Pope Ratzinger to lift excommunication of Holocaust denier priest

[SerbChicago]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/world/europe/25pope.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

[mord]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/world/europe/25pope.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

Interesting article

[cjd]

Yes the article is very good it describes the issue well.

[GoIsraelGo!]

Muman the Council you quoted in your post is very old and has been replaced at least once in the 1960's. In fact I think it may have even been updated again however I am not sure. You are looking at something that is almost 150 years old. Look for the newer one known as Vatican 2. I don't know about  'wanna-be' Catholics or wanna-be-Jews and I don't know who you are referring to as "we". Its been well over 35 years since I personally bothered with any organized religion so can't accept wann-be- status.  I am not here to sell or  tell you how great the R.C.C or any other organized religion is or is not. What I will tell you that whenever I see one of this type thread start it does nothing but disrupt the movement for weeks. You sound like a smart guy but some of the stuff I see written about the R.C.C by you and a few others in the past makes me roll my eyes and think of the time your waisting on garbage like that while the Arab world is doing every thing it can to destroy tiny Israel. I will be the first to agree with you that the Church has taken some very evil actions over the centuries and yes in early time people livid by church decree. Today the Church honestly does not have that hold on its followers when it comes to social issues. More over when I was growing up in the 60's and early 70's the Church made a great effort to teach its young people about Judaism and its customs and holidays as a result of the policies in Vatican 2. The R.C.C today is under a great deal of pressure to keep people in the fold. Muslims are making great inroads into countries that were once bastions of Catholicism. I think its very sad when a person like yourself classifies other Jews who are less strict as almost non Jews. People like you who have seen both sides of the coin should encourage people like that to learn more and follow the mitzvas closer. Lastly for you to say that Catholics should believe and follow everything that comes out of the Popes mouth or not be Catholics very insulting to some of our great Catholic members who support Israel and the Jewish people. I leave myself out of that group since for all practical purposes I would fit into a group known as lapsed Catholics.

Hi CJD, many righteous gentiles have been honored for their efforts to save Jews from the Death camps...there are numerous halls of the righteous in the Holocaust Museums to honor these brave Christians who risked their own lives to save the Jews. There is good and bad in every religion, except for Islam. I am personally grateful for the Christians who liberated Morrocco, my Mother and her family would have been taken to the death Camps in Europe and I would have never been born. I am alive today because there were good Christians who did save the remaining Jews from the camps. This holocaust denier should not be welcomed back by the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church must not repeat the same sins that happened in the past. During Yom Kippur part of repentance is not making the same sin over again, so that we can truly be forgiven by G-d.
I hope the Pope reconsiders his decision to allow those anti semetic holocaust deniers back to the Church.


                                                                                   Shalom - Dox   

[muman613]

Muman the Council you quoted in your post is very old and has been replaced at least once in the 1960's. In fact I think it may have even been updated again however I am not sure. You are looking at something that is almost 150 years old. Look for the newer one known as Vatican 2. I don't know about  'wanna-be' Catholics or wanna-be-Jews and I don't know who you are referring to as "we". Its been well over 35 years since I personally bothered with any organized religion so can't accept wann-be- status.  I am not here to sell or  tell you how great the R.C.C or any other organized religion is or is not. What I will tell you that whenever I see one of this type thread start it does nothing but disrupt the movement for weeks. You sound like a smart guy but some of the stuff I see written about the R.C.C by you and a few others in the past makes me roll my eyes and think of the time your waisting on garbage like that while the Arab world is doing every thing it can to destroy tiny Israel. I will be the first to agree with you that the Church has taken some very evil actions over the centuries and yes in early time people livid by church decree. Today the Church honestly does not have that hold on its followers when it comes to social issues. More over when I was growing up in the 60's and early 70's the Church made a great effort to teach its young people about Judaism and its customs and holidays as a result of the policies in Vatican 2. The R.C.C today is under a great deal of pressure to keep people in the fold. Muslims are making great inroads into countries that were once bastions of Catholicism. I think its very sad when a person like yourself classifies other Jews who are less strict as almost non Jews. People like you who have seen both sides of the coin should encourage people like that to learn more and follow the mitzvas closer. Lastly for you to say that Catholics should believe and follow everything that comes out of the Popes mouth or not be Catholics very insulting to some of our great Catholic members who support Israel and the Jewish people. I leave myself out of that group since for all practical purposes I would fit into a group known as lapsed Catholics.

Obviously you did not read my posting because I said that every Jew has the opportunity to do teshuva and I reserve judgement and often do attempt to see all Jews in a good light. A good example of this is when many members condemned Leonard Nimoy and I defended him because he has contributed a bit to Jewish education. I always attempt to see all Jews in a good light as it is a command of the Torah.

