I am Jewish

[Roman]

And, btw, "Pinay", despite your concern with the "Khazarite" Jews, I  must tell you that it does not really matter. The Jewish people is a  ethno-religious one, it is a unique people -- "your God is my God and  your people is my people". It is not just the "Khazars"; in the time of  Christ himself a considerable portion of the Jewish people had an  ethnic composition which was quite different from that of the time of  Moses: one must only be reminded of the destruction and dispersion of  the tribes of northern Israel long before the Babylonian exile of Judah  and of the mass conversions to Judaism during the Maccabean and  post-Maccabean age.
 
  Why don't we all go back to our rooms to study the book of Ruth?
 

[VoxClamantis]

I have no fixation whatsoever. But I do not want Catholics and non-Catholics who visit these pages to think that Traditional Catholics are an unpleasant anti-Semitic bunch. Many good "conservative" Catholics have avoided some Traditional Catholic circles because of this unbelievable anti-Judaism and this fixation with the Jewish people.

 

You are going from criticism of the Talmud to the concept of "anti-semitism." That is the problem, and the only way this conversation can ever go forward is for you to define:

 

1) Jew

2) Judaism

3) anti-semitism

 

Yes, yes, this is the same people whose ancestors lived under the Pharaohs. Of course, Pope Innocent was not well informed about the wonderful "ethnical" discoveries of 19th and 20th century anti-Jewish apologists...

 

It doesn't matter to me whether practicing Jews of today are physical descendants of those who lived under the Pharoahs or not any more than it mattered to St. John the Baptist:

 

Matthew 3:1-9
And in those days cometh John the Baptist preaching in the desert of Judea.  And saying: Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.  For this is he that was spoken of by Isaias the prophet, saying: A voice of one crying in the desert, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.  And the same John had his garment of camels' hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins: and his meat was locusts and wild honey.  Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the country about Jordan:  And were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.  And seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them: Ye brood of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come?  Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance.  And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.

 

The physical ancestry of those who call themselves Jews is a side issue that people can debate; it doesn't matter at all. What matters are IDEOLOGY and RELIGION, and if you can critique Mohamedanism and the ideologies that spring from it, then you can Judaism and the ideologies that spring from it, too. Don't confuse this issue with racism ("anti-semitism"); racism has nothing to do with it. 

[Roman]

You  are going from criticism of the Talmud to the concept of  "anti-semitism." That is the problem, and the only way this  conversation can ever go forward is for you to define:

1) Jew

2) Judaism

3) anti-semitism

...
 

The physical ancestry of those who call themselves Jews is a side issue that people can debate; it doesn't matter at all. 
   

 
  Why should I define anything if I show no animosity towards the Jewish  people, Judaism, and the State of Israel? The concepts cannot be easily  defined precisely because they are superposed and because, as I had  said in my earlier post, the Jewish people is a unique people, it is a  complex ethno-religious people and culture. Those who are critical of  the Jewish people, of Temple Judaism and post-Temple Judaism, of the  State of Israel are the ones who should be careful with their concepts.
 
  It is quite impossible to discuss them here because some consider  genetic ancestry an issue (because it would mean that the Jews of our  time are not related to the Jews of Antiquity), others do not; some  accept that contemporary Judaism, though different in several external  and written statements from pre-Babylonian exile and Judean Judaism, is  still the same faith, while others say that they are two completely  different faiths. Some claim to be against Zionism, while  simultaneously criticizing Jewish people and events from centuries  before the Zionist movement ever existed.
 
  These are difficult subjects and they CANNOT be solved with distorted  propaganda snippets. Catholics, of all people, should be weary of  distorted historical facts and doubtful generalizations...  In  this forum, I know I'm dealing with some people who are, in many cases,  neckdeep in pseudo-historical propaganda; I try only to offer a  different perspective on Jewish matters and to make known to others  that there is not a single Traditional Catholic view on the History and  on current affairs of the chosen people of the Old Covenant. [I  apologize if these words seem harsh, but it is not my intention to  offend anyone, just to make my position clear. Goodbye and have a nice  weekend.]
 

