Opus Dei?

[james]

[quote]Now, back to the issue at hand. I have given hard evidence. You give one quote several times, that has been explained twice, by me.[/quote]

You've given hard evidence of what?

If you've offered an explaination as to why Opus Dei published rabbi Kreiman's statement regarding Escriba's Talmudic background, I missed it.

Edited February 11, 2005 by james

[james]

[quote name='Cam42']I would suggest you put some real study into the Talmud, the other teachings of Judaism...

Part of knowing Catholic Theology on a formal level, is knowing certain aspects of Jewish law.[/quote]


It's worth noting that Judaizing of Christianity is nothing new. It's a struggle that began with Christ Himself in his conflicts with the Pharisees.

St. Paul had to deal with the Judaizers who attempted to corrupt his teaching everywhere he went.

St. Augustine had to refute the Cabalistic hermetic tradition in his time.

Forced conversions of Jews were attempted which created the phenomenon of marranos and crypto-Jews (false converts) of Spain (where Opus Dei was founded, coincidence? Escriba?)

The Council of Trent responded to an attempt by Rabelais, Reuchlin, Pico della Mirandolla, and others to Christianize the Jewish Cabalistic Hermetic tradition.

Protestantism was at it's core a Jewish phenomenon: a reaction to the obstacles of the Council of Trent and to the popes who condemned Judaism and it's Talmud and Kabballah.

Protestant reformer, John Calvin led the way in overturning laws against usury, usury being a practice which was condemned by the church for 1500 years while Judaism consistently promoted it.

Freemasonry, the sworn enemy of the Catholic church, was born out of the Jewish/Protestant alliance formed in Elizabethan England.

British Israel theory, the vehicle of British Imperialism and Capitalism, the antithesis to the Catholic Kingship of Christ, then arose.

The early Zionists sought recognition from the Vatican for their cause and were rejected by Pius X causing them to then turn to the JudeoMasonic empire of Great Britain resulting in the Balfour Declaration.

The Boshevik revolution was largely a Jewish phenomenon and was the predecessor to Communism: a system of government that criminalized Christianity. Under this system the most brutal atrocities in world history were perpetrated, mostly against Christians. Eventually a distorted Communist version of "Christianity" was allowed. Those who practiced traditional Christianity did so at risk of imprisonment and capital punishment.

Vatican II reversed 2000 years of church teaching regarding Judaism.

The Jewish Freemasonic B'nai B'rith and it's propaganda wing, the ADL ever since have had inordinate influence in the Vatican.

Today we have the Hebrew roots movement, and "Christian" Zionists along with the old Hermetic Cabalistic heresies getting a new spin in the "Da Vinci Code," "The Hiram Key," "The Jesus Seminar" and a mountain of other errors that were refuted by the church fathers.

None of this is anything new. The thing that has changed is that we don't have the same caliber of visionaries who fought these issues head on.

St. Irenaeus, we could sure use you now.

Edited February 11, 2005 by james

[Cam42]

James,

[quote]asserting that a rabbinic Jew will find salvation through "daily work:"[/quote]

So, you are asserting that a Jew cannot obtain salvation? Also, you are asserting that a Jew cannot obtain salvation, based on a Christian prinicple?

That flies in the face of traditional theology. It also nullifies everything that St. Peter was trying to do, in promoting the early Church to the Jews.

[quote]I'm sorry, but promoting the Hebrew roots propaganda work of Roy Schoeman:[/quote]

What planet do you live on? Where did Christianity come from? The Hebrews. Here is a news flash, Jesus was a Jew. Jesus lived his life as a Jew. Jesus fulfilled the Jewish prophecy. The Messiah, a Hebrew concept, is Jesus. Are you asserting that Jesus was not a Jew?

[quote]asserting that study of Talmudic halacha is a necessary part of understanding Catholic theology: a strange recommendation given that the Talmud was not written until well after Christ's death and ressurection,[/quote]

So was every book in the New Testament. But so what? The Church is based on Tradition. Many of them, including the Tridentine form of the Mass was not enacted until centuries after the PDR and Ascension.

