Is this Benedict XVI’s Reform Cardinal?
Tancred
8/19/12
eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2012/08/is-this-benedict-xvis-reform-cardinal.html
Vatican. [kreuz.net] The President of the Pontifical Council For Unity, Cardinal Kurt Koch, sees apparent anti-Jewish tendencies in the Church. He told the Jewish weekly magazine ‘Tacheles’. The chief Cardinal see anti-Jewish tendencies in Traditionalists or theologians who teach that the Old Testament has been abolished by the New Testament. The teaching criticized by the Cardinal corresponds to the teaching of Jesus Christ, the New Testament and the faith of the Catholic Church.
Edit: He’s made other statements regarding Jewish-Catholic relations that are controversial, which points decisively to a powerful incompatibility between those who are in positions of power and those in the periphery or in some cases, out in the cold. Here he implicates the Catholic Church in the German persecution of the Jews during World War II:
On the Catholic side, the Declaration of the Second Vatican Council on the relationship of the church to the non–Christian religions, “Nostra aetate”, can be considered the beginning of a systematic dialogue with the Jews. Still today it is considered the “foundation document” and the “Magna Charta” of the dialogue of the Roman Catholic Church with Judaism, so my tour d’horizon of the Jewish–Catholic conversation must begin there. It did not develop in a vacuum, since on the Christian side there had already been approaches to Judaism both within and outside the Catholic Church before the Council. But after the unprecedented crime of the Shoah above all, an effort was made in the post–War period towards a theologically reflected re–definition of the relationship with Judaism. Following the mass murder of the European Jews planned and executed by the National Socialists with industrial perfection, a profound examination of conscience was initiated about how such a barbaric scenario was possible in the Christian–oriented West. Must we assume that anti–Jewish tendencies present within Christianity for centuries were complicit in the anti–Semitism of the Nazis, racially motivated and led astray by a godless and neo–pagan ideology, or simply allowing it to run its course? Among Christians too there were both perpetrators and victims; but the broad masses surely consisted of passive spectators who kept their eyes closed in the face of this brutal reality. The Shoah therefore became a question and an accusation against Christianity: Why did Christian resistance against the boundless brutality of the Nazi crimes not demonstrate that measure and that clarity which one should rightfully have expected? Have Christians and Jews today the will and the strength for conciliation and reconciliation on the common foundation of faith in the one and only God of Israel? What significance does Judaism have in the future for churches and ecclesial communities, and in what theological relationship do we stand today in connection with Judaism?
Who makes these appointments?
Is it HH Pope Benedict XVI? The same man that the SSPX are so “hopeful of”?
Cardinal Koch says “But after the unprecedented crime of the Shoah above all”, unprecedented?
What about the The Armenian holocaust by the Turks in 1916?
The Ukrainian Holodemor in 1931-33?
Armed by the success of these Stalin went on a personal rampage and Murdered 10′s of million.
Mao then went on to do better with circa 60 million.
The common element in all of these holocausts? Satan.
Should the good Cardinal Koch not know this? He is supposed to be catholic and should HH Benedict XVI not do some research on his appointees’ attitudes?
Of course not. The Spirit of Vatican II and “Nostra aetate” are the prime motivators.
And guess what? Satan has blinded them all.
Adage: A people will get the leaders they deserve.
Thought: The Church must be in pretty bad shape to have had such a crop of leaders of compromise.
Yet for all this, they remain princes of the Church. Pretty good mystery.
At least under this pontificate some of speaking the truth with a little more courage when compared to the deafening silence under Bl. Pope John Paul II’s reign.
McDee,
I’m curious if you’ve read the Catechism of the Council of Trent section “Reasons Why Christ Suffered”.
It gives a pretty good outline of who the Christ Killers are…
Hi McDee,
Here’s the complete passage:
Reasons Why Christ Suffered
The reasons why the Saviour suffered are also to be explained, that thus the greatness and intensity of the divine
love towards us may the more fully appear. Should anyone inquire why the Son of God underwent His most
bitter Passion, he will find that besides the guilt inherited from our first parents the principal causes were the
vice’s and crimes which have been perpetrated from the beginning of the world to the present day and those
which will be committed to the end of time. In His Passion and death the Son of God, our Saviour, intended to
atone for and blot out the sins of all ages, to offer for them to his Father a full and abundant satisfaction.
Besides, to increase the dignity of this mystery, Christ not only suffered for sinners, but even for those who
were the very authors and ministers of all the torments He endured. Of this the Apostle reminds us in these
words addressed to the Hebrews: Think diligently upon him that endured such opposition from sinners against
himself; that you be not wearied, fainting in your minds. In this guilt are involved all those who fall frequently
into sin; for, as our sins consigned Christ the Lord to the death of the cross, most certainly those who wallow in
sin and iniquity crucify to themselves again the Son of God, as far as in them lies, and make a mockery of Him.
