I love opinionated non-PC people. This blog is to vent my opinions on life, the universe and everything. Which is 42 which in gematria is "My Heart" (LBY) according to Rabbi Abulafia. The Divine Heart is the centre of everything.

Sunday, November 09, 2008

Are Passover Seders sinful? A Hebrew Catholic Response


Once again some Catholic traditionalists are attacking the Jews in the Church. They are now spreading homilies on the internet by anonymous Catholic Tridentine priests who are attacking the practice of keeping the Passover Seder by Catholics. They do this by quoting the great doctor of the Church St. Thomas Aquinas. They quote his opinion that a Catholic who keeps the ceremonies and rituals of the Old Covenant as if the Messiah had not already been born is committing a mortal sin. They then decide that this means that those Catholics who attend Passover Seders whether unchanged ones or christianised ones are objectively committing mortal sin. They state that the passover is part of the animal sacrifices abolished by the first coming of Christ. They also go on to say that the Jewish passover of today has nothing to do with the ancient passover celebrated by Jesus.

They thus show that they are blinded by their anti-semitic prejudices. If it is true that the modern Passover has nothing to do with the ancient passover (as they say)then it has nothing to do with the rituals or animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant. Then one cannot possibly be sinning unless keeping another ceremony such as Thanksgiving is a sin as well. However I would not agree that the modern Passover Seder kept by the Jews has no connection to the ancient Passover.

One is not obliged to accept as correct all that St Thomas of Aquinas teaches as is obvious in his opposition to the teaching of the Immaculate Conception and other opinions of his that are not accepted today by the Church. However I think all Jews in the Church would accept the principle that keeping the ceremonies and rituals of the Old Covenant as neccessary for salvation or as if the Messiah had not been born is wrong. We do not keep the Passover Seder as if the Messiah had not been born nor do we keep it as a means to salvation.

We also know, from Benedict XIV's letter 'Ex Quo' (1756) to the Italo-Greeks, that Old Covenant ceremonies and rituals may be kept in the Church even by Gentiles if they are given a New Covenant purpose or meaning. How much more then for the Jews in the Church. Benedict XIV even states that if the Church wishes she could bind the kosher food laws on the Gentile Catholics if she so wishes for a spiritual purpose. How much more then for the Jews in the Church.

A Jew who has come to faith in the Messiah Jesus and his Church now sees the Passover Seder with new eyes that sees Jesus and Mary hidden in the Passover ritual whether one celebrates it as it is or with Christian additions. It is impossible for a Catholic Jew to celebrate Passover as if the Messiah had not come, as everything in the celebration speaks of his Presence and brings one to a deeper understanding and appreciation of the transformed Passover Seder that is the Eucharist. A Catholic Jew who observes the Passover Seder always observes it in the light of the New Covenant which gives it a new meaning and purpose in the interior life of the Catholic Jew. In fact most Jews who enter the church today have found that the Passover means so much more to them now than before they entered the Church. Now we observe it not because we are commanded to in a legalistic way or as a means to salvation but because we see its inner light of sanctification that leads us into the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus.

Some may say that it is Ok for the Jews in the church to keep the Passover as it is part of their heritage but they would exclude the non-Jews in keeping it. However our present Pope would disagree with them. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) in his book "Behold the Pierced One" states "...it seems to me, this Passover celebration which has come down to us from the nomads, via Israel and through Christ, also has (in the deepest sense) an eminently political significance. We as a nation, we in Europe, need to go back to our spiritual roots, lest we become lost in self-destruction. This feast needs to become a family celebration once again, for it is the family that is the real bastion of creation and humanity. Passover is a summons, urgently reminding us that the family is the living home in which humanity is nurtured, which banishes chaos and futility, and which must be protected as such. But we must add that the family can only be this sphere of humanity, this bastion of creation, if it is under the banner of the Lamb, if it is protected by the power of faith which comes from the love of Jesus Christ..." Here we see Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) calling for all Catholics to celebrate with their families the Passover Seder for deep theological and spiritual reasons connected with preserving the faith in the family. Many modern Catholics seem to have lost the customs of making God part of the ordinary life of the family and they could learn much from the Orthodox Jewish families who bring God in a natural and spiritual way into the daily rythm of family life.

So those priests and bishops who encourage and participate with the laity in Passover Seders all over the Catholic world are the ones who are in tune with the thinking of our present Holy Father. If the present head of the Signatura (High court of the Vatican) Archbishop Burke feels comfortable attending a Passover Seder hosted by the Association of Hebrew Catholics then I think all Catholics can rest easy about their participation in Passover Seders. Archbishop Burke
For those interested further in the theological understanding of the Hebrew Catholic vocation see Hebrew Catholic Vocation

Note: This article doesn't refer to all traditionalist Catholics and in fact there are many other Catholics who also have a mistaken idea of the Church's position on Jewish observances in the Church.

