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 doctrine of Original Sin is a blasphemy. It posits a cruel and vengeful God that cursed all generations past Adam and Eve to a lasting state of degradation. It was never thought so by the generations who read Genesis prior to Jesus and were responsible for the Torah. It was fabricated as a way to gain power because it made all humans in need of expiation of their sin. You want to continue your preaching gut is is all an empty vapidity because you have never given thought to what your beliefs actually mean.
Your belief that man has fallen into a “rotten and depraved” state is the nonsensical raving of a Zealot. I’m certainly no believer that this era is exalted, but considering the history of this planet, man has done fairly well in advancing out of the savagery that characterized early life. The Romans were barbarians who fought well, but brought death, destruction and oppressive greed whereever they went. That the RCC worked hand in glove with the Roman Emperors after Constantine, does not say much for their holiness. Especially, when it was the Romans who killed their Savior.
The RCC has opposed every attempt by mankind to raise itself and time and again has sided with despots oppressing those who were supposedly their flock. They blessed genocide and they blessed slavery, not in Jesus’ ideals, but in the name of their own greed and lust for power. I know continuing to engage with you is a waste of time, since your whole approach reeks of dishonesty and ignorant zealotry. You are fascinating though in your inability to respond like a person and my latest theory on you is that you’re a rather sophisticated computer program being tested. you act like one and not like someone of humanity. If you are not a simulation,
then I pity you for your inability to be alive.
Gregory,
Did I say “I think I like chocolate?”
I meant to say that I firmly ‘believe,’ as you say, ‘with certainty,’ that I like chocolate.
Mike,
Do you think Gregory has realized yet that I’m ‘the solipsist?’
SIYOM (if you can),
Bob
By popular demand, we’ll be running ‘Shrek’ again next weekend
– sign up sheet in the lobby.
http://www.bestgamesland.com/videos/ShrekAndDonkey‘sGreeting.php – 9k –
If we take salvation as the promise of eternal happiness, and leave out all other considerations, men would certainly be anxious to get it. But if we view, not the promise of future joy, but the implication that men “need” to be saved, it is a different matter altogether. For the implication is that men have fallen into a rotten and depraved state from which they are incapable of escaping without the help of a savior. Human pride rebels. Men do not like to admit even to themselves that they are evil. They cry out against the doctrine of original sin, and boast that far from having fallen, the human race has steadily risen, and has a glorious future attained for it by it’s own efforts. And not only do men banish the thought of original sin, they try to banish their actual and personal sins. So a man with no religion is full of his own virtues, “I have no religion he will say, “But I am better than you, or many who profess to be religious”. Pride ia great force in the world, and God himself has said that He “resists the proud and gives His grace to the humble”. But men do not like humbling themselves; and still less do they like being humbled. Despite there boasting however, men, have their vices and sins which they do not wish to abandon. And many are not prepared to sacrifice present and tangible pleasures and interests for future invisible benefits. How many people are blind to future consequences of their own actions, even in this life, when in the grip of a present and urgent temptation to alluring self-satisfaction! So mankind is not always anxious to be saved if we consider, not merely the future benefits of salvation , but present implications and the conditions required.
The statement was in and of itself a tautology, but you are so far gone that it seems logical to you. The RCC has produced some all-time great logicians, but you are not one of them. You’re just a Zealot, who believes the zealotry will relieve the fear in his gut.
There was no redundancy in my question, I was responding to questions that buddha is laughing asked. Therefore it was not a tautology.
Mespo,
Think:
“I’m forever tilting windmills”
To the tune of:
“I’m forever blowing bubbles”
and you’ve got the story of my life.
Mike:
Save your breath it’s like arguing with a loud speaker.
“By stating that God knows all things because He is the Alpha and Omega and King of the Universe, does not mean that I know what His thoughts are, just that he knows what all of “our” thoughts are.”
Thank you Saint Anselm.
So about this ‘mini’-me’ …
CCD,
The two folk singers will entertain at bingo on Tuesday. The brass band will be playing selections from Souza, while we’re
doing Yoga on Thursday.