[quote]harping on the 1965 Vatican II document, Nostra Aetate, and asserting that one must study it in order to be catechized properly:[/quote]

That wasn't harping, that was informing. Informing you, that you are not following the teaching of the Catholic Church. Nostra Aetate is as valid as Quo Primum. I suggest to you that you take to heart all that the Church teaches and accept all of it. It is not a smorgasbord that you can pick and choose that which you want. Being Catholic is an all or nothing propostion. Either you accept everything that she has to offer or you don't. If you don't, then you are in error to a lesser degree (voluntary doubt) or a greater degree (schism) or someplace in between.

[quote]discouraging others from quoting past popes in making a case:[/quote]

Again, you take things out of context. I am saying that particular things that popes have said, may have been true based on their human understanding, but time and a better understanding of the truth, brings a more informed understanding. I don't discourage anything. As a matter of fact, Rerum Novarum is one of my most used and revered encylicals. Who was that written by again? Oh yeah, Pope Leo XIII. But then again, I think that Pope John Paul II expanded and taught more on the subject with his enclylical, Centessimus Annus. I suppose according to your flawed logic His Holiness should have left well enough alone.

[quote]asserting that the writings of past popes are only good for the time they were written:[/quote]

Again, taking the statement out of context. Boy you are good at that. On certain issues, yes, because we have come to a clearer understanding of the truth of said matter.

[quote]All of this makes a really weak case for qualification of the title "traditional Catholic" ( I wonder how you define the term, "traditional")[/quote]

Well, I would define a traditional Catholic as that which one must read and apply the motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei.

I desire that everything may happen in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, in full harmony with Tradition, aiming at unity in charity and loyalty to the Truth.

It is under "the action of the Holy Spirit, by whom the flock of Christ maintains itself one and whole and progresses in the unity of the faith" (Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution, Lumen Gentium, n.25) which the Successor of Peter and the Bishops, Successors of the Apostles, teach the Christian Mystery. In a very particular manner, the Bishops, gathered in Ecumenical Councils cum Petro and sub Petro, confirm and affirm the doctrine of the Church, Faithful Heiress of the Tradition already existing for almost twenty centuries, as a living reality which goes on giving a new impetus to the whole of the ecclesial community. The latest Ecumenical Councils - Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II - applied themselves to clarifying the mystery of the faith and undertook the necessary reforms for the good of the Church, solicitous for the continuity with the Apostolic Tradition, already recognized by St. Hippolytus. (John Paul II, 26 Oct 1998)

How do you define it?

[quote]Opus Dei: an organization that teaches that a rabbinic Jew can obtain salvation through "daily work," is commonly referred to as "conservative" today.[/quote]

The Church teaches that in the Catechism. I have previously given the quotations, so I will not again, (CCC 846-848) Opus Dei simply applies it. There is nothing inherently evil in evangelizing and promoting Christian values to those who are not Christian. Actually, we are called to do so. First, to the Jews, who are the Chosen People of God, then to the Muslims who believe in the same God.

[quote]If you've offered an explaination as to why Opus Dei published rabbi Kreiman's statement regarding Escriba's Talmudic background, I missed it.[/quote]

Then you need to go back and read. And his last name is E-S-C-R-I-V-A. Nothing else....do you enjoy defaming a saint?

[quote]Cooperators in the Work are not necessarily Roman Catholic. Remember we are ALL called to a greater life of holiness......Let me make this clear.....COOPERATORS ARE NOT OFFICIAL MEMBERS OF OPUS DEI.

Cooperators simply espouse that which Opus Dei embodies. Catholics, Non-Catholics and Non-Christians can do this, therefore one does not need to be Catholic in order to be a cooperator.[/quote]

That was the first explaination. I leave the second for you to find.

[quote]It's worth noting that Judaizing of Christianity is nothing new. It's a struggle that began with Christ Himself in his conflicts with the Pharisees.[/quote]

That language is pretty anti-Semetic. I would be very careful in how you word your future statements, or you may be construed as an anti-Semite.

However, in the love of God, the Church has also been evangelizing the Jews for as long as Christianity has been around, starting with the first pope, St. Peter. There has been interreligous dialogue ever since biblical times. If you do not see this, then you are missing part of the picture. I have actually quoted popes from centuries past (which refutes your earlier claim, by the way) that state the defense of the Jews, remember me quoting [i]Sicut Iudaeis Non?[/i]

[quote]Freemasonry, the sworn enemy of the Catholic church, was born out of the Jewish/Protestant alliance formed in Elizabethan England.[/quote]

The roots of Freemasonry extend at least as far back as the Middle Ages. The guildsmen and craftsmen of that time were called Masons. For protection and credibility, these persons formed primitive trade unions (lodges). The content and purpose of this form of Masonry, called operative Masonry, began to change when the lodges were opened up to whoever sought membership.