43 comments:

Abigail123 said...

Hi
Thanks for this - v interesting. Could you perhaps insert some links or let me know where you're reading these Tridentine comments?

Thanks

Abigail

Aharon B said...

yes on www.audiosancto.org

Stella said...

Thank you. This was very helpful.

BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) said...

Long time no see dude. Good Post!

Maurice Pinay said...

The great Church Doctor St. Thomas didn't qualify his condemnation of observation of Mosaic rites after Christ's death and resurrection as you allege:

"... just as it would be a mortal sin now for anyone, in making a profession of faith, to say that Christ is yet to be born, which the fathers of old said devoutly and truthfully; so too it would be a mortal sin now to observe those ceremonies which the fathers of old fulfilled with devotion and fidelity." (St. Thomas, Summa Theologica I, II, q. 103, Art. 4)

Neither did another great Doctor of the Church St. John Chrysostom:

"Once there was a proper time when they had to follow those observances, but now there is not. That is why what was once according to the Law is now opposed to it." (St. John Chrysostom, Homily IV, Against the Jews and the Trumpets of their Pasch)

Aharon B said...

Whatever St Thomas Aquinas and St John Chrysostum thought on this is superseded by Pope Benedict XIV who does allow old covenant customs and rituals for Gentiles if they are done with a new covenant intention. The essence of what Aquinas is saying is that the Old Covenant rituals should not be celebrated with the intention that the Messiah has not come. Another example is circumcision which the Church allows for Gentile Catholics if it is done for cultural or health reasons not as a ritual of initiation into the church or as a means to salvation. The Filipino Catholics are a good example of this cultural observance of circumcision which is accepted by the church.

Aharon B said...

As for St John Chrysostum- he had a fanatical hatred of Jews and anything he writes in regard to Jews carries very little weight today. Vatican II condemned anti-semitism from whatever source it came from- even from Catholic saints. One has to interpret the writings of the fathers, saints and doctors in the light of the development of doctrinal teaching.

I also note that most of the church's teaching even until today only addresses Gentile Catholics or non -Catholic Jews- the church has not spoken definitively to Jews in the Church. i am sure all Catholic Jews like myself will follow whatever the magisterium of the Church defines on these issues. We also look to the example of the great jews in the church of our time such as Cardinal Lustiger who ordered that Jewish rituals be included in his funeral service and St Edith Stein who attended the Synagogue and kept Jewish customs with her mother after her entry into the Catholic Church. I also note that many orthodox Catholic Bishops including Archbishop Burke have participated in Passover Seders. We also see that the last two Popes have attend the synagogue and have participated in the Jewish customs of praying at the Wailing Wall. I also notice that it is self-appointed lay authorities and some extremist traditionalist priests that criticise Jewish observance not the mainstream orthdox priests, Bishops and Cardinals.

Maurice Pinay said...

The essence of what Aquinas is saying is that the Old Covenant rituals should not be celebrated with the intention that the Messiah has not come.

That is a serious misrepresentation of the writing of a Church Doctor. St. Thomas made an equal comparison between celebrating Old Testament ceremonies in and of itself with a profession that Christ is yet to be born. He is saying that both acts are mortal sins.

You can make Benedict your witness, but not St. Thomas. And it is true that what they say on this matter is diametrically opposed, which is quite remarkable given the fundamental nature of the issue.

When faced with such a contradiction in core beliefs I side with the traditional teaching which is based upon much more than just St. Thomas and St. John Chrysostom.

As for St John Chrysostum- he had a fanatical hatred of Jews and anything he writes in regard to Jews carries very little weight today.

St. John Chrysostom did not hate Jews, real Jews or otherwise. No true Christian hates anyone based upon genetics, certainly not a Church Doctor. St. John Chrysostom had a polemical style like many other saints who confronted egregious errors whether those errors were promoted by Jews, Gnostics, Arians, Protestants, etc.

I don't believe that St. John Chrysostom hated Jews based upon his condemnation of the errors that many Jews were spreading in his day anymore than I would say St. Athanasius hated Libyans for condemning the errors of the Libyan, Arius. Christians hate the sin, not the sinner. Conflating the two is disingenuous means of shifting focus.

On the contrary, what St. John Chrysostom wrote of errors that originate among "Jews" creeping into the Church is as relevant today as ever.

Vatican II condemned anti-semitism from whatever source it came from- even from Catholic saints.

The term "anti-semitism," which was coined by a 19th century radical agitator Wilhelm Marr, from a Catholic perspective, is a useless term. It functions more as weapon than a clear description of any concept which it most certainly is not. Thank God, many people are beginning to realize this.

How this Orwellian language wound up in a Church document has more to do with the American Jewish Committee, Rabbi Abraham Heschel and other non-Catholics' involvement in forming that document (Nostra Aetate) than anything else.

