Do you think Israel should have been made?

[Resurrexi]

vote

[Aloysius]

very interesting poll indeed. I only vote "yes" to the second question because of #1 the danger conceding to terrorists would present #2 the difficulties that would arise in attempting to dismantle the state of israel. I am, however, considering that that position might be shortsighted. We could see this same violent conflict going on for centuries longer if we don't attempt to do something now. The irish were violent against british rule for 700 years relentlessly... it's not pleasant to think of 700 more years of violent terrorists attempting to get jewish rule out of palestine.

Of course, I voted no to the first question and yes to the third.

[Era Might]

Somebody please shut this thread down. We all know where it's headed.

[Aloysius]

only if and when any phorum guidelines are violated. sorry.

[Mitchell_b55]

[b]QUESTION 1[/b]: Yes, I believe that the creation of the State of Israel and the Zionist principles were a good idea, in their original context. See Hilaire Belloc's [i]The Jews[/i].

[b]QUESTION 2[/b]: No, I feel that the tension and discord is a threat to world peace and that considerations were not made of the hostility of Islam towards the Jewish Nation. We in our pity, preceding form the Holocaust, have made a mistake in the execution of the procedure. I feel that a more subtle approach should have been taken, and in the current state of things, feel that Israel as it now exists is a failed attempt. However, I offer this opinion with no hostility towards the Jewish Nation, and do not expect that the Jewish Nation should leave the State of Israel. I believe that all foreign forces should withdraw from Israel and the Middle East, after due consideration and planning. I also believe that military support of Israel should be withdrawn by foreign entities and that Israel defend itself if it wishes to continue. This may seem harsh, but I feel that Israel can notbe a catalyst for the rest of the worlds violence. This is my opinion. I support the Church in dialogue with Jews and in it's search for peace. However I feel that peace will not be reached by general concession and Israel will remain foreign matter in an open wound, and that infection and festering will continue to occur.

[b]QUESTION 3[/b]: Yes, I do, and if the Pope has made a [i]Dogma[/i] on Israel I feel it necessary that someone inform me and I will ammend my view in the light of obediance.

Edited August 10, 2006 by petrus_scholasticus

[Aloysius]

I think that was a question just to gauge how many were Catholic were voting.

What was the crux of Belloc's argument? I'm pretty sure Chesterton didn't support Zionism any more than he supported Bolshevism and I'd be very surprised if Belloc had a different view there. I thought Belloc believed that the Jews were exiled from the Holy Land and destined to live among the other nations until the end of time.

At the time, the Cheif Rabbi of Jerusalem begged the UN not to create the zionist state. The prevailing Jewish wisdom before the second half of the twentieth century had always been that they were in exile from that land because God wanted them to live among the nations, and that only the Messiah could let them back into the Promised Land peacefully.

[Resurrexi]

[quote] Somebody please shut this thread down. We all know where it's headed. [/quote]

That's a ridiculous propostition. This thread is to argue over whether the Talmudic State of Israel should exist. I concur that it should not, becuase the Talmudists who deny God the Son as Messias are not the Chosen People of the Holy Trinity becuase the New Testament made it that all people who professed the Dogmata of the Catholic Church in the Blood of God the Son were the Chosen People of the Blessed Trinity, the righful successors of the Ancient People of God, and the New Israel. It has been dogmatically defined, by the Holy and Sacred Oecumencial Council of Florence "(...) and Jews [who consciously and obstinately refuse to embrace the Catholic Faith] (...) are damned to the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels." Which was reaffirmed by His Holiness Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis "the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished" and that "on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. 'To such an extent, then,' says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, 'was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.'" This shows that there is no place for the now-abolished Law of Moses in the post-AD 33 world, since it has been abolished and replaced by the Law of the New Testament. There is no longer a division of Jews and Non-Jews because all are accepted as the Children of Israel in the Sacraments of the New Law as was taught by Pius XII "Christ, by His blood, made the Jews and Gentiles one 'breaking down the middle wall of partition...in His flesh' by which the two peoples were divided; and that He made the Old Law void 'that He might make the two in Himself into one new man,' that is, the Church, and might reconcile both to God in one Body by the Cross."

The Sacrifice and Sacraments of the New Law have replaced all other Sacrifices and the Sacraments of the Law of Moses, or the Old Law. The Covenants of Noe, Abraham and David were fufilled in the New Covenant, with the Covenant of Moses, which was only meant to be in place until the coming of the Messias.