But that is a totally different subject...one that I will not discuss here, because it is directly contrary to Catholic thought and my Catholic sensibilities. Another attempt at misleading the thread?

[quote]British Israel theory, the vehicle of British Imperialism and Capitalism, the antithesis to the Catholic Kingship of Christ, then arose.[/quote]

Give me a break. That theory is ubsurd. Do you really believe that the British, American and several other European nations are the lost 10 Tribes of Israel?

It is a theory that is utterly unprovable and full of mistakes and errors too numerous to go into here. Yet another attempt at misleading the thread?

[quote]The Boshevik revolution was largely a Jewish phenomenon and was the predecessor to Communism: a system of government that criminalized Christianity...[/quote]

Douglas Reed? James.....how about someone a little more credible than him.

[quote]Vatican II reversed 2000 years of church teaching regarding Judaism.[/quote]

Quantifiably untrue. Unless of course, you disagree that Pope Gregory I and Pope Pius XII were not supporters of the Jews in their times. They were.

James, I have answered you point by point, time and time again. You have given no scholarly answer, just conjecture and speculation. I have proven to you, using Popes, past and present; I have used Church documents, past and present; I have corrected you with explaination on the several false accusations that you have provided regarding Opus Dei.

I have asked you to prove to me, with hard evidence that Opus Dei is linked to the Talmud directly. I ask it again, for the third time. PROVE TO ME THAT OPUS DEI OBTAINS IT'S TEACHINGS FROM THE TALMUD.

You cannot. You spin off on how terrible the Talmud is, you start bantering on about this subject and that. You use my statements in a fallacious manner, [i]Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.[/i] Please, prove to me that Opus Dei and the Talmud are directly linked or stop this anti-semetic rhetoric and unabashed attack on a saint in the Catholic Church and a Prelature recognized by such.



Cam42


P.S. Oh, for those who are interested, an ad hominem tu quoque is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions.

It is manifested in this way:

Cam42 makes claim that Opus Dei is a good organization.
James asserts that Cam's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of Opus Dei.
Therefore Opus Dei is false.

[Jaime]

James you forgot to mention that the Jews are responsible for global warming..

Why all this anger towards the Jews? Granted I've never understood anti-semiticism but this is just out there.

"The Chosen People" " I will never forget you.." etc. Any of these things ringing a bell?

I also am perplexed by your decree that you would follow the Church's teachings. Unless of course its about the Jews and you disagree with it.

[quote]It's worth noting that Judaizing of Christianity is nothing new. It's a struggle that began with Christ Himself in his conflicts with the Pharisees. [/quote]

Or Cam42 could be referring to CCC 1096 (Which by the way... he probably is)

[quote]Jewish liturgy and Christian liturgy. A better knowledge of the Jewish people's faith and religious life as professed and lived even now can help our better understanding of certain aspects of Christian liturgy....[/quote] That's just the first piece

The Church recognizes the Jews as the Chosen People. Do you disagree with that as well?

[Cam42]

James,
[quote]St. Thomas Aquinas correctly viewed usury as a form of warfare: a means of oppressing one's enemies. The church opposed usury because it was a threat to the welfare of Christians.[/quote]


Mine,
[quote]Not so....I'd like documentation on this.[/quote]

I am waiting.......but then again, I am waiting on an ever enlarging pleothera of questions that you refuse to answer. There are many.

Also, I have not engaged in an ad hominem with you. One cannot state an ad hominem when one is correct in his assertations.

An ad hominem: An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

I have made no irrelevant facts. Sorry....perhaps Logic 101 would suffice. It is offered at most colleges. And more than a few high schools.

Cam42

[james]

[quote name='Cam42']"So, you are asserting that a Jew cannot obtain salvation?[/quote]

No, I am asserting that a rabbinic Jew, a person who by nature does not accept Jesus as the Messiah and is not in communion with the Catholic church, cannot obtain salvation through "daily work." Nor can anyone obtain salvation through "daily work" alone.

[quote name='Cam42']Also, you are asserting that a Jew cannot obtain salvation, based on a Christian prinicple?[/quote]

There is no Christian principle that allows for salvation of a non-believer through "daily work."