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/12/vatican-ii-kabbalist-sage-rabbi-abraham.html

Maurice Pinay said...

I've listened to the sermon titled, "Seder Meals Violate the 1st Commandment" at www.audiosancto.org which has been characterized as "an attack on Jews" by the blog editor and have found it to be nothing of the sort.

The priest is absolutely correct in his assertion that the Church has been continuing Christ's Last Supper Passover seder for 2000 years in the most perfect way in the sacrifice of the Mass. For some people to come on the scene at this late date to offer a truer "re-enactment" of the Last Supper is preposterous.

Aharon B said...

People who celebrate passover seders are NOT reenacting the Last Supper nor is it considered a turer version of anything. The Seder helps one to understand the Jewish roots and background of the Mass it is not another version of the Mass. I have seen the site entitled Maurice Pinay and it is one of the worst anti-Papal,neo-Nazi anti-semitic sites I have seen. This site attacks the Pope and the Church with a very anti-Jewish, anti Vatican II agenda.

Maurice Pinay said...

Well, of course. Any resistance to this strange innovation which the first among the Doctors of the Church classified as a mortal sin could only be based in "neo-nazi" "Jew hatred," and certainly not in healthy suspicion towards ideas which entirely contradict 2000 years of Church teaching.

As an aside, I'm interested to know your thoughts on Rabbi Abraham Heschel who was instrumental in formulating the Vatican II document, Nostra Aetate, particularly his statement regarding Christians, "There are those who would like to attack their bodies. I want to attack their souls." My source for this information is Spiritual Radical, Abraham Heschel in America 1940-1972," by Edward K. Kaplan, pp.270-272, Yale University Press. I have quoted Heschel's statement in context at this link:

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/12/vatican-ii-kabbalist-sage-rabbi-abraham.html

Does this not constitute just cause for suspicion of the motivation behind Judeo-Christian relations of which Heschel was a pioneer?

Aharon B said...

Of course it is easy to take something out of context and give it one's own spin. Heschel is actually criticising those who would resort to violence (even violent direct language) in order to get their own way whereas he preferred peaceful dialogue and discussion (the way of the soul)in order to attack the Christian positions. He is using hyperbole in a conversation not launching a violent attack on Christians.

For Jews who don't believe Jesus is the Messiah, Christian conversion is seem as a form of spiritual genocide for the Jewish people and to be resisted at all costs. Their experience of christian 'mission' has not been very positive in the past and the very words frighten the Jewish people. This is why today the church in her wisdom does not directly target Jews in their evangelisation but continues to share the gospel with all in ways appropriate to each group.This is also why the Association of Hebrew Catholics does not believe in agressive evangelisation of Jews but to establish their own community in the Church as a light community in which others may be drawn to in their search for the Truth.

Maurice Pinay said...

Of course it is easy to take something out of context and give it one's own spin ...

***

... as you demonstrate in misrepresenting a priest's sermon on seders, St. Thomas Aguinas' condemnation of observation of Old Testament rites, my blog, and Abraham Heschel's statement that he wants to attack Christian souls. And then there's the other strange content of your blog ...

The Vatican and the AJC didn't view Heschel's statement with nearly the same strange interpretation that you apply to it. That's why he was immediately pulled from "dialogue." It wouldn't have been viewed favorably by Christians either if they had been made aware of it, instead of it being hushed up for these 40+ years. The AJC wasn't about to risk their "dialogue" racket with such a volatile character as Heshel.

***

For Jews who don't believe Jesus is the Messiah, Christian conversion is seem as a form of spiritual genocide ...

Yes, of course you sympathize with these irrational Judaic fears, but when a rabbi pioneer in Judeo-Catholic "dialogue" patently states that he wants to commit spiritual genocide on Christians he gets all the benefit of the doubt and ridiculous excuses made in his favor, while those who rightly fear "dialogue" with such hostile figures are dismissed and "Neo-nazi" "Jew haters."

Haddy said...

Maurice, are you a Christian? I myself am a lifelong Catholic and I'm just not seeing the resemblance in your writing. There are many forms of mortal sin. So I remind you, "If I have faith so as to move mountains, but have not love..." Take it down a notch, for goodness sake! You are both certainly in my prayers.

Aharon B said...

As for St Thomas Aquinas one must interpret him by looking at the essence of what he is saying. He is saying that to observe old covenant ceremonies as if the Messiah hasn't come is a wrong- as a result of this he concludes that one shouldn't observe old covenant ceremonies. However we know that he also spoke about protecting Catholics from heretics and he concluded that it was right to hand them over to the state and for the state to kill them. We know he had a strong desire to protect the idea that salvation is for all so he rejected the idea of the Immaculate conception and argued agianst it.

