A controversy has erupted over the request by the Rabbi of the Western Wall, Shmuel Rabinovitch, that Pope Benedict XVI take off his cross before a visit to the wall in May. Rabinovitch stated “My position is that it is not fitting to enter the Western Wall area with religious symbols, including a cross. I feel the same way about a Jew putting on a tallit and phylacteries and going into a church.”
Actually, asking someone to remove a cross is more like asking them remove yamaka in a church, which would be an outrageous demand. As someone raised as a Catholic, I would also never ask a Jewish person to remove a tallit or phylacteries.
In 2000, Pope John Paul II prayed at the Western Wall without removing his cross. Rabinovitch has made headlines in recent years by blocking clergy wearing crosses.
In November 2007, he blocked a group of Austrian bishops led by the Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph Schonborn, stating that “crosses are a symbol that hurt Jewish feelings.” That seems less of a view of religion than prejudice. I am married to a Jewish woman as is one of my brothers and they clearly do not view crosses in such a way. I would view a Jewish person praying in a church to be a sign of respect and interfaith connection.
It seems to me that the symbol of intolerance in this controversy is Rabbi Rabinovitz as when he barred access in May 2008 to a group of Irish prelates from both Catholic and Protestant churches. The Rabbi has converted a symbol of faith and tolerance into a place of exclusion and prejudice. I would be interested in hearing particularly from our Jewish bloggers as to whether Rabbi Rabinovitz’s views are shared by the mainstream of the Jewish community.
The politics of the wall has been marred in past years by attacks on Jewish women who seek to hold prayer sessions at the wall, here and here and here.
For the full story, click here
The reason the Church worships on Sunday, is because Our Lord rose from the dead on Sunday, we call this Resurrection Sunday. The word sabbath means day of rest, not Saturday, as many Seventh day Adventist’s contend. If you find my comments insulting, it may be your own sense of decent shame compelling you to feel angry or threatened by what I have shared.
Constantine was a pagan and convert to the Church. He was not a protestant because they did not exist. He was not a Jew or a memeber of the Bahai faith either. Constantine was a pagan who converted to the true Church, and only Church at the time, due to a supernatural grace taking place in his own life at the time,and through a conversion process.
Mespo77, Did you read my earlier statement last night? The Church is infallible on matters of faith and morals, you are wrong. The Pope does not have to speak “ex cathedra” from the Chair of peter, in order to teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals. When the magisterium is speaking on faith and morals it is guided by the Holy Spirit, and speaks to the faithful infallibly. You are sadly devising a smoke screen that is not accurate, I would suggest you go back to the Catholic Encyclopdeia and read what it says concerning the infallible teaching of the Church on faith and morals. The collective unity of the confirmed Bishops when speaking in unity with the Pope, are therefore speaking infallibly on faith and morals. If you do not believe me I suggest you call the local Diocesan Office in your area and speak to a canon lawyer and somebody well versed in this area of theology. You are not. because the Pope has not spoken “ex cathedra” since 1950 does not mean that the Church is now speaking fallible doctrine concerning faith and morals. Please go back and read my statements last night concerning infallibility on faith and morals and the churches teaching on this matter.
Gregory:
Bishops speaking collectively or otherwise do not enjoy the myth of infallibility only the Pope gets it. Let me educate you on your own faith.
From Catholic Encyclopedia:
“It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter’s successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued BY THE POPE HIMSELF in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.” [emphasis added]
Ecumenical counsels may not speak infallibly without permission of the Pope [id] hence their power is effectively neutered but theoretically present. Which is about as important an argument as debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
I don’t mind arguing mythology with you, but do you believe it doctrinally sound to issue your own misguided opinions as representations of actual Church mythology?
Gregory,
you become tiresome because you are only able to comment dogmatically. The historical truth about the Catholic church is that it was created by the Roman Emperor Constantine for political purposes. At Nicaea 325CE and later councils, what was Christianity was turned into Catholicism, an appendage of the Roman Emperor. Because of this the Canon had to be revised and the Gospels edited to make the Romans, who crucified Jesus into the good guys. Pontius Pilate, whom independent Roman documentation from the time was recalled from the ME because he was too cruel, by even roman standards. Text was edited so that he was made to seem to be blameless in Jesus death and Jesus own people were laid to blame. Thus setting the stage for untold years of Jewish persecution by Catholicism.