[quote]I think that was a question just to gauge how many were Catholic were voting.[/quote]

Exactly.

[Era Might]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1041110' date='Aug 10 2006, 06:26 PM']That's a ridiculous propostition. This thread is to argue over whether the Talmudic State of Israel should exist. I concur that it should not, becuase the Talmudists who deny God the Son as Messias are not the Chosen People of the Holy Trinity becuase the New Testament made it that all people who professed the Dogmata of the Catholic Church in the Blood of God the Son were the Chosen People of the Blessed Trinity, the righful successors of the Ancient People of God, and the New Israel. It has been dogmatically defined, by the Holy and Sacred Oecumencial Council of Florence "(...) and Jews [who consciously and obstinately refuse to embrace the Catholic Faith] (...) are damned to the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels." Which was reaffirmed by His Holiness Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis "the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished" and that "on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. 'To such an extent, then,' says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, 'was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.'" This shows that there is no place for the now-abolished Law of Moses in the post-AD 33 world, since it has been abolished and replaced by the Law of the New Testament. There is no longer a division of Jews and Non-Jews because all are accepted as the Children of Israel in the Sacraments of the New Law as was taught by Pius XII "Christ, by His blood, made the Jews and Gentiles one 'breaking down the middle wall of partition...in His flesh' by which the two peoples were divided; and that He made the Old Law void 'that He might make the two in Himself into one new man,' that is, the Church, and might reconcile both to God in one Body by the Cross."

The Sacrifice and Sacraments of the New Law have replaced all other Sacrifices and the Sacraments of the Law of Moses, or the Old Law. The Covenants of Noe, Abraham and David were fufilled in the New Covenant, with the Covenant of Moses, which was only meant to be in place until the coming of the Messias.[/quote]
Like I said, we all know where it's going.

[Resurrexi]

I quoted offocial sources in that, and there was nothing "antisemetic" or "racist" in that. If you don't accept those authoritive quotations then you are disobediant.

[Era Might]

Funny that you are defending yourself from "anti-Semitism" and "racism". I never mentioned either.

[Mitchell_b55]

The entire basis of Bellocs' arguments, which I have read entirely, is the Jewish Nation, recognizing it, and the problem of the Jewish Nation is relation to everyone else. He supported Zionism, not because he believed that the Jews deserved the Holy Land, but beause he admitted that it would help ease tension and friction between the Europeans and Jews. He admitted that giving the Jews' an actual Nation of their own would cause problems. He emphasised that if a conclusion was not reached that there would be a devasting outcome. He foretold, the Nazi injustice and that a state of Israel would cause friction between Muslim and Jewish people. He offered solutions and at the end put forth an alternate theory that the Jews were exiled from the Holy Land and destined to live among the other nations until the end of time, but quickly discarded it. I am not sure how, but I rememeber distinctly that he did so in the final chapter. I'm not sure what Chesterton's beliefs are, but I feel that the basic premise that the Jews are at constant friction with other peoples, that assimilation will not occur, and that a seperate nation would tolerantly segregate [Not in an oppresive way] the Jewish people to their own state. However I feel the attempt made after WWII failed and that it was executed badly. A more subtle execution over time would have been more successful. I can not give specifics, however I support the idea of a Jewish Nation for the sake of Civil Peace, but I do not support Israe in its current state. I do NOT, nor do I believe Belloc actually supported Zionism from the Jewish Perspective, but from the Perspective of Peace he supported it. I'm sure that Chesterton would have sympathized with his friend, since Belloc was so erudite in his arguments. It surprises many Traditionalists that Belloc thought this way, and Iwas startled myself upon first reading it. The thesis, however, is sound and clearly expressive of an understanding mind.

[Resurrexi]

If neither are in this thread, what did you mean by "We all know where this thread is going"?

[homeschoolmom]

Because we've had a similar thread while you were gone.