St Thomas is a wonderful saint and a great theologian and philosopher but he is not infallible in his teachings- he is a product of his time with its prejudices and assumptions. However today with 800 years more of the development of doctrine under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church we know that some of his conclusions were wrong. Benedict XIV's teaching in a papal bull five hundred years after Aquinas states that Gentiles can keep old covenant ceremonies if done with a new covenant intention is a higher level of authority than the opinions of any saint even a doctor of the Church. In fact Benedict only adresses the issue of what Gentile Catholics can do not what Jewish Catholics can do-this was not at issue for him at the time. In fact as a faithful Catholic I am sure Thomas would have modified his views once they clashed with the teaching of the pope or a later Ecumenical Council of the Church.

Maurice Pinay said...

[St. Thomas Aquinas] is saying that to observe old covenant ceremonies as if the Messiah hasn't come is a wrong- as a result of this he concludes that one shouldn't observe old covenant ceremonies.

***

Stating the same falsehood many times does not make it any more true or believable. St Thomas stated that both acts are mortal sins.

"... just as it would be a mortal sin now for anyone, in making a profession of faith, to say that Christ is yet to be born, which the fathers of old said devoutly and truthfully; so too it would be a mortal sin now to observe those ceremonies which the fathers of old fulfilled with devotion and fidelity." (St. Thomas, Summa Theologica I, II, q. 103, Art. 4)

Now you've gone on to further misrepresent St. Thomas in other matters in an apparent bid at diminishing his authority while out the other side of your mouth calling him "a wonderful saint."

Maurice Pinay said...

I remind you, "If I have faith so as to move mountains, but have not love..." Take it down a notch, for goodness sake! You are both certainly in my prayers.

***

I accept your prayers and will pray that you come to understand that true love requires condemnation of error in the one loved. Jesus, the Apostles, the first martyr St. Stephen, the Church Fathers, Saints and Popes are my example in this regard. My tone is proportionate to the error.

Haddy said...

I'm only calling for a charity check. I wouldn't keep you from saying what you feel you need to say. CCC 25: "The whole concern of doctrine and its teaching must be directed to the love that never ends. Whether something is proposed for belief, for hope or for action, the love of our Lord must always be made accessible, so that anyone can see that all the works of perfect Christian virtue spring from love and have no other objective than to arrive at love."

Haddy said...

One of my favorite examples of correction of error is St. Peter just after Pentecost. But think about that... He was able to speak in truth and so persuasively that 3000 peeople accepted Christ that day. Will 3000 people accept what you have to say today? And St. Stephen spoke truth, but with such love for those before him that he was able to forgive them when they stoned him. Don't kid yourself that they were steeped all in vitriol. A wise priest once told me: "To speak truth to the people of God, you have to love the people of God!"

Maurice Pinay said...

And St. Stephen spoke truth, but with such love for those before him that he was able to forgive them when they stoned him.

***

I can forgive the editor for his smears against my person--claiming that my writings are of a "neo-nazi" character, but I can't forgive his errors which are offenses against God and not mine to forgive. I do pray that God will have mercy on him, and even more so those who he is misleading with his writings.

Aharon B said...

'"... just as it would be a mortal sin now for anyone, in making a profession of faith, to say that Christ is yet to be born, which the fathers of old said devoutly and truthfully; too it would be a mortal sin now to observe those ceremonies which the fathers of old fulfilled with devotion and fidelity.'

To take this saying of St Thomas out of context is to misinterpret his intention. The reason why St Thomas says these acts performed by the fathers of old, done with devotion and fidelity, would be wrong after the birth of the Messiah Jesus is because they are done expecting the Messiah to be born in the future. After his birth to celebrate them with this intention that he is still to be born is a mortal sin. However to celebrate them with a new covenant intention that acknowledges his birth as already come is a different thing. It is a question that either Thomas is not adressing or hadn't considered. However Benedict XIV does adress it in his bull to the Italo -Greeks in 'Etsi Pastoralis' an authoritive text more authoritive than St Thomas.

Haddy if you go to the Maurice Pinay blog you will see the whole blog is full of hateful language in regard to the Pope, past Popes such as John Paul II etc and the hierarchy and promotes virulent anti-Judaism. They see Judaism as some kind of conspiracy plot against some imagined Catholic Church which is not the reality of the true Catholic Church which follows all the Councils especially Vatican II.

Haddy said...

Hi Guys,

Maurice: "...but I can't forgive his errors which are offenses against God and not mine to forgive."

If the offenses are not yours to forgive then how are they yours to condemn? Why not say your peace, in charity, be open to the Holy Spirit (in case Aharon B actually might have an accurate point or two) and let God take care of the rest.

Aharon B: "Haddy if you go to the Maurice Pinay blog you will see the whole blog is full of hateful language..."

I've seen it. I agree. But there could, in a different discussion environment, be a place for Maurice to legitimately disagree. I mean if he would do so in charity? You're not off the hook though :-). "Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you."