[VoxClamantis]

Why should I define anything if I show no animosity towards the Jewish people, Judaism, and the State of Israel? The concepts cannot be easily defined precisely because they are superposed and because, as I had said in my earlier post, the Jewish people is a unique people, it is a complex ethno-religious people and culture. Those who are critical of the Jewish people, of Temple Judaism and post-Temple Judaism, of the State of Israel are the ones who should be careful with their concepts.

 

Every people is a unique people. The Italians are unique, the Poles are unique, the people of Zaire are unique. And complex, too, for that matter. But since Jews, Judaism, and anti-semitism are the topic of this conversation, it is they that must be defined, because as things are, any criticism of Judaism or Jewry is met with cries of "anti-semitism." If that's the level of debate, things will go nowhere. One can talk about any other group in general terms, but not "the Jews." One can criticize any religion one wants, but not Judaism.

 

As I've said all over this site, Judaism is not the Old Testament religion. Even the Jewish Encyclopedia will tell you that. A Jew is one who identifies as a Jew and:

• accepts Judaism (the post-Temple religion, that is) and/or
• accepts particularist or antichrist ideologies that spring from it, whether he consciously knows these ideologies spring from Judaism or not

Eretz Israel seems to know what "Jew" and "Judaism" mean. Jewish groups know whom to invite to their endless fundraisers. Surely "Jew" means something, and if we are to have a meaningful conversation about them, we have to know who they are, and the above definition is one that is used at this forum.

 

Now, if you can write this about Muslims:

Which is why I do not understand "Maurice Pinay"'s benevolence towards much, much more dangerous, really dangerous non-Catholics, historically and in current affairs, such as, for instance, the Mohameddans.

-- if you can characterize Mohameddans (not even "Islam," but "Mohammedans") in a specific way ("dangerous, really dangerous"), then why are Jews (let alone "Judaism") off limits lest one risk being labelled "anti-semite"? I know you think Jews are really super-special and "unique" (as if we're not all special and unique), but they don't mind characterizing "Catholics" as "anti-semites" and "Jew-haters" and the source of all Jewish troubles and such. How can we possibly protect ourselves if they can characterize us but we can't characterize them? If they can not only express what they perceive as "historical" grievances, but can make them up willy-nilly -- and then use the force of the law to disallow our even relating Historical truths?

 

 

It is quite impossible to discuss them here because some consider genetic ancestry an issue (because it would mean that the Jews of our time are not related to the Jews of Antiquity), others do not;

 

The Church does not consider genetic ancestry an issue (outside of its Old Covenant importance with regard to the prophecies), so that's where it stops for this forum. But Jews do consider ancestry an issue, and that can be talked about -- and if Jews hold up an alleged ancestry as giving them a right to a piece of land, then questions about that ancestry, per the Khazar theory, can be talked about.

 

some accept that contemporary Judaism, though different in several external and written statements from pre-Babylonian exile and Judean Judaism, is still the same faith, while others say that they are two completely different faiths.

 

They are not the same faith according to History. From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

... and with the destruction of the Temple the Sadducees disappeared altogether, leaving the regulation of all Jewish affairs in the hands of the Pharisees.  Henceforth Jewish life was regulated by the teachings of the Pharisees; the whole history of Judaism was reconstructed from the Pharisaic point of view, and a new aspect was given to the Sanhedrin of the past. A new chain of tradition supplanted the older, priestly tradition. Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and the life and thought of the Jew for all the future.

And it is so according to the Catholic Church or else you are saying that the New Covenant is not a fulfillment of the Old Covenant. Either that's the way it is, or else Jesus came up out of nowhere and Christianity is just a new religion altogether. Either you accept Christ as the Church always has -- as the Messiah foretold by the Old Covenant Prophets -- or you don't. And if He is a fulfillment of the Old Covenant prophecies, then post-Temple Judaism isn't. It is, instead, a clear rejection of Christ as the consummation of everything ancient Israel stood for and waited for. It is the religion of those Paul described in Romans 11: "because of unbelief they were broken off." They can return to Israel any time they want -- by repentance, Baptism, obedience, the same as anyone. Many have.

 

Some claim to be against Zionism, while simultaneously criticizing Jewish people and events from centuries before the Zionist movement ever existed.