With that in mind I still have a responsibility to Torah to rebuke those who are not following the commands. This too is a command of the Torah and I will rebuke those who have missed the mark. I do not profess to be perfect either and I accept rebuke from a Jew who has in his mind to bring me up to a higher level.

Regarding the other religions I have a need to assess whether that religion is friendly or an enemy to Judaism. Not speaking for the individual members of that religion it seems to me that the Catholic Church has been an enemy of the Jewish people since its inception. I dont need to preach to everyone the history of this church and its involvement in Crusades, Inquisitions and pogroms throughout history. Only in the last forty years, since the Vatican 2 council, has the church even attempted to make amends for these grave crimes against my religion.

There is no reason that individuals could leave that church because of its ominous past. I don't understand staying in a church when you don't agree with the dogma. What kind of religion allows people to make it up as they go along. Also I condemned Obama for belonging to a church which preached black liberation theory and not leaving.

I have not blamed those people who belong to this church for this decision. But I do blame the church and I still have bad feelings about the pope and all his underlings. Nobody here has even attempted to defend this church, all they are doing is blaming me for bringing it up. I have good reason to be unforgiving to this church.

PS: I dont bash other religions. This is the 1st time I have commented on the Catholic Church. My singular goal in JTF is to help bring more Jews into religion and support for a strong Israel.

[Ben Yehuda]

I have many good friends who are Catholic, the pope is not one of them.

[muman613]

Apparently the Second Vatican council also established the infallibility principle for the Bishops. According to the wiki site I posted above the following information is posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Second_Vatican_Council

In its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (1964), the Second Vatican Council declared:

"Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

… this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith. The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith."

Once again I am not attempting to discredit the religion. My only point is that the Pope and the Vatican are the representatives and the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church. They should not allow someone who denies the Holocaust to remain a Bishop in the church.

[Rubystars]

I guess I don't really understand because in my opinion if a church makes a decision, morals should always be a big part of that decision.

I thought Benedict/Ratzinger was supposed to be a really strict conservative and traditionalist. I thought he might be good for the RCC because he was supposed to be conservative. Even when he started spouting about Protestants going to hell, I didn't care because I thought maybe he would at least be better than the previous pope who was a Muslim-lover.

I didn't realize that he was a traditionalist in the sense of going back to pro-Nazi ideas of his childhood. I'm sure the RCC could care less about what I say since I'm not involved at all with them, but it does make me feel very frustrated that he's not considering that he's letting someone evil back into his religion's fold.

Ruby, this Nazi and anti-semite issue is not of any relevancy for the CC, at least if this Pius people accept again in all important points the rule of Benedikt.

I think it should be an issue. I think that they should want their members to be good people or encourage them to be good people. Instead it looks like he's rewarding evil behavior.

To think that some moral points would influence the decision in any way is the view of people from outside with no understanding of the CC.

If they are not concerned with morals, what are they concerned with?

They are acting according to their ideology their goal and their interests. They are doing this since centuries. They are not influenced by the oppinion of the Jews and other people that are upset.

They should think about changing their tune because their numbers are declining. As someone else mentioned, they're losing ground to Islam, which is not good for any of us.

[GoIsraelGo!]

Apparently the Second Vatican council also established the infallibility principle for the Bishops. According to the wiki site I posted above the following information is posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Second_Vatican_Council

In its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (1964), the Second Vatican Council declared:

"Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

… this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith. The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith."

Once again I am not attempting to discredit the religion. My only point is that the Pope and the Vatican are the representatives and the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church. They should not allow someone who denies the Holocaust to remain a Bishop in the church.

Hi Muman, I totally agree with you. The Pope has the responsibility to do what is right and that would be to not allow those holocaust deniers back to the Church.
There are many good Catholics who are against it also. I think that the members of the Catholic Church must speak out in huge numbers against this decision the Pope is about to make.

[Ulli]

Ruby, Ratzinger was never a Nazi. His family background is very Catholic. His brother is a catholic priest too. If he would have hate towards Jews the motivation comes not out of Nazism, but from old catholic doctrines.

The Catholic church sees themselve as the only real church on this earth in material form.

We protestants think, either that the church is already destroyed like the brethren movement or there is only an invisible church that stands for the high ideal of the one ecclesia.

Fundamentalist Catholics like Ratzinger and I am shure all his family has the same background are not tolerating anything beneath the CC. No bolschewists, no Nazis, nothing.

They fight with them always at least in the battle of ideas in order to convert them.

This morals you speak of are irrelevant for the decisions of Ratzinger. Of cause they have morals, but this morals are bound to nearly a millennium of traditions and dogmas. This is because they believe in the theological thesis of continued relevation.

[muman613]

Ruby, Ratzinger was never a Nazi. His family background is very Catholic. His brother is a catholic priest too. If he would have hate towards Jews the motivation comes not out of Nazism, but from old catholic doctrines.