Ultimately, you're both supposed to be on the same side. God bless you both!

Maurice Pinay said...

If the offenses are not yours to forgive then how are they yours to condemn?

***

My God. The confusion. Is this the example given by the Patriarchs, Prophets, Christ, the Apostles and Church Fathers? When they witnessed offenses against God and His Truth did they say, it's not my place to condemn these errors? Did they say, I leave it in God's hands?

Absolutely not. Charity dictates that error be confronted for the sake of Truth, for the protection of souls and for the Glory of God. The Old and New Testaments and the writings of the Church Fathers and Saints are filled with harsh condemnations of errors and offenses against God. If they were attacked personally in response they forgave the attack against their person, but they did not forgive the offense against God. Forgiveness for offenses against God are a matter between the offender and God mediated through the priest in the sacrament of confession.

St. Thomas has made clear:

Our Lord was speaking to Peter [in Matthew 18:22] of sins committed against oneself, for one should always forgive such offenses and spare our brother when he repents. These words are not to be applied to sins committed against one's neighbor or against God, for it is not left to our discretion to forgive such offenses, as Jerome says on Matthew 18:15, "If thy brother shall offend against thee."

However it is probably futile to quote St. Thomas in this forum since his words are not only repeatedly distorted by the editor but now falsified also as evidenced in his last posting.

And now, having confronted this error as clearly and directly as I am able and seeing that my words fall upon deaf ears, I will leave the matter in God's hands as Jesus Christ directed in Matthew 10;14. I forgive the editor for his slander against my person and my writing, and I pray that God will mercifully, miraculously change his heart for his own sake, but more so for the sake of his readers.

Haddy said...

Dear Maurice,
(If you stop back by...)

I have to say that I think that you are in error. Your distaste for Judaism shows clearly in the words you choose and in your tone. Church teaching would guide you differently in this respect on several accounts. You show disdain for the Vicar of Christ, the successor of Peter, on your website. And yet you seem to want to be classified in the same vein as a prophet sent by God, doing His work, wielding the sword of truth in His Name? I'm sorry, but it's really not a consistent package that I as a Catholic can accept. By all means, continue to fight error. But you might want to think about this too: there may just be a plank in your eye.

God bless,
Haddy

Maurice Pinay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maurice Pinay said...

Your distaste for Judaism shows clearly in the words you choose and in your tone. Church teaching would guide you differently in this respect on several accounts.

***

This is another matter which merits a response, given the nature of this website.

Orthodox Judaism is an anti-Bible religion which rejects the Messiah of Israel, Jesus Christ, and insults Him viciously claiming that He deserved to be executed by the Pharisees calling him an "idol worshiper," and a "sorcerer" who "led Israel astray." The rabbis claim that the prophet Isaiah deserved to be killed because he, not apostate Israel, had unclean lips.

Judaism is a religion which maintains--to this day--that Jesus and Isaiah both deserved to be killed because they spoke harshly against apostate Israel for their offenses against God; essentially claiming the Messiah and the great Prophet were "antisemites."

On Passover Eve they hanged Jesus of Nazareth. And the herald went out before him for forty days: 'Jesus of Nazareth is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited [to idol worship] and led Israel astray. Whoever knows an argument in his favor should come and argue on his behalf.' But they did not find an argument in his favor, and they hanged him on Passover Eve ... He was an inciter, and the Torah says: "You shall not spare, nor shall you conceal him"! (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, Steinsaltz edition, Vol XVII, Part III)

... What we then have here in the [Babylonian Talmud] is a powerful confirmation of the New Testament Passion narrative, a creative rereading, however, that not only knows some of its distinct details but proudly proclaims Jewish responsibility of Jesus' execution. (Jesus in the Talmud, Peter Schafer, Princeton University Press, pp.73-74)

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2008/03/for-sake-of-his-sorrowful-passion-have.html

[Isaiah] thereupon pronounced [the Divine] Name and was swallowed up by a cedar. The cedar, however, was brought and sawn asunder. When the saw reached his mouth he died. [And this was his penalty] for having said, 'And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips'. (Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 49b, Soncino Edition).

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2008/01/rabbis-hatred-for-good-friday-liturgy.html

Judaism is a tribal ideology which exults the alleged "race" of counterfeit Israel. Such racial conceit is an abomination to God. John the Baptist told the Pharisees, "think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham" [Matthew 3;9]. Jesus told the Pharisees, "I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you ... You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof" [John 8; 37-44].

Even if the people who today call themselves "Jews" were direct descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (which I do not believe them to be) it would profit them nothing without faith in the Messiah of Israel, Jesus Christ, and good works to match.