[quote name='Cam42']That flies in the face of traditional theology. It also nullifies everything that St. Peter was trying to do, in promoting the early Church to the Jews.[/quote]

What?

St. Peter was trying to promote Jesus Christ as the Messiah to the Jews. He nowhere taught that Jews could reject Christ and still obtain salvation through "daily work." That's a modern invention and a serious distortion of what the early church actually taught.

Jesus and His Apostles taught that salvation is for ALL MEN. Any claim that salvation is based on racial distinctions or through "daily work" is more akin to Hitler's National Socialism than it is Christ's message of salvation.

Once again, I will gladly discuss usury, salvation, Hebrew roots, or whatever topic you like if you [b]start others threads that deal with those topics.[/b] I've answered the salvation through "daily work" issue here as a response to a claim you made that rabbi Kreiman is finding salvation in his "daily work," a claim which is apparently based on an Opus Dei teaching.

[quote name='Cam42'] "Again, if Rabbi Kreiman is a Cooperator, great!!!! He is finding salvation through his daily work..."[/quote]

Further back and forth debate of these other issues here is not constructive to this thread, which asks "Opus Dei, is it good?"

Edited February 11, 2005 by james

[james]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 11 2005, 11:07 AM'] Also, I have not engaged in an ad hominem with you.  One cannot state an ad hominem when one is correct in his assertations.

An ad hominem:  An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

I have made no irrelevant facts.  Sorry....perhaps Logic 101 would suffice.  It is offered at most colleges.  And more than a few high schools.

Cam42 [/quote]
Wow, you claim not to engage in ad hominem; provide a false definition of ad hominem, and then promptly provide an example of an ad hominem remark: suggesting that I need to attend an introductory logic course, all in the space of a few sentences. That's chutzpah!

Here's the real definition of ad hominem. I'll allow others to decide for themselves who's engaging in it.

Main Entry: [1]ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
Date: 1598
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made


[quote name='Cam42']"I assert that your thinking is based upon various websites."

"...you are like a rabid dog."

"Gee whiz, my 3 year old nephew does better than that......and he isn't Catholic."

"Your lack of knowledge is making you look bad."

"What planet do you live on?"

"Sorry....perhaps Logic 101 would suffice. It is offered at most colleges. And more than a few high schools."

[/quote]


Main Entry: chutz·pah
Variant(s): also chutz.pa /'hut-sp&, '[k]ut-, -(")spä/
Function: noun
Etymology: Yiddish khutspe, from Late Hebrew huspAh
Date: 1892
: supreme self-confidence : NERVE, GALL
synonym see TEMERITY

Edited February 11, 2005 by james

[Guest St. Gimp]

[quote name='james' date='Feb 9 2005, 06:44 PM']I have read Schoeman's book, with great disgust, I might add, and my reading of his ideas is what my comments are based upon.[/quote]
I'm curious, what exactly about Schoeman's book did you find offensive? I've read about two chapters of the book so far, and haven't found anything that sounds too bad yet. However, I did notice that the book does not bear an [i]imprimatur[/i], so that makes me a little suspicious.

[james]

[quote name='St. Gimp' date='Feb 11 2005, 01:51 PM'] I'm curious, what exactly about Schoeman's book did you find offensive? I've read about two chapters of the book so far, and haven't found anything that sounds too bad yet. However, I did notice that the book does not bear an [i]imprimatur[/i], so that makes me a little suspicious. [/quote]
I'll start another thread to address that in the "debate table"

[Cam42]

[quote]Nor can anyone obtain salvation through "daily work" alone.[/quote]

No kidding? Daily work is a sanctifying act. It allows for one to better accept the grace in which God will impart. Opus Dei, nor any other Catholic institution claims that it is merely daily work that will grant salvation.

[quote]St. Peter was trying to promote Jesus Christ as the Messiah to the Jews.[/quote] Your quote.

[quote]St. Peter was trying to do, in promoting the early Church to the Jews.[/quote] My quote.

You just said the exact same thing I did. Where is the problem?

[quote]I've answered the salvation through "daily work" issue here as a response to a claim you made that rabbi Kreiman is finding salvation in his "daily work," a claim which is apparently based on an Opus Dei teaching.[/quote]

No you haven't. I have told you this before, as have others. You have used one quote (which is still a tired and unproven line) to try. Not even a valiant try.