The myth of Peter coming to rome was propounded so that there was a claim that the Roman Bishop took precedence. Jesus birth was made to be December 25th which was coincided with the licentious Roman holiday of Saturnalia and with the birth of Mithra. The sabbath was moved from Saturday to SUN day, because Constantine was a sun worshiper. As the Romans did with all religions they appropriated, Roman Catholic Christianity was bent to merge with the other popular pagan beliefs.
I write this not as an anti-Catholic, nor as anti-Christian, because I believe than no man, nor religion, possesses the sole truth about creation. I believe all men should have the right to pursue their own perspective of what is holy and bears worship. However, I also believe that no person has the right to try to make me believe as they do, despite their protestations of purity of motive and concern for my soul and afterlife.
You are annoying and insulting in your flow of comments to people who are more than your intellectual equals and who are not asking for your instruction. I could see perhaps one or two comments to defend your beliefs, if you felt attacked.
This has become you trying to preach to the unconverted and in your zeal I suspect you have fears for your own soul and sins of your own making that need expiation. Please feel free to confess them at your local church and receive your needed absolution. I’m quite comfortable with my own beliefs and one day if there is a judgment to come I think I’ll do fine without your assistance, or that of the RCC.
I will amend my former statement, because the Pope has not spoken “ex cathedera” since 1950, does not mean that she has taught fallibly on faith and morals since 1950. Bishops in their collective unity when speaking on matters of faith and morals are infallible. Since 1950 the Church continues to teach infallibly on faith and morals and will do so in perpetuity.
Mespo77. Bishops in their collective unity speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals, when they speak in their collective unity. Whether the pope is speaking “ex cathedra” since 1950 does not mean that since 1950 the Church has not taught faith and morals fallibly. Do you understand?
Gregory:
By the way, ex cathedra does not mean “the Pope must speak.” It means “from the chair.” Under your rather unlettered definition, the Pope is falling down on the job since by most accounts the Papacy has spoken ex cathedra on only seven occasions since 449CE–the latest one occurring in 1950. If you believe the Pope has had no need to comment on faith and morals since 1950, I suspect you will believe anything.
My favorite line of yours, however, is that prior to 1870 Popes “did not know they were infallible.” It’s rather like Superman not realizing he could leap tall buildings with a single bound or see through solid walls. Possible, of course, but not bloody likely unless he never had the power in the first place.
Gregory:
You remind me of a Paddy Crosbie quote:
“If bullshit was music, you would be a brass band.”
One further thing to be said. I admit that the catholic Church imposes many obligations ignored by other religions. But how can the true religion of a crucified Master be a comfortableone from a natural point of view? If human nature has to be sanctified, many of it’s natural inclinations must be mortified. So our Lord said”If any man will come after me, let him take up his cross and follow Me”. You see, he does not deny that it means a cross. Yet, knowing the power of the grace He gives us, He says, “My yoke is sweet and My burden light”. It is a yoke and a burden, yet the one who courageously accepts the obligations of a Catholic will find such peace of soul and patience that is more than worthwhile. You may not think that you have the courage to take up the cross of becoming a Catholic, of course you have not! Our Lord will supply for your lack of courage, if you sincerely ask for addtional stength. St. Paul says, ” I can do all things in Him who strengthens me”. That is true for all of us. So I advise prayer, which is earnest, fervent, confident and perservering. God will give you the graces you need. Our Lady is also your advocate in Heaven. Praised be Jesus Christ now and forever.
One further note to Mespo77? Infallibility belongs to the teaching Church, and, therefore to all Catholic bishops throughout the world, taken as a collective episcopate. The Catholic bishops, of whom the Pope is one, of course, have infallibility, in their collective unity. But, as the Pope is the supreme bishop in the Church, this unity is procured by and derived from him. A council of bishops not confirmed by the Pope would lack infallibility; a council of bishops without the Pope does not. In other words, the body of bishops, when in union with the Pope, has a confirmed infallibility. But the Pope has the infallibility which confirms. This is the logical application of our Lord’s words to St. Peter, ” I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, and do thou confirm thy brethren”.