This is only scratching the surface of the greatest fraud ever put over on humanity: the notion that rabbinic Judaism is a biblical religion and the precursor to Christianity and that today's "Jews" are the "elder brothers in the faith" of Christians. There could be no greater delusion. Judaism is the codified religion of the Pharisees which Jesus said makes void the Word of God [Mark 7;13]; which He warned the disciples to beware of [Matthew 16; 6-12]. Jesus Christ Himself has warned us to beware the doctrine of the Pharisees which has been handed down through the ages and come to be known as Orthodox Judaism today.

"This is not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among Jews as well as Christians - that Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible. It is, of course, a fallacious impression. Judaism is not the religion of the Bible." (Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser, Judaism and the Christian Predicament, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967, p.59, 159).

"The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees. Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most important single member of that literature, and round it are gathered a number of Midrashim, partly legal (Halachic) and partly works of edification (Haggadic). This literature, in its oldest elements, goes back to a time before the beginning of the Common Era, and comes down into the Middle Ages. Through it all run the lines of thought which were first drawn by the Pharisees, and the study of it is essential for any real understanding of Pharisaism." (Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 3 pg. 474)

"The Pharisees are important for two reasons. First, the Gospels portray them as one of the principle opposition groups to Jesus. Second, Judaism as we know it generally traces its roots back to the Pharisees." (Jacob Neusner, Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1984], p.45)

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/02/whos-interest-does-vatican-represent.html

Aharon B said...

They hanged Yeshu on the Sabbath of the Passover[1]. But for forty days before that a herald went in front of him (crying), "Yeshu is to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and seduced Israel and lead them away from God[2]. Anyone who can provide evidence on his behalf should come forward to defend him." When, however, nothing favorable about him was found, he was hanged on the Sabbath of the Passover[1]. This is the correct translation of this passage in Sanhedrin 43a. It does not say jesus of nazareth but Yeshu which means may his name be accursed and refers to many sinners who the Rabbis don't want to say their name. The actual yeshu mention here lived in 150 BC and had nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth.

Aharon B said...

This latest anti-jewish neo-nazi rant just demonstrates my point let alone your total lack of any real knowledge of Judaism other than your desperate piecing together of quotes to justify your anti-Jewish paranoia.

Maurice Pinay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maurice Pinay said...

The actual yeshu mention [in Sanhedrin 43a] lived in 150 BC and had nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth.

***

"... some medieval apologists for Judaism, as Nachmanides and Salman Zebi, ... [asserted] that the "Yeshu'" mentioned in the Talmud was not identical with Jesus; this, however, is merely a subterfuge. (Jewish Encyclopedia, "Jesus of Nazareth")

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=254&letter=J&search=jesus

Furthermore, the oldest authoritative uncensored Talmud manuscripts name "Jesus the Nazarene" as the subject of Sanhedrin 43a, the one exception being the Munich manuscript in which Jesus of Nazareth was erased, probably by the Christian censors.

See: Peter Schafer, Jesus in the Talmud, p.64 and p.168 footnote 11, Princeton University Press.

and:

Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, Steinsaltz edition, Vol XVII, Part III

Anonymous said...

Maurice Pinay,

>You can make Benedict your witness, but not St. Thomas.

Benedict XIV was the Pope & successor to St Peter. We interpret Thomas Aquinas according to the Pope's teachings not the other way around.

Old Covenant customs and rituals can be done with a new covenant intention. End of story. Deal with it.

Peter has spoken threw Benedict anathema on all heretics!

-BenYachov

PS: I've heard from my sources that on a traditionalist message board Jacob Michael was having an argument with a vicious anti-Semetic radtrad who called himself Maurice Pinay. I don't know if this is the same guy.

So Maurice, care to explain yourself?

Anonymous said...

The Talmud is 30 volumes. To treat it all as one unified thing is irrational. It's like treating the Latin, Greek & Syrian Fathers as if there were no cultural differences between them or didn't contradict each other, which they did. That's why we have an infallible Church & not "the Fathers' alone".

Also, anti-Semitic bigots are notorious for confusing the Midrash, Gemera, Kabbalah, Zohar & the commentaries of later rabbis as if they were all one thing.

It's like if someone were to grab a copy of the Malleus Maleficarum(the Hammer of Witches) & make that disturbing book the whole of how Catholics treated alleged "witches", ignoring history & the whole context of Catholic moral writings.

As for the issue of Jesus being mentioned in the Talmud, the Talmud by & large ignores Christianity. At best, someone named "Yeshu" is mentioned about seven or eight times. Some of these "Yeshus" are probably Jesus, though some are earlier or later historical figures who they at times identified with Him.

Did the rabbis believe in Jesus? Of course not & you won't find positive statements about Him in their writings any more than you will find positive statements about Mohammed in the writings of post-7th Century Christians. But so what?

Jesus Christ said about the Pharisees who turned him over to the Romans, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do".

