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
By revealing what you have shared Mespo77 you have only confirmed what I stated last night and this morning. The continued vail of smoke is only confusing the readers here who do not understand what you and I have been discussing. You are wrong on both counts, and are wrong by the very defintion you have provided from the Catholic Encyclopedia. The very words of the Catholic Encyclopedia bear out my truth, not the false information you have provided here today. You and I know the truth of the matter, as does our Lord.
Bob,Esq:
“Is that like good/evil, matter/anti matter, pasta/ante pasta?”
**********
More like Me/Mini-Me!
lol
All right, for the next round, contestants will be limited to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gnostic Gospels.
Let’s get ready to rumble….
Pope & anti-pope.
Is that like good/evil, matter/anti matter, pasta/ante pasta?
“Regarding your account of a misdirection in the calendar of the Church and the celebration of Christmas. I admit that the various compilers of our calendar made mistakes in their calculations, and that the year of Christ’s birth was earlier than the authors of our calendar believed.”
Gregory,
so you think December 25th was just a mistake in calendar compilers and it was just a coincidence that it fell on Saturnalia and Mithra’s (Mithra was the chief cult of the Roman legions)birthday? Unlikely. My point was that Constantine worked through Nicaea and later councils to
make Christianity amenable to Roman sensibilities. The setting of christmas as December 25th is evidence of this.
“In fact most objective historians believe unequivocally that he lived, preached and was martyred in Rome, in light of much archeaological data that has been discovered.”
This is untrue. There is no archeological data showing this.
If your definition of objective historians means RCC historians maybe so, but most objective historians would admit that there is no evidence of it save for the testimony of Tertullian, Origen and St.Irenaeus, all of whom were born years after Peter’s presumed death.
You ask me where Peter was and I would guess that he was in Jerusalem with James the Just leading the original followers of Jesus, those who actually knew Jesus. He probably died about the time of the destruction of the Temple.
Listen Gregory, I’m really not into disparaging your faith and I truly hope it gives you great comfort. However, it is you who have injected it into this discussion even though no one disparaged the RCC. My comment basically disparaged the Rabbi for making such a ridiculous request of the Pope and I’m a Jew.
“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.”
“If I have offended you please forgive me. My intention was not to do this, my heartfelt apologies to you sir.”
I don’t know how your intention could not have been to offend me by referring to my sense of “decent shame.” It didn’t offend me though, so no apology is needed. As I previously stated I am not in the least threatened by anything you’ve said, but I am perturbed. You have persisted in your defense of the RCC, prior to anyone attacking it and that is annoying.
You put us all here in the position of having to disparage your beliefs, because you have tried to force them on us, even though we’re rather a mature lot and have long since satisfied our own needs regarding higher powers.
Gregory:
“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.”
***********
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The Vatican Council has defined as “a divinely revealed dogma” that “the Roman Pontiff, WHEN HE SPEAKS EX CATHEDRA — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; …’ [EMPHASIS ADDED]
“…it continues to be theoretically true that the Church may, by the exercise of this ordinary teaching authority arrive at a final and infallible decision regarding doctrinal questions, it is true at the same time that in practice it may be impossible to prove conclusively that such unanimity as may exist has a strictly definitive value in any particular case, unless it has been embodied in a decree of an ecumenical council, or in the ex cathedra teaching of the pope,….”
“Practically speaking, at the present day, and for many centuries in the past, only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions.
Even the ordinarium magisterium is NOT INDEPENDENT OF THE POPE. In other words, it is only bishops who are in corporate union with the pope, the Divinely constituted head and centre of Christ’s mystical body, the one true Church, who have any claim to share in the charisma by which the infallibility of their morally unanimous teaching is divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ’s promises. And as the pope’s supremacy is also an essential factor in the constitution of an ecumenical council — and has in fact been the formal and determining factor in deciding the ecumenicity of those very councils whose authority is recognized by Eastern schismatics and Anglicans — it naturally occurs to enquire how conciliar infallibility is related to papal.” [EMPHASIS ADDED]
Thus gregory you are incorrect on both counts, and of course entirely consistent with your prior comments.
Patty C:
WWJAD!
JA–another name for a donkey
Gregory:
“The Church has an unbroken chain of the Papacy extending back to Pope St. Peter to our present Vicar of Christ Pope Benedict the XVI.”
***************
Your knowledge of history is about as good as you knowledge of theology. By my count there are about 40 anti-popes who claimed the office against the wishes of the sitting Pope. Most of them were accepted by significant numbers of cardinals and their claim to the Throne of St.Peter was widely accepted among the faithful as well.