Rabbi Kreiman is coming to a greater understanding of God. This understanding is through a Christian Prinicple. That prinicple, that one's works are a means to God's grace. Which is the whole purpose of Opus Dei.

[quote]That's a modern invention and a serious distortion of what the early church actually taught.[/quote]

According to whom?

[quote]Again justice demands that, in dealing with the working man, religion and the good of his soul must be kept in mind. (Rerum Novarum #20)[/quote]

[quote]Christ's labors and sufferings, accepted of His own free will, have marvelously sweetened all suffering and all labor. And not only by His example, but by His grace and by the hope held forth of everlasting recompense, has He made pain and grief more easy to endure; "for that which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory." (Rerum Novarum #21)[/quote]

What do you think that Pope Leo XIII was talking about? He was talking about how daily work will lead to salvation.

St. Josemaria says:

[quote]``Before God, no occupation is in itself great or small. Everything gains the value of the Love with which it is done.'' (The Forge)[/quote]

[quote]The church is convinced that work is a fundamental dimension of man's existence on earth. She is confirmed in this conviction by considering the whole heritage of the many sciences devoted to man: anthropology, palaeontology, history, sociology, psychology and so on; they all seem to bear witness to this reality in an irrefutable way. But the source of the church's conviction is above all the revealed word of God, and therefore what is a conviction of the intellect is also a conviction of faith.(Laborem Excercens #4)[/quote]

As to answer your misguidings about truth, John Paul II says about the organic nature of truth:

[quote]The present reflections on work are not intended to follow a different line, but rather to be in organic connection with the whole tradition of this teaching and activity. At the same time, however, I am making them, according to the indication in the Gospel, in order to bring out from the heritage of the Gospel "what is new and what is old." (Laborem Exercens #2)[/quote]

I don't think that I really need to go on any longer. I suggest that you bring yourself up to date on the sanctification of work. Rerum Novarum is a good place to start, then you may want to read Mater et Magistra, Gaudium et Spes, Populorum Progressio, Laborem Excercens and Centessimus Annus. They all deal with the idea of the role of daily work and sanctification.

I believe that it is here where St. Josemaria gets his ideas on work.

[quote]a claim which is apparently based on an Opus Dei teaching.[/quote]

It is not merely an Opus Dei teaching, but that of the Church at large. James, the above post is what I mean about proving points with hard evidence. You have not done that. I have now shown you ad infinitum that the Church supports the tennant of Opus Dei. You have not shown through anything that Opus Dei is anything other than what I have said it is. I still don't think that you can.

I am now assured that you cannot BRING IT!!!!!

Cam42

[Cam42]

[quote]However, I did notice that the book does not bear an imprimatur, so that makes me a little suspicious.[/quote]

The book is not intended to be a definitive teaching on the Catholic Church, therefore it does not need an imprimatur, nor a nihil obstat.

Cam42

[Jaime]

Honestly James, in reading your posts I get such a chalushisdick that its left me oysgeshpilt in my toches .

It appears that from reading all the comments that you're problems with Opus Dei (topic) is rooted in your anti semiticism. So we are not gettting off topic but getting to the root. Your views are clearly not in line with what the Church teaches about the Jewish faith.
Are we going to discuss your bias or are you Gornish helfn?

[Cam42]

[quote]Here's the real definition of ad hominem.[/quote]

What?????? Where is the difference?

[quote]An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.[/quote] MINE
[quote]1 :  appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made[/quote] YOURS

Same thing. Worded a little differently, but nevertheless the same thing.

At least I gave an example.

BTW, my definition comes from Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, the author of a Macintosh tutorial named Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0.

But, it doesn't really matter, because the definitions are the same. Boy, you are really trying to pull this off topic. My statements about this were post scripts, not part of the body of content.

Cam42

[james]

None of the references you provide qualifies this statement.


[quote name='Cam42']"Again, if Rabbi Kreiman is a Cooperator, great!!!! He is finding salvation through his daily work"[/quote]

Edited February 11, 2005 by james

[Jaime]

Hey I just figured out how to add a picture to my avatar.

Katie Couric is soooo cute

[james]

[quote name='Cam42'][quote name='James']It's worth noting that Judaizing of Christianity is nothing new. It's a struggle that began with Christ Himself in his conflicts with the Pharisees. [/quote]



That language is pretty anti-Semetic. I would be very careful in how you word your future statements, or you may be construed as an anti-Semite.[/quote]

How do qualify this statement?