“My motivation is to share my faith and defend the teachings of the Church when necessary. I am open to a lively discussion concerning the truths of religion, but if we were to continue let’s try to be respectful toward one another.’
Gregory,
You are not respectful, nor are you open to discussion. you are talking at us, not to us. You fail to respond to much of what is said and cherry pick your responses. I have no wish to be preached to by a true believer in anything, nor has your preaching been called for by any insult to the RCC, until you started preaching and thus made your beliefs fair game.
“Furthermore, even if you do not believe what the Catholic Church teaches on faith and morals, at least you know that “this” is the official teaching of the Church, of which I am a member and of course believe in.”
How could we not know you are a loyal RCC member?
“Are you sure the early members of the Primitive Church kissed the ring of Pope St. Peter? Can you tell me precisely when Pope St. Peter started the Catholic Church? Lawyers appeal to the highest law in the land to seek clarity when discerning a point of law. Is that any different then a churchmember appealing to the Catholic Church, when seeking the truth about faith and morals? If they were not to seek the assistance of the Church,on these matters,who would teach them the truths of morality?”
This is a tautology. Do you even know what that means?
“But Our Lord knows what both of us are thinking and what we plan to do with those ideas.”
“He knows our innermost thoughts, and knew us both before He knit us together in our mother’s wombs.”
What a scary concept that must be for you. Also have you through about the logistics of God constantly tuned in to all 6 billion of us, while keeping an eye on the infinite universe and who knows how many sentient beings out there.
Please don’t start to contemplate that though, because if you do it honestly you might find your belief system crumbling.
For you Gregory the best course is not to think, but just believe what the priests tell you. Thinking my be harmful to your spiritual health.
By stating that God knows all things because He is the Alpha and Omega and King of the Universe, does not mean that I know what His thoughts are, just that he knows what all of “our” thoughts are.
Furthermore, even if you do not believe what the Catholic Church teaches on faith and morals, at least you know that “this” is the official teaching of the Church, of which I am a member and of course believe in.
I said this because I know that God knows all things. He knows what our motives are, pure and impure. Only “you” know what your motives are in what you disclose as “I” know mine. But Our Lord knows what both of us are thinking and what we plan to do with those ideas. The “matter” I was referring to was the question of infallibility pertaining to faith and morals, and my belief that you have been divising a smoke screen to throw off the readers of this site. Your deception was easy for me to discover and I am certain our readers were able to see it as well. Your double-talk and quoting The Catholic Encyclopdeia only supported what I said in earlier statements and confirmed what the Church teaches on matters of faith and morals. As I said earlier, God knows the truth of this matter, and so do “you” after reading the Catholic Encyclopdeia.
PattyC:
I cant speak for the others but I would probably just think Gregory was a sincer student of the Catholic Faith and was trying to answer questions about his faith.
Maybe he is a little preachy but some of it is interesting.
So that is what this Jack Ass would do.
Almighty Goddess:
grant me the serenity to accept the replies I cannot change;
the Courage to correct the abuses I can change;
and wisdom to know the difference.
Is a brass band going to entertain at Bingo on Tuesday?
gregory:
“Mespo77 I do not claim to know what God is thinking,…”
************
Then why did you say earlier that, “You and I know the truth of the matter, as does our Lord.” I have no idea what She knows or doesn’t know. Do you have some inside info here?
It is irrelevant to me how “I compare” with others who share there beliefs systems on this web site. My motivation is to share my faith and defend the teachings of the Church when necessary. I am open to a lively discussion concerning the truths of religion, but if we were to continue let’s try to be respectful toward one another. I may not agree with you, but I respect your right to express your opinions though they clearly differ from my own.
Are you sure the early members of the Primitive Church kissed the ring of Pope St. Peter? Can you tell me precisely when Pope St. Peter started the Catholic Church? Lawyers appeal to the highest law in the land to seek clarity when discerning a point of law. Is that any different then a churchmember appealing to the Catholic Church, when seeking the truth about faith and morals? If they were not to seek the assistance of the Church,on these matters,who would teach them the truths of morality?