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
Mespo77 I do not claim to know what God is thinking, only that God knows all things. He knows our innermost thoughts, and knew us both before He knit us together in our mother’s wombs.
Mespo:
“That’s how I envision the anti-pope, not as opposing the institutional superstition but rather a less potent exponent of the fiction.”
Oh, that’s only ‘semi’-true and you know it.
Bob,Esq:
“Wouldn’t mini-me be the same in essence as the original me, but lesser in degree?”
************
That’s how I envision the anti-pope, not as opposing the institutional superstition but rather a less potent exponent of the fiction.
Wouldn’t mini-me be the same in essence as the original me, but lesser in degree?
Patty C:
“Brass bands are all very well in their place – outdoors and several miles away.”
~Sir Thomas Beecham
I would add in regards to gregory, “and absolutely forbidden from touching a keyboard.”
gregory:
“You and I know the truth of the matter, as does our Lord.”
***************
Leave me out of this triumvirate . You claim to know what the deity thinks — not me.
“The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, ergo she can only teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals, if she were to do otherwise she could not be the true Church, and none of it’s members would know what to believe with any certainty.”
***************
Exactly why no one knows what to believe in that Church.
http://www.slate.com/id/2210151?wpisrc=newsletter
Mike and mespo,
Well met, gentlemen. A joy to read as usual.
Gregory,
High grade trollery, but still trollery. And in the end? Nothing more sophisticated than an appeal to authority. “Because Our Lord is the founder of the Church, she was established by Jesus Christ personally, the Second Person of the Trinity.” Sad. What’s next? Oh wait! I know what’s next! You’re going to say your boy the Pope has a hotline directly to God and exclusive rights to distribution/interpretation/distortion of His word as law. Right before you tell us how big your theological pee pee is, huh?
There is no difference between you and people like Robert Tilton. Not a whit. You want to use your faith as a cudgel. A tool to bash and divide people into “worthy” and “unworthy”. Into “tithing” and “non-tithing”. That’s not divine. That’s the all too earthly human ego. Ego worship is what got Lucifer kicked out of Heaven, sport. And “true church”. That’s just funny. In a very pathetic and insanely arrogant way. Also rooted in ego.
The Pope is a man. Peter founded your Church, not Jesus. Jesus was dead already the day the RCC went off course when Peter said, “Kiss my ring.” That day, it ceased to be about the teachings of Jesus and became all about the perpetuation of the man wearing the ring, the organization and its very Earthly agenda. You know. All that crap you’ve spent a huge volume of words trying to defend to no avail.
Here’s the FACTS. What do civilized people do to pedophiles in their midst? They have them arrested at best and beaten to death at worst. To a one, they expel the pedophiles from the group. It is a crime in every sense of the word and the rates of recidivism are staggering. You don’t get over being a pedophile as a general rule. Yet the RCC’s solution? Many dioceses elect to buy insurance to pay for the lawsuits instead of turning over the EVIL ones in your midst. That says a lot about the RCC, but that message is most certainly NOT God is love. It says, “CYA! The laws a comin’! We can’t have any of those victims taking Jesus’ money!” That alone makes the RCC a morally and ethically repugnant. But while we’re at it in a law blog, let’s spell out that they are also aiders and abettors to multiple felonies and perpetrators of conspiracy to commit crimes against CHILDREN.
Now what was that about the one true church again?
At this rate, you a using a lot of words to delude yourself, because you’re not fooling anyone here, gregory. You are as much a blind zealot as a snake handling Pentecostal or a Muslim suicide bomber and you’ll score as many coverts here as they usually do here – zero. But you are a better than average propagandist. I’ll give you that. Too bad you’ve come to one of the most propaganda resistant places on the Internet.
Mespo was right about you. “If bullshit was music, you would be a brass band.”
Mespo77. We both agree that the Pope has not spoken “Ex Cathedra” since 1950 (something you did not even know or understand until you rifled thru wikpedia’s catholic encyclopedia this morning). We agree that when he speaks on matters of “faith and morals” he is infallible. At this rate mespo 77 you are on your way to becoming a memeber of the Catholic Church. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, ergo she can only teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals, if she were to do otherwise she could not be the true Church, and none of it’s members would know what to believe with any certainty. Because Our Lord is the founder of the Church, she was established by Jesus Christ personally, the Second Person of the Trinity.
The Catholic Church is like a “Roaring Lion”, once it is let out of it’s cage, it can very ably defend itself.
