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
Doglover:
ah what does a savage know.
Agapetus
ps quite a lot apparently
Mespo72:
Please feel free to call on me when you need devine intervention, I shall hear your prayers.
Agapetus I & II
Amen, Patty C!
I thought the fat lady had sung over here after, “Stayed too long at the fair.”
TECUMSEH’S SPEECH TO GOVERNOR WM. HARRISON, INDIANA TERRITORY – AUGUST 11, 1810
“How can we have confidence in the white people? When Jesus Christ came upon the earth, you killed him, the son of your own God, you nailed him up!! You thought he was dead, but you were mistaken. And only after you thought you killed him did you worship him, and start killing those who would not worship him. What kind of people is this for us to trust?”
rofl
Um, yeah, hear our prayer and the sage words of Agapetus. 😀
Lord hear our prayer…
Thank you Agapetus for your sage words from the high mountain. Now I suggest you rise back into heaven, and await your next opportunity to assume human form and expose the balderdash of those who would–but have not the wherewithal–to follow you. Hail Agapetus!!
Do “you” know what the theological definition of blasphemy is?
What have I spoken that you deem as blasphemy?
What have I spoken that you deem blasphemous?
Gregory:
It is I Agapetus, I ask in the name of all that is holy, please desist. There is no need to defend our Church. Those who blaspheme shall be condemned to unspeakable horrors.
I command thee noble servant go forth and blog no more.
yours,
Agapetus
Mike, Jesus Christ taught the truth with authority, and promised to safeguard it till the end of time. Being the very Son of God, He could do so, and He chose to do so by means of an infallible Church. He who wants the religion of Christ, must belong to that infallible Church. to understand this, contrast Christ with some merely human philosopher. Let’s take Aristotle . When Aristotle was dead, his teaching, so coherent, so intellectual and positive, fell into the hands of disciples of diverse tendencies, who dragged it in all directions, and finally degraded it into rank materialism. Now Christ, knowing what was in man ,and possessing means not possessed by Aristotle , took precautions against such distortion and destruction of His teaching. He organized and guaranteed His Church from the doctrinal and as well as from the practical point of view. He Himself was the Light. When He departed He left His Church to be the Light of mankind-to shine not with a light of it’s own, but with His Light, as infallibly reliable as Himself. All religions which conflict with the Catholic Church therefore are mistaken.
Yep
Wayne?
Mike, I will not proceed on this web site if you resort to name calling. I have tryed to practice charity with all on this blog, including yourself. Your to smart with to broad a vocabulary for that.
“stayed too long at the fair”
Bonnie Raitt?
Give it Up?
Good album.
Run along. Wayne.
Mike, from the historical point of view there is opposition insofar as Judaism denies that the real Messiah has come, whilst the Christian religion affirms that he has come in the person of Jesus Christ. As a preperatory religion, Judaism was the true religion of God until such time as the Messiah should come. This was abrogated when all that it foreshadowed was realized. The shadow gave way to the substance. And a religion which still claims to be awaiting the Redeemer of the human race after that Redeemer has come is obviously wrong, and could not retain God’s sanction. But apart from the question of time and fulfillment, there is an opposition between the preparatory Jewish religion and Christianity. Literal Judaism was imperfect, and embodied much that was temporal and fleshly, whilst the religion of Christ is perfect and elevated to the spiritual and eternal plane. Of course, even under the old regime, the true Jew was not one who merely submitted to external rites, but he who loved God ,and was united in spirit with the Savior to come. Many of the Jews had fallen short of this to a very great extent, and were absorbed by worldly and human considerations.
Mike S. If it’s any consolation, you won.
Next time Bartlebee/Waynebro/CromagnumMan shows up under yet another alias, remember Mespo’s mantra – WWJAD!
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-1s1ECntZfGI/shrek_dance_party_song/
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/533315/shrek_donkeys_greeting/
To speak of God in an irreverent, impious manner is blaphemy. Recognizing original sin and it’s implications in not blasphemy.
Bob, Mespo and Patty,
I apologize and do know that you’re trying to get me to stop responding to this schmuck and you are right. I quit the field at this point, but in my defense I’ve got to embarrassingly state that I was enjoying my invective. I stayed too long at the fair (to continue my never ending use of cliche)and now must go for a cleansing swim, that is unrelated to a baptism.