This guilt seems more enormous in us than in the Jews, since according to the testimony of the same Apostle: If
they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory; while we, on the contrary,
In the Tan 1982 edition it is on page 57.
McDee,
Did you make this up on your own?
“… Judaism is not about God; it is about the ancient, superior race. …”
McDee,
Personally, I think you need to rework your philosophy.
The people who I know that practice Judaism as a religion definitely think it is about God and the coming of the Redeemer.
trad said, “The people who I know that practice Judaism as a religion definitely think it is about God and the coming of the Redeemer.”
Do you bear witness and tell them they’ve missed Him by 2000 years or do you let them hope in vain as Rome would like them to?
Interesting question Irish.
Sounds like a challenge, although I’m certain you didn’t mean it that way.
Before I answer and to make certain you aren’t just doing drive-by blogging:
How would you convey such information so as to attempt to predispose a person following the Jewish religion to accept the grace of which you are but a conduit?
I tell him Christ has already come (not “I believe” He already has come) and that I ‘ll continue to pray for him and his fellow Jews. That’s it.
As a result, I don’t have as many Jewish friends as Cardinals Lustiger or Koch; but the cross that they have dropped, I have picked up.
In spite of the flogging I’ll get from gpmtrad.
Irish,
How many times have you spoken with a devote Jew and tried this approach?
Granted that trying to convert a devote Jew is not something that anyone who isn’t either a convert from Judaism or possessing of a deep knowledge of the Old Testament is likely to succeed at. Their prejudice and ignorance is so strong.
Now to answer your question/challenge:
I did not take your approach.
One year after Easter, one Jewess who is direct from Israel, served in the IDF etc ,came into my office and asked if I was resurrected now? Before she retreated, I corrected her understanding of the Catholic doctrine on the last judgement to the best of my abiliity.
In another case, as the conversation with a Jewish man turned to religion an opportunity came for me to explain that Catholics who know their faith understand that it is a fulfillment of the Jewish religion.
This man ( also co-worker) was educated in Oxford and from the stunned (a rare occurence) look on his face I surmise that he:
a. never heard it explained that way before,
b. understood the implications.
My brother-in-law (SSPX priest) gave me this advice: Preach always and when necessary … use words.
Everyone at work knows that I’m Catholic in the truest sense of the word. When they’ve either engaged in discussions or attacked me, I engage and … when required counter-attacked. Even when the person attacking was my supervisor.
Next question …
I’ve never met a devout Jew. I’ve never met a devout Protestant. I’ve only met some devout Catholics and some devout Muslims; and never the ‘twain shall meet.
Trad said, “Granted that trying to convert a devote Jew is not something that anyone who isn’t either a convert from Judaism or possessing of a deep knowledge of the Old Testament is likely to succeed at.”
So do what I do. Tell them there wrong, but you’ll continue to pray for them. It upsets them greatly but I know God wants us to pray for them and not to lie to them.
And where did you get the silly idea that Jews somehow possess a deeper knowledge of the Old Testament than Catholics do?
“… the silly idea that Jews somehow possess a deeper knowledge of the Old Testament than Catholics do? …”
It is a generalization. For the fun of it, I would suggest reading ‘Star of Jacob’.
Trad said, “Now to answer your question/challenge:
I did not take your approach.”
So you do not take the approach of the first martyr, St. Stephen?
As far as your good brother-in-law, I think he means preach always the Catholic Faith, and only that; not preach what Jews think they believe in. They have their own spokesmen, many of whom are in the Vatican.
Irish (or do you prefer LOTI?),
Who was St. Stephen talking to? What was their situation? What knowledge did they have of the events that had taken place?
wrt Brother-In-Law, here is his explanation:
By your good example you will do more good and when necessary words will be added to the good example.
My addition: If you do not live up to the Catholic Faith in your entire lift (public and private) then you undermine your arguments.
Trad said, “In another case, as the conversation with a Jewish man turned to religion an opportunity came for me to explain that Catholics who know their faith understand that it is a fulfillment of the Jewish religion.”
Poor guy. I think you confused him. Now he thinks there’s two legitimate religions. Unless you told him otherwise, that is.
No Irish,
I am confident that he is aware that I was talking about supersessionism.
Tradical, allow me, please.
You are a relatively new member of AQ so it seems you are not familiar with LOTI’s years of thoroughly Catholic thinking, writing and contributing here, right?
Presuming the answer is yes, allow me – once again.