[Mitchell_b55]

St. Thomas More the only reason I support the State of Israel is in a secular and civil sense, I do not support that the Jews are the Chosen people. Israel is the Church, and thus is no longer confined to the physical world. The Holy Land under the power of Talmudic Jews seems a less misfortune than another Holocaust, however as I admit we went from Holocaust to Jihad and it becomes relative. I do not believe the Jewish people are cursed, but I believe they have a designated position because of their lineage as Jews, as segragation instituted by God. They are no longer his chosen people, in Faith, but they retain a certain trademark branded in their souls. I do not feel that you are defending Anti-semitism and racism, first because you are trying to rationalize a position that has been proposed by many people, and is well supported and because the statement comes from Era Might, who has elsewhere stated that "Catholics are forbidden to believe that the Jews are cursed." Considering all of this is theory and none of it dogma, I feel that this a very strong statement whether I agree with it or not.

[Era Might]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1041123' date='Aug 10 2006, 06:37 PM']If neither are in this thread, what did you mean by "We all know where this thread is going"?
[/quote]
I never said neither are in this thread; I never said either are in this thread. I never mentioned either, period. What I meant was we all know where this thread is going. If you draw from that "anti-Semitism" and "racism", that's on you.

Nevertheless, I will elaborate. This thread will inevitably devolve into the typical invective and obsession with Jews, Judaism, Israel, and "Judaizing", bearing no resemblence to what the Bishops of the Catholic Church have to say, particularly the Bishop of Rome. The fact that you defended yourself from my simple remark by quoting Popes and railing against "Talmudic Judaism" is evidence enough that this thread is not just about a modern nation-State.

Go do something constructive with your time before you get suspended again, and spare us all the drama.

[quote]VATICAN CITY, NOV. 14, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI spoke of a "more effective cooperation" between Jews and Catholics, when he received in audience a delegation from the U.S.-based Simon Wiesenthal Center.

During today's private audience, the Pope recalled: "This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council's declaration 'Nostra Aetate,' which formulated the principles that have guided the Church's efforts to promote better understanding between Jews and Catholics."

"After a difficult and painful history, relations between our two communities are presently taking a new, more positive, direction," the Holy Father said.

"We must continue to advance along the path of mutual respect and dialogue, inspired by our shared spiritual heritage, committed to an ever more effective cooperation in the service of the human family," the Pontiff added.

Benedict XVI continued: "Christians and Jews can do much to enable coming generations to live in harmony and respect for the dignity with which every human being has been endowed by the Creator. I express the hope, shared by men and women of good will everywhere, that this century will see our world emerge from the web of conflict and violence, and sow the seeds for a future of reconciliation, justice and peace. Upon all of you I invoke an abundance of divine blessings."

Rabbi's thanks

In his remarks addressed to the Holy Father, Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, thanked him for the invitation "to dialogue and exchange views, particularly in these critical times in a world desperate for moral clarity and civility."

"It is very appropriate that the Wiesenthal Center's third visit to the Vatican coincides with the 40th anniversary of 'Nostra Aetate,' the historic declaration of the Second Vatican Council which condemned 'anti-Semitism directed against the Jews at whatever time and by whomsoever,'" the rabbi said. "It is that declaration that set the stage for meetings such as ours.

"Prior to that historic step, Jews were often held in contempt and derided as an accursed people. Millions suffered through the ages because they were none to defend them."

Rabbi Hier continued: "Only in our lifetime, did a handful of great leaders, led by Pope John XXIII, muster the courage to speak out against these flagrant violations of God's law; none with greater conviction and determination then Pope John Paul II, whose message of friendship and inclusion of the Jewish people touched the hearts of millions around the world.

"We are grateful, Your Holiness of your affirmation of that friendship as you declared during your visit to the synagogue in Cologne when you said, 'I wish to reaffirm that I intend to continue on the path to improve relations and friendship with the Jewish people, following the decisive lead given by Pope John Paul II.'"[/quote]

[quote name='petrus_scholasticus' post='1041132' date='Aug 10 2006, 06:46 PM']I do not feel that you are defending Anti-semitism and racism, first because you are trying to rationalize a position that has been proposed by many people, and is well supported and because the statement comes from Era Might, who has elsewhere stated that "Catholics are forbidden to believe that the Jews are cursed." Considering all of this is theory and none of it dogma, I feel that this a very strong statement whether I agree with it or not.[/quote]
No, it is not theory, it is the teaching of the Catholic Church and the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council.

[quote]The Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

--"Nostra Aetate", Proclaimed by His Holiness Pope Paul VI[/quote]

[Mitchell_b55]

"The Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, [b]as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.[/b] All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ."

The only reason that I believe the theory an acceptable one, which I don't believe by the way, is because of that statement. "As if this followed from the Holy Scriptures." The theory can be advocated from a historical observation and not Holy Scripture, very effectively. And because we should only present it as theory and not as a fact thus teaching something which "does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ."