St. Augustine said that the children of heretics are not themselves true heretics but are faithfully receiving what they were taught. You cannot rag on later rabbis for condemning Jesus in light of Augustine's reference, they didn't know any better. They were not the Pharisees who saw Him firsthand & rejected Him.

As for the rabbis who said Jesus deserved to die, well guess what? If Jesus weren't the Messiah then he would have been a blasphemer & would have deserved death according to the Law of Moses. Of course He is the Messiah but they didn't know that (1 Corinthians 2:8). So they are being biblically consistent in insisting on the death of one they thought was a blasphemer. But only the Pharisees are culpable since they saw His miracles & knew of His resurrection but still rejected him. The later rabbis are not as per the teaching of St. Augustine.

The idea that all of the Talmud is "tainted" because of its errors is stupid. The Church Fathers themselves taught errors (like rejecting the Immaculate Conception, allowed torture, etc.). That doesn't mean everything the wrote is "tainted".

Are all the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas tainted since he argued against the Immaculate Conception?


Anti-Semites are not reasonable. As I recall the heretic Luther said "Reason is the Devil's Whore". It seems to me anti-Semtic Radtrads are of his spirit.

-Yachov Ben Yachov(aka James Scott 4th)

Anonymous said...

If Pope Benedict XIV said you may observe Jewish ceremonies as long as you have a NT intention & if Aquinas hypothetically said you may never observe them, who wins?

Well, Aquinas also rejected the Immaculate Conception but Pope Pius IX taught it. Who wins there? I think its bloody obvious.

So this Sunday I'm going to light candles for Chanukah in accordance with the teachings of Pope Benedict XIV & Maurice can go have a good cry about it. The Ruach haKodesh(Holy Ghost) has clearly conformed the Church to His own Divine Vision & not that of one of His creatures who reads too much crap by Michael Hoffman II.

If you think I'm too hard on you, Maurice, please note that charity demands that I protect the Catholic Faith against one who threatens it with his private errors by rebuking such nonsense.

-Yachov Ben Yachov(aka James Scott 4th)

Anonymous said...

Wish someone would research just what the official teaching of the Catholic church, on the subject of Catholics celebrating Jewish Seders with other Jews,is?

Pope Eugene IV,Council of Florence, 1441,ex catherdra:
"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments...after our Lord's coming... ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testamsnt began... All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation"

Pope Benedict XVI reiterated this dogma in his encyclical Ex Quo Primum.

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum(#61) "The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel."

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (#'s 29-30), June 29,1943: "And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished...on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees{Eph.2:15}..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 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.'On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death..."

John Paul II repeatedly repudiated this dogma, in word and deed- a dogma taught by the Catholic Church for 2000 years, defined infallibly by the Council of Florence, and affirmed clearfly by Popes Benedict XIV and Pius XII.

Aharon said...

It is obvious that you are misunderstanding what these documents are saying by taking them out of context. You also demonstrate that you really don't think like a Catholic as no devout Catholic would oppose the teachings of John Paul II as he is the more authoritive teacher of what past Pope's have taught in the light of the further development of doctrine over the centuries. The Council of Florence if read in its entirity in the original Latin shows that it is talking about doing Old Testament ceremonies and customs as necessary for salvation- it is also not adressing Jews who have entered the church but Gentiles. also the quote from Pius XII is talking about a certain category of laws with decrees in regard to the Temple liturgy and priesthood which has been transformed by the Cross into the Liturgy of the New Covenant priesthood.

Aharon said...

Also where the Church refers to the Old Law and the New Law it is to be understood that it is the old way of understanding the Law appropriate before the Redemption and the the New Law is the new deeper understanding of the heart given to the Law by Jesus escpecially as demonstrated in the beatitudes. (see Cardinal Lustiger's book "The Promise"). Thus in the death of Christ the old way of understanding the Law in a sense died and the Law rose with christ (in a sense) with a new understanding and deeper penetration with the values of the Kingdom of Redemption. Of course this language is highly mystical just as Paul is and must be interpreted in a mystical way not a literalistic manner. This is why Pius XII's letter is called the Mystical Body. It is the old way of living the law only according to the letter rather than as enlivened by the Spirit that brings the death not the Law itself.

Susie421 said...

Oh Man! This is awesome!

I need to email you Mr. Blog Author directly - we just had a Priest ambush us about the Passover.

Zack in the Box said...

Paul says in 1Corinthians that, our Pesach lamb, the Messiah, has been sacrificed. He goes to tell them to keep the Seder with the Matzah of purity and truth. Sounds like taking communion based upon Yeshua, the Messiah, being the sacrificial lamb is, at least in part, part of the new Seder. Oops! Is the church promoting and self described sinful practice? The new testament recognizes the Feast of Matzah on many occasions. Paul in Colossians says do not be judged in regard to a Jewish festival or Rosh-Hodesh or Shabbat. Further he says, the new self allows no room for discriminating between Jew and Gentile...the Messiah is everything. What is the intention of the Seder? Isn't it now to remember Christ as he instructed his disciples to do?