One can be against Zionism and against Judaism - and since so many 20th c. Jews have reversed their religion yet again and speak of Zionism as an aspect of Judaism, one can conflate the two.

These are difficult subjects and they CANNOT be solved with distorted propaganda snippets. Catholics, of all people, should be weary of distorted historical facts and doubtful generalizations...  In this forum, I know I'm dealing with some people who are, in many cases, neckdeep in pseudo-historical propaganda; I try only to offer a different perspective on Jewish matters and to make known to others that there is not a single Traditional Catholic view on the History and on current affairs of the chosen people of the Old Covenant. [I apologize if these words seem harsh, but it is not my intention to offend anyone, just to make my position clear. Goodbye and have a nice weekend.]

No, there is only one Catholic view of Christ, and from that view of Christ comes everything else. Either He is Who He said He was or He is not. Either He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, or He is not.

 

The Talmud can be read online. The Popes made clear what it is and what it teaches. A 19th century Jewish rabbi who converted to the One, True Church described it like this:

For a long time it was my professional duty to teach the Talmud and explain its doctrines, after having attended special courses for many years under the most renowned of contemporary Jewish Doctors.... The judicious reader of the Talmud is often saddened by the presence of many of those strange aberrations into which the human mind falls when bereft of the true faith, and very frequently rabbinical cynicism makes him blush with shame. The Christian is horrified by the insane and atrocious calumnies which the impious hatred of the Pharisees hurls at everything he holds sacred ... In the Ghemara there are at least a hundred passages which are insulting to the memory of Our Adorable Savior, the more-than-angelic purity of His Holy Mother, the Immaculate Queen of Heaven, as well as the moral character of the Christian, whom the Talmud represents as practicing the most abominable vices.

[Roman]

   

Every people is a unique people. The Italians are unique, the Poles are unique, the people of Zaire are unique.

 
  Again with the Italians... When the History of the people of Israel  began, when the Lord chose Abraham out of Ur and brought Israel out of  the land of serfdom, there were people living in what would be called  the Italian peninsula, many of them ancestors of the people living in  Italy today, but certainly no Italians as we know them today... No  other people is like the Jewish people. It is strange, it is uncanny,  but it is what the Lord wanted for some reason. My guess is that He  wants to show the world the strength of His promises, even while His  chosen people of the Old Covenant, the people of the Perfect Man and of  the Immaculate Woman, in good measure rejects Him.
 
  It is a mystery, a complicated one, as St. Paul describes in Romans,  one of the most difficult aspects of the New Testament. Those Jews who  accepted the New Covenant, first among them the Apostles, are the  healthy tree to which the gentiles were transplanted. Those who  rejected it have had to develop a completely post-sacrificial religious  enterprise, whose development had already been in place centuries  before the advent of the Christ -- but they have not been completely  abandoned.
 
  But of course those who have rejected Christ must find ways to justify  the unjustifiable -- which is why many Jewish and Mohameddan texts are  full of deceptions regarding the Church. They have to fabricate ideas  so as to justify why they may never convert. It makes sense and it  should not shock us, especially when one is reminded of the terrible  deeds some Christian populations did inflict on its Jewish minorities  (which is no secret and no anti-Catholic propaganda).
 
  --
 
  You also ask me (in an oblique manner) why I classify the Mohameddans  as dangerous. This should be clear: THEY have actually tried to destroy  Christendom, not once, not twice, but numerous times. They had to be  contained. One of most hilarious charges of the "anti-Zionists" is that  they fight us today because of the existence of the State of Israel,  not realizing that they would fight us no matter what -- State of  Israel or no State of Israel. Theirs is a bellicose faith. Their  religion aims universality, like the True Religion, which is why it  sees us as its ultimate enemy.
 
  And while they try to destroy us, as they did so many times since the  hordes of Mohammed advanced past the Arabian deserts, as they destroyed  the Roman Empire of the East and the Gothic kingdoms of Hispania, as  they did when our ancestors had to fight for our behalf in Poitiers, in  Lepanto, in Vienna, the propagandidts are all over the place trying to  make some of us believe that the "Jews" are a problem. The Jews are no  problem! The Jews, as Pope Martin V said, "are made to the image of  God, and a remnant of them will one day be saved". Ah, the mystery!
 

