people.

That makes believing in the Protocol a feature of antisemitism because it's untrue so hatred  towards Jews supported by it is irrational.

[Ioannis Climacus]

It could also, secondarily, refer to such an irrational hatred for Jewish people.

That makes believing in the Protocol a feature of antisemitism because it's untrue so hatred  towards Jews supported by it is irrational.

Truth is not synonymous with rationality and falsehood with irrationality. Arianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism are all rational ideas (that is, using reason), but they are utterly false.

In America, most people today still believe the heavily propagandized version of the Boston Massacre. By the logic you have put forth, it would be accurate for me to say that the entire country is swept up in hatred for the British.

[Fr.Aidan]

That's a great point, Ioannis. Americans do generally hold to some untrue historical beliefs which are against a foreign ethnicity or at the least their government. I remember when I was in fifth grade and studying the Boston Massacre, thinking, "Wait, this isn't a massacre at all!"

The myth was crafted at a time when there was high anti-British feeling, but anti-British feeling is not much existent anymore.

In the case of the Holocaust Myths (such as the preposterous "six million" figure), we have the complex layer added, that exposure to bogus data and reckless historical revisionism, can make scholars and ordinary folk too skeptical in the OTHER direction. To attribute their over-corrective skepticism to hate or bigotry is a very foolish form of prejudice and bigotry.

[Peter J]

In the case of the Holocaust Myths (such as the preposterous "six million" figure),

In view of the number of times you've repeated that assertion on this thread, I'm guessing that you don't have much confidence that people will believe you.

[Peter J]

I simply cannot imagine a non-anti-Semite not believing in the Jewish genocide, although theoretically there can exist such a person

Just so. Technically it's circumstantial evidence, but still ...