Diego said...

"Whatever St Thomas Aquinas and St John Chrysostum thought on this is superseded by Pope Benedict XIV who does allow old covenant customs and rituals for Gentiles if they are done with a new covenant intention. "

A Pope's opinion is not binding UNLESS a) his opinion is consistent with Ordinary Magisterium (what the Magisterium has ALWAYS taught) or b) he speaks ex cathedra as part of Extraordinary Magisterium.

To have the ex cathedra mark of infallibility, the Pope must:
1) invoke his privilege as the teacher of all Christians
2) to teach
3) a matter of Faith or Morals
4) that can be traced in an unbroken lineage from Apostolic times
5) binding all Christians to the teaching.

For the full INFALLIBLE DOGMATIC teaching on this matter, see Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, §1839-40.

SO, THE INFALLIBLE DOGMATIC TEACHING OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE TRUMPS BENEDICT XVI's INFORMAL OPINION.

Council of Florence: Ҥ 712 It [the Holy Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to Divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the Sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors....

“§714 The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire 'which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,' (Matthew 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms deeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” ---Cantate Domino, from the infallible ecumenical Council of Florence under His Holiness Pope Eugene IV defining the Solemn Doctrine: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, promulgated by papal bull, February 4, 1444 [Florentine calendar] in Denzinger Enchiridion Symbolorum, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, § 712-714

Diego said...

Aharon: "...it is talking about doing Old Testament ceremonies and customs as necessary for salvation..."

You have been repeatedly called on that lie, yet you persist.


INFALLIBLE DOGMATIC COUNCIL OF FLORENCE:

"...after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation."

What part of "loss of eternal salvation" don't you understand?

No informal discussion by any Pope, "further development" or otherwise, can reverse or invert the infallible dogmatic definitions of a bona fide Council. "Judaic rites are mortally sinful" cannot legitimately "develop" into "OK, it's cool now to practice Judaic rites if you have a right intention."

Judaic rites have been infallibly and irrevocably damned—period.

If a pope tried to formally invert that teaching, the Holy Ghost would certainly protect the CHurch—if necessary by striking the offending pope dead before he could formally promulgate false doctrine.


Of course some popes have INFORMALLY promulgated error.

Diego said...

Aharon, all your blather about "context" and "development" cannot legitimately turn a defined infallible dogma into its diametric opposite.

Such pilpul, "void[ing] the commandments of God for the traditions of men," was damned BY JESUS—not me or Maurice—in no uncertain terms.

Start with Mark 7:9-13

Diego said...

Also, you sinners have a lot of unmitigated gall to detract from a canonized Saint and Doctor of the Church.

For those of you who foolishly regurgitate the rabbis' calumnies of "antisemitism" against St. John Chrysostom, you would do well to read the primary source himself to see his passionate love for those he exhorted—with the effect of saving THOUSANDS of souls. Can you smug critics make the same claim? How many converts have YOU made?

The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 68: St. John Chrysostom—Discourses Against Judaizing Christians [ahem!], translated by Paul W. Harkins, ISBN 13: 978-0-8132-0971-5

http://www.amazon.com/Discourses-Against-Judaizing-Christians-Fathers/dp/0813209714/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261965711&sr=1-1

http://books.google.com/books?id=JXtTCq7V_0MC&dq=St.+John+Chrysostom—Discourses+Against+Judaizing+Christians&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=I-Mhim2phM&sig=WLv46ZrNZ9O8iAlJ2BqXZJ5A5NQ&hl=en&ei=OxI4S4aeHYzKsAOG15CZCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=St.%20John%20Chrysostom—Discourses%20Against%20Judaizing%20Christians&f=false

BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) said...

>A Pope's opinion is not binding UNLESS a) his opinion is consistent with Ordinary Magisterium (what the Magisterium has ALWAYS taught) or b) he speaks ex cathedra as part of Extraordinary Magisterium.

As we can see Deigo picks & chooses which Popes & councils he will believe. Typical Protestant!

Pope Benedict XIV said "that it cannot be absolutely asserted that that man judaizes who does something in the Church which corresponds to the ceremonies of the old Law. "If a man should perform acts for a different end and purpose (even with the intention of worship and as religious ceremonies), not in the spirit of that Law nor on the basis of it, but either from personal decision, from human custom, or on the instruction of the Church, he would not sin, nor could he be said to judaize. So when a man does something in the Church which resembles the ceremonies of the old Law, he must not always be said to judaize."END QUOTE

Florence must be interpreted in light of Benedict the XIV besides ONLY session Six of the council of Florence was infallible. Deigo is citing Session 11. Sucks to be him.

Deigo & his Protestant cheerleaders are not the Pope & their novelties are not binding on Catholics.