In addition in its list of the popes, the Holy See’s annual directory, Annuario Pontificio, attaches to the name of Pope Leo VIII (963-965) the following note: “At this point, as again in the mid-eleventh century, we come across elections in which problems of harmonising historical criteria and those of theology and canon law make it impossible to decide clearly which side possessed the legitimacy whose factual existence guarantees the unbroken lawful succession of the successors of Saint Peter. The uncertainty that in some cases results has made it advisable to abandon the assignation of successive numbers in the list of the popes.”
You unbroken chain thus appears to be fairly kinked even according to the Holy See, but I am certain your take is much more accurate. I’m with Mike Spindell, your arrogance is only surpassed by you willful ignorance.
What would Bartlebee/CMM/Waynebro/Gaylord Focker
and Bron98 do???
Rome as the See of St. Peter, was acknowledged to be the supreme authority in the Church: and it was enough to speak of the Bishop of Rome for all to know that the supreme head of the Church was intended. Yet, besides the title of Bishop of Rome, even in the earliest times when all bishops were called Popes, other distinctive titles were given to those to whom the title of Pope is now restricted. Thus, the Bishop of Rome was called the Supreme Pontiff or the Roman Pontiff or again the “Bishop of Bishops”. But in general, it is enough to say that the supremacy of the Pope was annexed to the Bishopric inherited from St. Peter, and the very mention of Rome was enough to indicate supreme authority in the Church. “Rome has Spoken,the case is finished” is an axiom which sums up the attitude of the early Christians.
The Church has an unbroken chain of the Papacy extending back to Pope St. Peter to our present Vicar of Christ Pope Benedict the XVI.
When we obey the Church we are than obeying Jesus Christ. It is vain talk of obeying Christ but not His Church. The Catholic Church has an absolute authority wthout appeal. She declares her own authority under the gidance of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus supports it. Our Lord says, “if a man will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen”.
“Brass bands are all very well in their place – outdoors and several miles away.”
~Sir Thomas Beecham
mespo, Paddy C (no relation) is also credited with this beauty…
“Three things tell a man: his eyes, his friends, and his
favorite quotes.”
You claim that Peter’s ministry and life in Rome are but a myth. If this is the case then I presume you can tell me where he was, if not in Rome, where he was ultimately martyred. If you cannot tell me where he ministered after our Lord’s Ascension into Heaven, than you must be open to the possibility that he was in Rome, as you have not been able to tell me where he was ministering. History and oral tradition strongly point to Peter’s residence in Rome. In fact most objective historians believe unequivocally that he lived, preached and was martyred in Rome, in light of much archeaological data that has been discovered.
Regarding your account of a misdirection in the calendar of the Church and the celebration of Christmas. I admit that the various compilers of our calendar made mistakes in their calculations, and that the year of Christ’s birth was earlier than the authors of our calendar believed. This error in the computation of time in no way affects Chrsitianity as a religion, nor the facts of Christianity. If a schoolboy makes a mistake as to the date when the King of England died, that makes no difference to the fact that he died when he did.
If I have offended you please forgive me. My intention was not to do this, my heartfelt apologies to you sir.
Yeah, but the Pope is keeping his eye on the REALLY important things. Like sorcery.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/21/pope-condemns-evil-powers_n_177621.html
Gregory:
and all this time I thought he converted because he won a couple of battles under the Christian Cross and it was politically expedient for him to do so, thank you for the education.
Gregory,
I’ll match my life against yours any time and you will come out the sinner. Your comments here represent blasphemy already in that you presume to know the Creator’s plan as fashioned by your Church. SUN day is the day for worship of the sun, as did Constantine. Your version was added at Nicaea, or afterward and since you have the intellectual curiosity of a flea, you simply accept doctrine as reality. As for threatening me you couldn’t possibly do that because you are too ignorant to know the history of you own belief. You are boring me and you are taking up valuable space that I must scroll through to get to more informed comment. You also offend me because in your smug certitude I don’t see a pious man, I see an ignorant one, who is so afraid of his inner self that he must cling to his faith as a cloak to hide his own guilt. I have known and talked to pious and holy men in my life, some of them RCC and they uniformly do not exhibit the your dogmatic, mechanistic smugness, while fully practicing their beliefs. Quit preaching and start working on your own humility and awe of God. Perhaps then you’ll be saved but I tend to doubt you have the capacity for self introspection.
Have a nice day.