As a further note, before the definition of infallibilty in 1870, the Popes did not know that they were infallible, with the same full cetainty of faith as that possessed by later Popes. But they were infallible in fact. The gift of papal infallibility was essential to the Church, not the definition of the gift. You may wonder why it was defined only in 1870. Definitions are not given unnecesarily. If no discussion arises on a given point, and no one disputes it, there is no need of a definition. But in the seventeenth century, the question of the Pope’s doctrinal authority came more and more to the front, until in 1870 the Vatican Council was asked to settle this question once and for all. The time had come for the Church to know herself fully on this point, so she looked herself in the face, and defined this aspect of her teaching authority. If you ask why such a definition after nearly 2,000 years, I ask why is a man fully developed at some thiry years of age? The vitality of the Church supposes growth ever retainig stability of type. And remember the Catholic Church is still fairly young yet. A thousand years are as a day to her; and she will last unto the consumation of the world.
What ” Ex Cathedra” means. It means that the Pope must speak, where it is a question of exercising his infallibility, not as a private theologian, but in virtue of his office as supreme head of the whole Church on earth, giving a decision for all the members of the Church on a matter of faith and morals. Also, since the whole Catholic Church is infallible, the Pope as head of the Church, and last court of appeal, must himself be infallible.
Our Lord’s Church is preserved from error. Jesus said, “The gates of hell will not prevail against it”. MattXVI.,18. But the forces of evil and of error would have prevailed against the Church had she not been rendered infallible. Again, he commanded men to hear the Church under pain of damnation. He sent the Church to teach in His name and said,”He who hears you, hears Me”. Lk. X.,16. And again,”He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; he who believes not shall be condemned”. Mk.XVI.,16. He could not order us to believe the Church against the possibility of leading us into disastrous errors, quite opposed to His teachings. Moreover, when he commssioned the Church to go and teach all nations, He promised to be with her all days till the end of the world (Matt.XXVIII.,20), and He sent the Holy Spirit to keep her as the “pillar and ground of truth”. All this forbids the possibility of a departure from the revealed truth, or in other words, constitutes a pledge of perpetual infallibility.
mespo, if Gregory were connected as he would lead us to believe,
he would know that there was a plenty of dissatisfaction leading to Mass exodus(pun intended) and lighter coffers long before the scandalous ‘unreports’ of rampant pre-pubescent tabernacle sex with the clergy requiring prosecution and pay-outs became headline news.
N’est ce pas?
Gregory,
I think I like chocolate.
How about that?
Gregory:
“But the chief cause of their discontent lies in the very persons of the disaffected. The good man is saddened by the sight of any disedifying example. It is the evil man who rejoices in it, and makes it the excuse to do still more harm to the Church.”
************
How silly of us not to realize the children were at fault for their abuse. The poor rapists were merely “disedifyed.” This is the insanity that is organized religion. Besides the fact that Gregory does not even know his own religion when he states that, “The Church is infallible when it teaches on faith and morals, not anything else,”* he is delusional or automatonic when he defends its role. In essence, the doctrines are unfalsifiable since no reason is sufficient to call its teachings and hence its authority into question. This is hermetically sealed thinking insulated from reason, and thus worthless to our discussion. He belongs to the ranks of sandwich board prophets caterwauling on our street corners that the “end is near.” If, by that, he means we have an ass in our midst, one is hard pressed to disagree, but if his message is theological it deserves the disdain we typically reserve for such fools.
* By the way, the Pope alone speaks ex cathedra (not the Church) and the Church states that “… it is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.” One should know what one is babbling about regardless of its innate inanity.
MikeS:
It could be that Gregory is not from America and so his cadence is like Chekovs from Star Trek. or he could be full of sh….. like you have assumed.
Maybe he is a rabbit hunter (Buddhas post about the Monty Python hand grenade)
Gregory,
Your comments on the RCC seem robotic in addition to being off topic. What gives, you sound more like a put-on, than a defender?
You do realize you have ceased to worship God but instead are worshiping an organization of men, right? God needs no defense. But that RCC sure does, don’t they? Take your Opus Dei spam elsewhere, Papal Propagandist. No one here is going to buy it.