The Catholic church sees themselve as the only real church on this earth in material form.

We protestants think, either that the church is already destroyed like the brethren movement or there is only an invisible church that stands for the high ideal of the one ecclesia.

Fundamentalist Catholics like Ratzinger and I am shure all his family has the same background are not tolerating anything beneath the CC. No bolschewists, no Nazis, nothing.

They fight with them always at least in the battle of ideas in order to convert them.

This morals you speak of are irrelevant for the decisions of Ratzinger. Of cause they have morals, but this morals are bound to nearly a millennium of traditions and dogmas. This is because they believe in the theological thesis of continued relevation.

Either way this is very disturbing. You are saying that antisemitism is deeply entrenched in the Churches theology. We already know about that antisemitism. It would be easier to understand if this was just that the church was not aware of this bishops denial. But if the church is dredging up pre-second vatican council theology then it is an even scarier thing to comprehend.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Muman, this is a disgusting development and is inexcusable, but it is hard to tell at this point whether this decision is based out of true anti-Semitism or just relativism. It's terrible either way, but the difference is between it being an evil decision and just a very stupid and amoral one.

I am not a Catholic, and have many key differences with the RCC, but I do know that many RCs are pro-Israel and pro-Jewish Zionists who do not agree with every single opinion given by the Vatican. We can't paint them all with one brush even if some of their leaders do make very bad decisions.

[Ulli]

Ruby, Ratzinger was never a Nazi. His family background is very Catholic. His brother is a catholic priest too. If he would have hate towards Jews the motivation comes not out of Nazism, but from old catholic doctrines.

The Catholic church sees themselve as the only real church on this earth in material form.

We protestants think, either that the church is already destroyed like the brethren movement or there is only an invisible church that stands for the high ideal of the one ecclesia.

Fundamentalist Catholics like Ratzinger and I am shure all his family has the same background are not tolerating anything beneath the CC. No bolschewists, no Nazis, nothing.

They fight with them always at least in the battle of ideas in order to convert them.

This morals you speak of are irrelevant for the decisions of Ratzinger. Of cause they have morals, but this morals are bound to nearly a millennium of traditions and dogmas. This is because they believe in the theological thesis of continued relevation.

Either way this is very disturbing. You are saying that antisemitism is deeply entrenched in the Churches theology. We already know about that antisemitism. It would be easier to understand if this was just that the church was not aware of this bishops denial. But if the church is dredging up pre-second vatican council theology then it is an even scarier thing to comprehend.

Muman, there are lots of different congregations in Christianity. You have to differ.

If you don't I could throw you in one pot with liberal Judaism, Neturei Karta, reconstructivism etc.

My point was, that the RCC has beneath the bible other sources. It is called tradition. They think basically, that the revelation didn't end with the NT. So there are books over books you wouldn't believe. The internal law of the RCC and the teachings that were given through the centuries binds it to special morals. They are not free in their decisions and it is not all logical what they teach.

Of course they will never accept Judaism as a way to salvation. The best you can get is that they leave the Jews alone.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Muman, I don't believe in church infallibility, but some Jews do the same thing. There are many Jews who consider the opinions of certain rabbis, such as Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, to be divine and the direct revelation of G-d. Because Rabbi Yosef ruled that land-for-peace is halachically permissible in order to "save lives", directly supported Oslo, and stated that the Arabs are the brothers of Jews, hundreds of thousands of Jews supported these policies, which led to utter and complete disaster for the Jewish state. Granted, the magnitude of this may not have been as great as that of anti-Semitic popes who ordered crusades, expulsions, and pogroms, but it was still terrible.

[muman613]

Pheasant,

I think you misunderstand what I am saying. I dont have a problem with all of Christianity at all. My entire involvement in this thread is to say that what the Catholic Pope is doing is going to destroy whatever goodwill that Church has worked for forty years to reverse. I dont hold all people of Christian faith to the principles of the Catholic church. I am well aware of the various denominations and many of their precepts.

I am willing to reveal that my beliefs are firmly defined by Chassidic Orthodox Judaism. I have my own understandings of concepts but I dont assume that because I dont understand something it is not relevant. My understanding is that all Jews are a part of my family even though they don't observe the commandments the way I do.

C.F., I see your post which you just posted. I dont think that any student of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef thinks that he speaks with Hashem. There is a difference between believing that the Rebbe is a tzaddik and believing his is a prophet. Chassidic Judaism does put a lot of trust in the Tzaddik, so it is with Breslov Judaism which I am learning. But the Rabbi is not comparable to the pope. And I have not heard him ever say that land should be given for peace. This seems to be a slander you have been posting quite frequently. I did search for such a fact and was not able to find it. Please provide a link which proves this point. Many Rabbis have come out against giving land to the arabs.  I will not listen to gossip and slander.