Edited August 10, 2006 by petrus_scholasticus

[Resurrexi]

[quote]Because we've had a similar thread while you were gone. [/quote]
I realize that. I've been lurking the whole time I was gone.

[quote]This thread will inevitably devolve into the typical invective and obsession with Jews, Judaism, Israel, and "Judaizing", bearing no resemblence to what the Bishops of the Catholic Church have to say, particularly the Bishop of Rome. [/quote]

Those quotes were from Oecumenical Councils and from the Bishop of Rome. They are offocial teaching and of course bear resemblence to what His Holiness professes.

[quote]The fact that you defended yourself from my simple remark by quoting Popes and railing against "Talmudic Judaism" is evidence enough that this thread is not just about a modern nation-State.[/quote]

I was saying since the Law of the New Testament has replaced the Law of Moses, there is no place for the latter in the modern world. Moreover, the State and the flase religion cannot be separated.

[quote]Go do something constructive with your time before you get suspended again, and spare us all the drama.[/quote]

You seriously think that after 2 months of suspension and a "Hello, I do not rep the Church" title I'm actually going to get suspended again? If anyone should be suspended, it should be people like Budge who are leading people astray. If I do get suspended again, it will not be for denying dogma (which, BTW I have never done) or being unfaithful to the Magesterium (I have learned obedience to them and have always thoght the Novus Ordo Missae was valid, at least in Latin, though I have never doubted it's validity in the horrible ICEL translation, and I have never been gulity of the heresy of sedevacantism), but it will be for saying bad things about non-Catholic religions.

Era Might, you quote from HH is in no way authoritative, it is his personal opinion on a matter. It is similar to him liking classical music. Catholics are in now way obliged to like classical music, even though he worships it (not like how you worship the Holy Trinity, or Beata Maria, or the Saints, but more like how you worship you spouse or father).

[quote]The Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

--"Nostra Aetate", Proclaimed by His Holiness Pope Paul VI[/quote]

I enterpret that as referring to the Jewish religion, not the Jewish race. I believe members of all non-Catholic religions to be accursed, but I do not think that any race is accursed or worse or better than any other. Vatican II, though, wasn't even a Dogmatic Council, it was a pastoral one, and therefore, it defined no Dogma or Dogmata.

[Era Might]

[quote name='petrus_scholasticus' post='1041139' date='Aug 10 2006, 06:55 PM']"The Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, [b]as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.[/b] All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ."

The only reason that I believe the theory an acceptable one, which I don't believe by the way, is because of that statement. "As if this followed from the Holy Scriptures." The theory can be advocated from a historical observation and not Holy Scripture, very effectively. And because we should only present it as theory and not as a fact thus teaching something which "does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ."
[/quote]
I will respond once, and that is all. I refuse to give this silly thread the time of day.

Your reading of the passage is highly incorrect. Some people try to do the same with "Dei Verbum", limiting the inerrancy of Scripture because of a simple turn of phrase, "for the sake of our salvation". The intention of the Council Fathers, in "Nostra Aetate" as well as "Dei Verbum", is clear.

The Bishops of the Catholic Church have repeated and elaborated on the teaching of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council many times over the last 40 years.

You may want to see, for example, the Holy See's "[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_jews-judaism_en.html"][u]Notes on the correct ways to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church[/u][/url]":

[quote]The permanence of Israel (while so many ancient peoples have disappeared without trace) is a historic fact and a sign to be interpreted within God's design. We must in any case rid ourselves of the traditional idea of a people punished, preserved as a living argument for Christian apologetic. It remains a chosen people, "the pure olive on which were grafted the branches of the wild olive which are the gentiles" (John Paul II, 6th March, 1982, alluding to Rom 11:17-24). We must remember how much the balance of relations between Jews and Christians over two thousand years has been negative. We must remind ourselves how the permanence of Israel is accompanied by a continuous spiritual fecundity, in the rabbinical period, in the Middle Ages and in modern times, taking its start from a patrimony which we long shared, so much so that "the faith and religious life of the Jewish people as they are professed and practised still today, can greatly help us to understand better certain aspects of the life of the Church" (John Paul II, March 6th, 1982). Catechesis should on the other hand help in understanding the meaning for the Jews of the extermination during the years 1939-1945, and its consequences.[/quote]

This is not somebody's "theory". This is a formal document of the Holy See. For further reference, see "[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19741201_nostra-aetate_en.html"][u]Guidelines and suggestions for implementing the Conciliar declaration 'Nostra Aetate'[/u][/url]", "[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html"][u]The Jewish people and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible[/u][/url]", and Pope John Paul II's "[url="http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/johnpaulii/romesynagogue.htm"][u]1986 Address at the Great Synagogue of Rome[/u][/url]".