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

Muslims may be dangerous, but Jews were (and still are) much more insidious. You remember the Marranos? They pretended to be Catholic, all the while still remaining Jews. That was why Queen Isabella of Spain drove them out; only, they returned later. Karl Marx was a Jew. Who do you think attacked Mel Gibson, especially in the form of the B'nai B'rith ADL? Fr. Denis Fahey has a number of excellent books covering the opposition of the Jewish nation. He emphasizes the fact that we must fight their influence, but no racism since the Jews were of the race of Christ (not including the "Khazar" Jews, but still no racism). Who is making sure the so-called "Holocaust" is not debated in any way? Who is making out the propaganda that the Jews are always the victims and the Catholics are the victimizers? Not that I dispute the Catholic persecutions against Jews, but the Jews did far worse, beginning by siding with the Romans at the beginning of Christianity in persecuting Her members.

[VoxClamantis]

 

Every people is a unique people. The Italians are unique, the Poles are unique, the people of Zaire are unique.

Again with the Italians... When the History of the people of Israel began, when the Lord chose Abraham out of Ur and brought Israel out of the land of serfdom, there were people living in what would be called the Italian peninsula, many of them ancestors of the people living in Italy today, but certainly no Italians as we know them today... No other people is like the Jewish people. It is strange, it is uncanny, but it is what the Lord wanted for some reason. My guess is that He wants to show the world the strength of His promises, even while His chosen people of the Old Covenant, the people of the Perfect Man and of the Immaculate Woman, in good measure rejects Him.

 

The people of the Old Covenant became the people of the New Covenant:

 

Jeremias 31:31-34
Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Juda:  Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt: the covenant which they made void, and I had dominion over them, saith the Lord.  But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my law in their bowels, and I will write it in their heart: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.  And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least of them even to the greatest, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

There is ONE Israel, ONE House of Judah, ONE olive tree. As was the case all along, since Moses

Exodus 12:48
And if any stranger be willing to dwell among you, and to keep the Phase of the Lord, all his males shall first be circumcised, and then shall he celebrate it according to the manner: and he shall be as he that is born in the land: but if any man be uncircumcised, he shall not eat thereof.

anyone can become a part of Israel. Physical descent was important for the sake of beginnings (if God were to enter History, He had to do so at some point and at some place) and prophecy (how would we recognize the Messiah? Where should we look?).

The prophecies have been fulfilled ("it is consummated" is what Our Lord said from the Cross), and the great commission has been given (Matthew 28). Branches have been grafted in in even greater numbers while others have been broken off:

Romans 11:17-20
And if some of the branches be broken, and thou, being a wild olive, art ingrafted in them, and art made partaker of the root, and of the fatness of the olive tree,  Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.  Thou wilt say then: The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.  Well: because of unbelief they were broken off.

The people of the New Covenant ARE the "House of Israel" and the "House of Judah."

Romans 2:28-29
For it is not he is a Jew, who is so outwardly; nor is that circumcision which is outwardly in the flesh:  But he is a Jew, that is one inwardly; and the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

While the true people of Israel, the true people of the House of Judah, the true Jews go about preaching the Gospel and baptizing in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, there are also those who say they are Jews but are not but are of the synagogue of Satan.

 

Apocalypse 2:9
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 synagogue of Satan.

Apocalypse 3:9
Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but do lie.

OK, so:

• According to Scripture, who is a (true) Jew?
• According to Scripture, is the New Covenant with the people of Israel or not?
• According to Scripture, is the New Covenant with the House of Judah or not?
• Are there people who say they are Jews but are not but do lie and are, instead, of the synagogue of Satan?
• If so, who are these people? Would it be more likely that they are the people of the Catholic Church who preach Christ -- or the people of the Talmud that hates Christ?

It is a mystery, a complicated one, as St. Paul describes in Romans, one of the most difficult aspects of the New Testament. Those Jews who accepted the New Covenant, first among them the Apostles, are the healthy tree to which the gentiles were transplanted. Those who rejected it have had to develop a completely post-sacrificial religious enterprise, whose development had already been in place centuries before the advent of the Christ -- but they have not been completely abandoned.