PS: According to the wikipedia article I am looking at that decision was retracted...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovadia_Yosef

Halakhic authority

Rabbi Yosef is generally considered one of the most important halakhic authorities. In particular, he is widely considered as the ultimate halakhic authority for Sefaradi and Mizrahi Jews ("Maran").

Some of his more famous legal rulings include:

    * It is legitimate and permissible to give territory from the Land of Israel in order to achieve a genuine peace. When the Oslo Accords were followed by an intifada, this opinion was later retracted.[3]

    * A collective recognition of the Jewishness of the Beta Israel, after there was a suspicion that their conversion to Judaism was not in compliance with halakha.

    * Allowing the wives of Israel Defense Force soldiers who have been missing in action for a long time to remarry, a verdict which is known as "the releasure of agunot" (התרת עגונות).

    * Women should not wear a wig (sheitel) as a form of head covering, but should wear headscarves instead. (According to halakha, Jewish married women should cover their hair in public for reasons of modesty).

More:

Position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Despite his controversial public comments, Rabbi Yosef has long been a distinguished rabbinical authority advocating peace negotiations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and has done so since the late 1980s. His main justification is the halakhic principle of Pikuach Nefesh, in which all the Jewish commandments (excluding adultery, idolatry, and murder) are put on hold if a life is put in danger. Using an argument first articulated by the late American rabbinical leader Joseph Soloveitchik, Rabbi Yosef claims that the Arab-Israeli conflict endangers human lives, thereby meeting the above criteria and overruling the priority of commandments pertaining to settling the land of Israel.[7] Therefore, Israel is permitted — even obligated if saving lives is a definitive outcome — to make serious efforts to reach a peace settlement as well as to make arrangements to properly protect its citizens.[8][9] Rabbi Yosef first applied the Pikuach Nefesh principle to Israel's conflicts with its neighbors in 1979, when he ruled that this argument granted Israel authority to return the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt. Some claimed, however, that the ruling was also motivated by Rabbi Yosef's desire to oppose his Ashkenazi colleague, Rabbi Shlomo Goren.[10]

Using this precedent, Rabbi Yosef instructed Shas to join Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's government coalition, and later that of Ehud Barak as well. However, Shas abstained on Oslo I and voted against the Oslo II agreement. Furthermore, as Oslo stalled and relations between Israelis and Palestinians began to deteriorate, and particularly following the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, Rabbi Yosef and the party pulled "rightward", supporting the Likud.

In 2005, Rabbi Yosef repeatedly condemned the Gaza Disengagement. He argued that he was opposed to any unilateral action that occurred outside the framework of a peace agreement. Rabbi Yosef again cited the principle of Pikuach Nefesh, saying that empowering the Palestinians without a commitment to end terror would result in threatening Jewish lives, particularly in areas near Gaza in range of Qassam rocket attacks.[11] In contrast to some of his rabbinical colleagues, such as Rabbi Yosef Sholom Eliashiv, Rabbi Yosef refused to entertain the idea of holding a referendum on the disengagement, and instructed his MKs to vote against the plan when it came up in the Knesset.

Rabbi Yosef still maintains that Pikuach Nefesh applies to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and supports negotiations with the Palestinians. However, he no longer appears totally convinced that diplomacy with the present leadership can necessarily end the violence. Some media analysts have suggested that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert may be able to convince the rabbi to sign on to further unilateral actions by the government if concerted efforts toward negotiation fail.[12]

[JewishAmericanPatriot]

In the RCC, bishops MUST obey commands of the Pope. The group Williamson belongs to (Society of St Pius X) has been separated from the regular Catholic church for years. The members were not regarded as excommunicated, but the four bishops consecreated by Archbishop Lefebvre WERE. The RCC was trying to get them back for a long time.

In order for them to be accepted back, and to have the excommunication lifted, the bishops had to agree to accept the authority of the Pope. I suspect the Pope wanted to lift the excommunications so that the bishops would now be back in the regular church....and then the Pope can order Williamson to shut up about his views, and the bishop would have to obey or be excommunicated again for disobedience.

[Chaim Ben Pesach]

                                                                                                                                                          בס''ד

I have locked this topic because it is leading to unnecessary arguments between JTFers about their religious beliefs.

Catholicism and Judaism are very different religions. In JTF, we have decided to work together despite our theological differences because we are all facing two common enemies who endanger our very survival: one, the Muslim Nazis; and two, the "New World Order" Western politicians, news media and multinational corporations. These two enemies are currently winning in their war to destroy America, Israel and Western civilization. We are hoping to awaken people to the grave threat in order to turn the tide.

If we attempt to resolve all of our religious differences, we will never be able to work together.