The last is particularly noteworthy, as he gives one of his many formal confirmations of the teaching of "Nostra Aetate" as the very doctrine of the Catholic Church:

[quote]We are all aware that, among the riches of this paragraph no. 4 of Nostra Aetate, three points are especially relevant. I would like to underline them here, before you, in this truly unique circumstance. The first is that the Church of Christ discovers her "bond" with Judaism by "searching into her own mystery" (cf. Nostra Aetate, ibid.) The Jewish religion is not "extrinsic" to us, but in a certain way is "intrinsic" to our own religion. With Judaism therefore we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearly beloved brothers and, in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers.

[b]The second point noted by the Council is that no ancestral or collective blame can be imputed to the Jews as a people for "what happened in Christ's passion" (cf. Nostra Aetate, ibid.) Not indiscriminately to the Jews of that time, nor to those who came afterwards, nor to those of today. So any alleged theological justification for discriminatory measures or, worse still, for acts of persecution is unfounded. The Lord will judge each one "according to his own works," Jews and Christians alike (cf. Rom 2:6)

The third point that I would like to emphasize in the Council's Declaration is a consequence of the second. Notwithstanding the Church's awareness of her own identity, it is not lawful to say that the Jews are "repudiated or cursed," as it this were taught or could be deduced from the Sacred Scriptures of the Old or the New Testament (cf. Nostra Aetate, ibid.). Indeed, the Council had already said in this same text of Nostra Aetate, but also in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, no. 16, referring to Saint Paul in the Letter to the Romans (11:28-29), that the Jews are beloved of God, who has called them with an irrevocable calling.[/b]

On these convictions rest our present relations. On the occasion of this visit to your Synagogue, I wish to reaffirm them and to proclaim them in their perennial value. For this is the meaning which is to be attributed to my visit to you, to the Jews of Rome. It is not of course because the differences between us have now been overcome that I have come among you. We know well that this is not so. First of all, each of our religions, in the full awareness of the many bonds which unite them to each other, and in the first place that "bond" which the Council spoke of, wishes to be recognized and respected in its own identity, beyond any syncretism and any ambiguous appropriation.[/quote]
God bless.

Edited August 10, 2006 by Era Might

[Aloysius]

An exile is not the same thing as a curse, however; especially considering that the Talmud itself describes the Jewish people as being in exile by God and saying that only the Messiah can end that exile.

They are not accursed, they are exiled as a part of God's plan and purpose.

The creation of the nation-state of israel appears to be against God's plan for the Jewish people; as laid out even in the Talmud itself and witnessed by the immense ammount of human violence and suffering the creation of this state has led to.

If we are to understand Christ as the Messiah, then we ought to believe that only with the Jewish acceptance of Christ could there be an Israel created in Palestine which was peaceful and pleasing to God's plans for the Jewish people.

st thomas more's quotes about the damnation of those who reject christ are irrelevant to this discussion as they regard the eternal state of souls who die culpable for the mortal sin of rejecting Christ and His Church. his quotes showing that the Church is the New Israel and that the Old Covenant has been superceded by the New Covenant are not in any way in conflict with the current understanding of the Church. there is no covenant with any jewish religion except Christianity (which is itself the true judaism). rabbinical judaism is not within the Church's deepest mystery; it is Old Testament Judaism that is at the core and source of the Church's mystery... and modern Judaism only insofar as it views itself from the same source.

[popestpiusx]

1)No
2)No
3)Yes

In 1904, Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, was granted an audience with Pope St. Pius X. His purpose in meeting with the Pope was to gain support for the founding of a Jewish state in what was then known as Palestine. As Herzl recorded in his diary, the Pope gave an unfavorable response, saying: “We are unable to favor this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem – but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church, I cannot answer you otherwise. [b]The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people. And so if you come to [/b] Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you."
as reported by Dave Martin

Edited August 11, 2006 by popestpiusx