LOTI was refuting arch-heretics, demolishing dissidents, lambasting liberals, gulping down glib modernists and belching them back out with flames, incinerating the infamous and indicting idiots like Kung & deLubac with overwhelming philosophical firepower, as well as shelling the crap out of wiseacres in both extremist camps BEFORE you could probably even spell “thesaurus”!
Do yourself and the other fine folks here a favor and do a little hard thinking before succumbing to mainstream conciliarist cant, please?
Sorry if that sounds a bit insensitve but LOTI’s a friend and that needed saying.
I don’t want to discourage your efforts to make intellectual contributions, nor to try to gainsay your “moderate” voice. Nevertheless, respect where it is due is, in fact, due.
Carry on;
gpmtrad,
” … succumbing to mainstream conciliarist cant …”
I think you’ll need to explain that comment a wee little bit.
With regards to LOTI,
In their effort to stay Catholic, I’ve seen quite a few trads lose perspective, become bitter, and cease to practice charity with a true love of God. I’ve seen them lose the faith completely as well as return to the ‘fold’. In short in their narrow perspective, they become blind and fall off the knife’s edge that we as traditional Catholic walk on.
If you think I should show LOTI respect … where have I lacked respect? I’m sure I have, but I’d like to know where so I can correct my behaviour.
Respect is a two way street.
Trad said, “In short in their narrow perspective, they become blind and fall off the knife’s edge that we as traditional Catholic walk on.”
I”m not dancing on any knife’s edge. I’m standing on a huge, smooth Rock. I’m sorry you feel you’re in such a precarious position.
Irish,
Virtue is the pinnacle between two vices and pride comes before the fall.
The particular knifes edge that I had in mind (there are a few) stands between blind obedience and disobedience.
trad and gpmtrad,
My apologies to the both of you. I am sorry for a personal inquisition of trad. It was a knee-jerk reaction to the too many comments I’ve heard from Roman prelates explaining (and sometimes more or less defending) the beliefs of false religions. And yes, I believe Judaism, and all its “beliefs”, is no longer a religion, for there is only one.
Obviously, no one in Rome listens to me; so I took it out on trad; and for that I apologize.
Trad, I’ve been meaning to get back to you on your culture post. I will try to do so this weekend but basically my argument will be: forget the “culture” concept (you mentioned the word, or its variation, over 40 times in your post) and instead I recommend you focus on the Social Reign of Christ the King, which transcends all “cultures”.
gpmtrad, thanks again for being my big brother and pulling me back from starting a stupid alley fight.
Irish
Apology accepted and I offer my own for any offense given.
Re Social Reign of Christ the King:
Ultimately yep that would be the end game. However, the people we are dealing with (non-traditional Catholics) won’t understand it and it will seem foreign to them. That is was the Culture concept comes in as a model for understanding and trying to help the non-traditional Catholics.
To put it another way: It’s like you’re trying to explain the Faith to someone who doesn’t speak the same language. We have to teach them the metaphorical language of the Faith so they’ll understand and ‘GET IT’ when we present ideas and issues from a traditional point of view.
I’m looking forward to your thoughts, but I may be delayed in responding as this is the end of my vacation – back to the salt mine on Monday.
Cheers!
LOTI: It’s what Irishmen do.
Tradical: The stupid webpage expired a moment ago after I had taken nearly an hour to post a response. Here’s a precis….
A. You SOUND like a conciliarist ( Achtung! Achtung! Whatever the Vatican II Panzer Korps commands – even if out of the mouth of a heretic! – MUST BE !!! Macht schnell!!! ).
B. Despite that, I think you’re a gentleman.
C. Save yourself from years of confusion and instead of using conciliarist jargon and diplo-speak, familiarize yourself with the polemics of St. Jerome and St. John Chrysostum ( especially read his work against the judaizers – men in his day who did EXACTLY the same thing as top Vatican officials have been pulling for decades! ) and get yourself a subscription to Catholic Family News.
D.. Don’t expect me to respond peaceably by addressing anything to me which includes the term “wee”, verstehen Sie?
That is all!
gpmtrad,
Re:
a. sound like a conciliarist: In this you’ll have to help me. Where do I sound like this? In the article? In my general commentary?
b. Thankyou.
c. See ‘a’. The jargon, assuming that you are referring to the article, is relevant to the area of Organizational Behavior. The ‘voice’ of the article is standard for peer reviewed journals. If that is the issue, not to worry, in the next few I plan to change the voice because of the message that needs to be conveyed and the audience I’m targeting.
d. I am sooooo tempted to add that offensive word again.
McDee,
“Jews are told that they are innocent…”
I think you are in a bit of a morass here.
Judaism is defined (roughly) by the belief that God has revealed Himself and that a redeemer (Messiah) is promised to come. So they believe in God, but they don’t believe that Jesus is God and the Messiah.