 

It is a Mystery. Those who say they are Jews but are not and do lie but are of the synagogue of Satan are said to be those whence Antichrist will come (according to the Fathers). We should be aware of what they teach and what they do.

But of course those who have rejected Christ must find ways to justify the unjustifiable -- which is why many Jewish and Mohameddan texts are full of deceptions regarding the Church. They have to fabricate ideas so as to justify why they may never convert. It makes sense and it should not shock us, especially when one is reminded of the terrible deeds some Christian populations did inflict on its Jewish minorities (which is no secret and no anti-Catholic propaganda).

It is propaganda if the reasons for Christian animosity toward Jews aren't mentioned, namely usury that enriched Jews at the expense of Christians; anti-Christianism on the part of Jews and that is a very part of the Jewish religion per the Talmud and other writings; and Jewish attempts to subvert Christendom -- from the historical ones, such as: false conversos of Spain who taught Talmud from the pulpit of Catholic churches and cooperated with Muslims to take over that country, to the Jewish role in the Masonic upheavals in revolutionary France, to Jewish Bolshevism in Russia, to the Jewish role played in World Wars I and II -- to present ones such as Zionism and its effects on American foreign policy.

You also ask me (in an oblique manner) why I classify the Mohameddans as dangerous. This should be clear: THEY have actually tried to destroy Christendom, not once, not twice, but numerous times. They had to be contained. One of most hilarious charges of the "anti-Zionists" is that they fight us today because of the existence of the State of Israel, not realizing that they would fight us no matter what -- State of Israel or no State of Israel. Theirs is a bellicose faith. Their religion aims universality, like the True Religion, which is why it sees us as its ultimate enemy.

And while they try to destroy us, as they did so many times since the hordes of Mohammed advanced past the Arabian deserts, as they destroyed the Roman Empire of the East and the Gothic kingdoms of Hispania, as they did when our ancestors had to fight for our behalf in Poitiers, in Lepanto, in Vienna, the propagandidts are all over the place trying to make some of us believe that the "Jews" are a problem. The Jews are no problem! The Jews, as Pope Martin V said, "are made to the image of God, and a remnant of them will one day be saved". Ah, the mystery!

 

You don't have to sell me on the evils of Islam, and I didn't quite ask why you classify them as dangerous. What I was after was an explanation of why it is OK to you to talk about them but not Jews and Judaism.

 

Nonetheless, it doesn't follow that "the Jews are no problem." Both Islam and Judaism are very grave problems for Christendom.

 

All men are made in the image of God, by the way, and I pray that Pope Martin V was right when he said, as did some other Popes, that a remnant may one day be saved. Other Popes and Fathers disagreed. We will see what happens. But they won't be saved if we pretend their religion will save them. And many fewer people anywhere will be saved if we allow Christian teaching to be subverted and destroyed by those who hate Christ and all His Church stands for.

[Roman]

Well, I've said what I had to say.
 
  Good luck with the "Jewish problem". Just do not try to "solve" it as nations in the past did...
 

[VoxClamantis]

Well, I've said what I had to say.

Good luck with the "Jewish problem". Just do not try to "solve" it as nations in the past did...

My goodness, you write as if Catholics are just THAT close to being Nazis or somethng. I wonder what St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, and the millions of Catholics who died in concentration camps -- thousands of them priests and religious -- would think about that. Most of us here are Americans, too, many of us with fathers or grandfathers who fought in that ridiculous, preventable war -- against the Nazis (the wisest of these warriors knowing that Uncle Joe was no less a problem than Hitler was -- not that the New York Times would breathe a word about that, of course). 

 

As things stand, however, it seems "the Catholic problem" is being solved pretty good. So few seem to care, though.

[Roman]

   

As things stand, however, it seems "the Catholic problem" is being solved pretty good. So few seem to care, though.

 
  Well, the Nazi ideologues considered the whole Christian "enterprise",  and the Catholic Church especially, too Jewish, too Semitic for the  Nordic peoples...
 
  I will not join you in the discussion on if the Second World War was  preventable or not. If you think it was, I'll grant you that for the  sake of ending this discussion.
 
  Sancte Maximiliane, ora pro nobis.