Mespo77 Please go back and read what I have written today and least night regarding the infallibility of the Church regarding faith and morals. By what you have said on this site you stand convicted by your own words. Please, in a line by line refutation show me and the other readers of this site how you are right and I am wrong.
The Catholic Church regards these anti-popes as excommunicated schismatics and at worst heretics.
Through 2000 years of History in the church we have 265 Popes. Pope St. Peter was the first Pope. Our current Vicar of Christ is Pope benedict XVI. The word Pope means simply “Father”, and it is certain that Christ appointed Peter to be the head or spiritual father of the whole Christian family. Also it is certain that he died in Rome. St. Peter ends his first epistle with the words, ” The Church which is in Babylon salutes you”, and so doth my son Mark”. Pagan Rome was called Babylon by the early Christians, and St. Peter was writing from that city.
There was no reason to respond to the pseodo history that he and many other historians have concocted. Because a person claims to be Pope, does not make him so. The numerous anti-popes and other frauds who claimed to be Pope were never Pope. To respond to this is beneath me and is a frivolous waste of time. Coincidentally there was a man in Spain many years ago who claimed to be the successor to Saint Peter, he was on television, had many followers, sadly he was not the Pope.
As the Anglican Church is false, as she was founded by King Henry the VIII, when not given a divorce to his lawful wife Queen Catherine of Aragon, so is Luther a heresyarch along with Henry the VIII. These false churches and there heretical branches are not the true Church that was established by our Lord in Jerusalem in the year 33. I know that from historical evidence Christ lived. I know that He established the Catholic Church. I know that he promised to be with the Church all days to the end of the world. I know that He wrought certain works which proved His claim to be God, and no ordinary man. All that is human knowledge on my own human level. I take his word for it that He has left Himself in the Eucharist. I do not fully comprehend the inner nature of His presence there. But I do understand by my human faculties the truth or falsity of facts. It is true that He is there; it is false to say that He is not there. I assert the truth with dogmatic certainty- a certainty based on the knowledge that the Infinite and All-perfect God must know the truth, and could not tell a lie. If you have any faith in Christ at all, you can easily have the faith possessed by Catholics. For it is only a question of finding out what Christ taught, and then letting your faith in Christ extend to that also. For example, if you belive in Christ, and find that the Catholic Church is the one He founded, your faith in Him includes faith in the Catholic Church. But I think your trouble is that you misunderstand faith, expecting far more than is required by it.
“I can only guess what you must have done in your own lives to be filled with such antipathy for her.”
That’s the problem you schmuck, the antipathy was of your own creation and in response to your propagandist diatribes and attempt to monopolize this thread by spreading the gospel according to Gregory. Your perseveration on the subject is exactly like that of a reformed sinner who is still not sure of his faith. Thou doth protest to much and in other words let he who is without sin cast the first stone. You are as ignorant and intolerant as the Rabbi who wants to ban the Pope wearing a cross at the wailing wall. It was a hard act to follow but you managed to.
Gregory,
I just answered your question and I don’t have to provide you any further explanation. Compelling history doesn’t make it true history, especially when that information is used to base claims on. I said “I guess,” because I and nobody else knows where he was, which is an indication of my being honest with you. Your problems is that you are unable to either be honest with us or with yourself. This is shown by the fact that you avoided the other points I made.
Last I knew dishonesty was also a sin, but for you I guess that’s alright because its’ dishonesty in a good cause. You also didn’t answer Mespos refutation of your dishonest unbroken chain of Popes misstatement, but he can handle himself, I’m just pointing out your deceitful pattern. most importantly of all you don’t explain why you are wasting such time defending the RCC, when you were the one that first raised the issue. Do you think that we are just going to not comment on blatant propaganda comments?
The treatment you are getting is equal to that which would be receive by someone coming on the sight and commenting endlessly on fact that Zoroastrianism is the true faith, when the main story line was a comment on ancient religions of the ME. Give it a rest already.
Run along, Wayne…
It is plain to see that all save one or two on this website truly despise Holy Mother Church. I can only guess what you must have done in your own lives to be filled with such antipathy for her.
You must provide a better answer to me than you guess Peter was in Jerusalem, as it is not based on any matter of historical fact, nor on any archaelogical research. And since you cannot give me an answer better than you GUESS, he was in Jerusalem, I think the Church and the history she provides is much more compelling.
By reading the third and fouth paragraph you have confirmed all that I have said. You were unaware of these intelligences prior to referring to the Catholic Encyclopedia, I was aware of these intelligences for many years, they only prove precisely what I have said since last night. Your farce is plain to see.