What have I said that you disagree with or feel is "anti-semitic": The fact that there were conflicts between Christ and the Pharisees or the fact that Judaizing of Christianity is nothing new?

[Cam42]

[quote]What have I said that you disagree with or feel is "anti-semitic": [/quote]

I have not said you are anti-Semetic. I have said that your statements MAY BE construed as anti-semetic by some. I was simply hoping that you'd be careful.

The word Judaizer, defined as bringing into conformity with Judaism, is considered as code for an anti-semitic viewpoint.

I was just offering some helpful advice.

I also am of the opinion that some of your discussion has anti-Semetic undertones to it. Hence the statements about the anti-Semetic rhetoric. I have asked you politely to stop, in order that you not be warned by those above us.


[quote]None of the references you provide qualifies this statement.[/quote]

Go back and look at one of my first posts. I won't post it again, because it would be the THIRD time that I would have posted it here.

Cam42

[james]

I'm sorry, but you haven't sufficiently explained this statement:

[quote name='Cam42']"Again, if Rabbi Kreiman is a Cooperator, great!!!! He is finding salvation through his daily work"[/quote]


If rabbi Kreiman, a man who has knowledge of, but no faith in Christ, can find salvation through his "daily work" then what purpose does faith in Christ serve?

Edited February 11, 2005 by james

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='james' date='Feb 10 2005, 05:15 PM'] Exactly. Now, why should the Talmud be treated any differently than you treat Protestantism here? [/quote]
You took one sentence out of the context of my whole argument. Please read and understand the whole post, which answers the question you just asked.

[james]

[quote name='Raphael'][quote name='James']Exactly. Now, why should the Talmud be treated any differently than you treat Protestantism here? [/quote]


You took one sentence out of the context of my whole argument. Please read and understand the whole post, which answers the question you just asked. [/quote]



[quote name='Raphael' date='Feb 10 2005, 03:57 PM'] I would be right to condemn all Protestantism.  That is because any beliefs they hold in common with us are not a part of Protestantism, but of Catholicism.  Those things which are Protestant (properly speaking) are not Catholic ideas.  Protestants hold many Catholic teachings (Triune God, the place of faith in salvation, etc.)...these are Catholic teachings and not Protestant.  Those teachings which are Protestant are those which [b]protest[/b] against Catholic teaching, so such teachings, i.e. Protestantism, can be completely condemned.  However, non-Catholic Christianity, in so much as it does hold some things in common with Catholicism, cannot be completely condemned, because we would be condemning some teachings of Catholicism with it.

The parallel does not work logically.

Also, we are not saying to embrace wholly the Talmud, but merely that some of it's teachings are correct.  If it has any truth, then we must embrace those parts which have truth, for we are a people of Truth.  This does not mean embracing the rest of it.

I also don't think those popes wholly condemned the Talmud. [/quote]

I did read your post. I disagree with your reasoning. You reason that it's correct to condemn Protestantism but that one should not condemn the Talmud. You say that there is no parallel to be drawn. I assure you, the Talmud exceeds Protestantism exponentially in it's protests against Christ, His teachings and His church. This is precisely why the Talmud has traditionally been condemned by the church, just as Protestantism has.

You conclude that the Talmud has not been condemned by popes in the past. I provided clear evidence that the Talmud has been condemned by past popes.

[quote]Although in the Index issued by Pope Pius IV, the Jewish Talmud with all its glossaries, annotations, interpretations and expositions were prohibited: but if published without the name Talmud and without its vile calumnies against the Christian religion they could be tolerated; however, Our Holy Lord Pope Clement VIII in his constitution against impious writings and Jewish books, published in Rome in the year of Our Lord 1592 … proscribed and condemned them: it was not his intention thereby to permit or tolerate them even under the above conditions; for he expressly and specifically stated and willed, that the impious Talmudic Cabalistic and other nefarious books of the Jews be entirely condemned and that they must remain always condemned and prohibited, and that his Constitution about these books must be perpetually and inviolably observed. (Pope Leo XIII, Index Expurgatorius, 1887[/quote]

[quote]"The impious Talmudic, Cabalistic and other wicked books of the Jews are hereby entirely condemned and they must always remain condemned and prohibited and this law must be perpetuallv observed." Pope Clement VIII[/quote]

Edited February 11, 2005 by james