Vatican II Peritus: Because of "The Holocaust," Church Must Reinterpret Gospel

Fr. Gregory Baum, along with Frs. Ratzinger, De Lubac, Schillebeecks and Küng, was a Peritus (theological expert; advisor) at the Vatican II Council. The modernist theology of Auschwitz that he preaches is at least as pernicious as any other modernist error devastating the Church. Who will stand against it?

"... if the Church wants to clear itself of the anti-Jewish trends built into its teaching, a few marginal correctives won’t do. It must examine the very center of its proclamation and reinterpret the meaning of the gospel for our times ... It was not until the holocaust of six million Jewish victims that some Christian theologians have been willing to face this question in a radical way ... Auschwitz has a message that must be heard: it reveals an illness operative not on the margin of our civilization but at the heart of it, in the very best that we have inherited ... It summons us to face up to the negative side of our religious and cultural heritage." (Gregory Baum, ‘Introduction’, in Rosemary Ruether, Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism, p.7)

Also see:

"Auschwitz: Beginning of a New Era?"

Bad Advice From the Pope

Catholic Dogma Denier Hans Küng Clings Fast to "Holocaust" Dogma

Cardinal Vingt-Trois: "Being a Catholic is Radically Incompatible With Denying the Holocaust"

Cardinals Kasper, O'Malley Enshrine "Holocaust" in Boston

Lying Rabbinic Apologetics for Orthodox Judaic Gospel Burnings

Rabbi Jerome Epstein is a representative of the chameleon-like "Conservative Judaism" branch of rabbinism. And here we see Rabbi Epstein striking an enlightened, tolerant pose as damage control for the recent burning of hundreds of New Testaments by Israeli "Jews" who were not only acting as Shas activists as Rabbi Epstein disingenuously suggests, but were piously adhering to the teachings of Talmud and Tosefta which order that the books of Christian "idolators" be burned, specifically Babylonian Talmud Gittin 45b and Tosefta Shabbat 13:5.

Rabbi Jerome Epstein goes on to draw a parallel between the behavior of these Orthodox Judaic Israelis and that of the Nazis and Catholic inquisitors as a distraction from the fact that the Israeli book-burners were acting in accordance with their very own rabbinic tradition dating back to 300 A.D. which Rabbi Epstein himself is a "conservative" representative of.

This sophistry will not do. If Rabbi Epstein wants to be considered a true humanist rather than a lying rabbi then he will need to acknowledge the true source of the violence against the Gospel (the "Gilyonim" to him) which drove those Israelis to burn the New Testament--his own religion: rabbinic Judaism--and start the long overdue reform process of that tribal racket masquerading as "one of the world's great religions."

It's time that the world learned that book burnings were not limited to the most loathsome creatures in history according to kosher received opinion--Nazis and Catholics, who are virtually of the same mold according to received opinion--but that the rabbis and their followers have been burning other people's books for 1700 years in accordance with the ruling of Orthodox Judaism, shrieking victimhood all the while.

And also note that this is not an isolated incident as Rabbi Epstein falsely claims. It is only unusual in that it received the attention that it did, which was very little, but more than usual. That's the only reason that the rabbi is "speaking out" here:

The burning of Christian Scriptures in Israel must be condemned

By Rabbi Jerome Epstein - Jewish Standard

05/30/2008

... I am deeply proud of Israel.

But my feelings of pride are dampened by the distasteful behavior of Shas activists in Israel who burned copies of the Christian Bible, which they allege had been distributed by Christian missionaries. I certainly do not endorse missionizing activities in Israel, but the images of book-burning Jews makes me shudder. It is immoral for any Jew to act this way. For a religious Jew to do so is a chilul HaShem — a desecration of God’s name. Those Jews who burn books make a sham out of their personal piety.

I shudder at the irony of religious and committed Jews burning any books, whatever their content. Even if they do not remember the Holocaust, I do.

When German Nazi soldiers and civilians burned books in 1933, that action was widely condemned, especially by Jews. That act pained us to the core. For the People of the Book, the mere idea of burning a book is destructive. The act itself inflicts an indelible wound.

I shudder at the irony of Jews burning religious books. Whether the text is holy to Jews is irrelevant. The texts that were burned are holy to Christians. Imagine how any Jew would feel if non-Jews burned our sacred texts because they disagreed with them.

We Jews, whose ancestors have lived through the Inquisitions, whose very essence was desecrated when Christians burned our treasured Talmud in European cities in the Middle Ages, know the tears that are shed when something holy to us is desecrated.

I shudder at the irony of book-burning in Israel. Israel is more than a homeland for Jews. It is a light unto the nations. Israel must not permit revered rabbis who condone sin — much less those who encourage it — to go unchallenged. Israel must not permit misguided reactionaries to go unpunished, even if those misguided reactionaries, ironically enough, are the revered rabbis. Book-burning in Israel is an attack on all that Israel stands for.

I shudder at the irony of silence. We know what happens when good people remain silent and evil edges out good. Israel and Jews throughout the world must condemn this atrocious behavior and take the bold and necessary steps to ensure that this occurrence remains a singular nightmare.

Full article:

http://www.jstandard.com/articles/4344/1/The-burning-of-Christian-Scriptures-in-Israel-must-be-condemned

Will you look at this two-faced huckster as he tells us, "I shudder at the irony of silence." If you truly want to see these persecutions end, then start talking about the savage intolerance of your own religious tradition, Rabbi Epstein--the impetus for this book burning you so insincerely lament. Why the silence?

For the sake of His Passion

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice: and the knowledge of God more than holocausts. But they, like Adam, have transgressed the covenant, there have they dealt treacherously against me. (Osee 6;6-7)

***

Then [the chief priests and the Pharisees] led Jesus from Caiphas to the governor's hall. And it was morning; and they went not into the hall, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the pasch. 29 Pilate therefore went out to them, and said: What accusation bring you against this man? 30 They answered, and said to him: If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up to thee. (John 18;28-30)

1 Then therefore, Pilate took Jesus, and scourged him. 2 And the soldiers platting a crown of thorns, put it upon his head; and they put on him a purple garment. 3 And they came to him, and said: Hail, king of the Jews; and they gave him blows. 4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith to them: Behold, I bring him forth unto you, that you may know that I find no cause in him. 5 (Jesus therefore came forth, bearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment.) And he saith to them: Behold the Man.

6 When the chief priests, therefore, and the servants, had seen him, they cried out, saying: Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith to them: Take him you, and crucify him: for I find no cause in him. 7 The Jews answered him: We have a law; and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. 8 When Pilate therefore had heard this saying, he feared the more. 9 And he entered into the hall again, and he said to Jesus: Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 Pilate therefore saith to him: Speakest thou not to me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and I have power to release thee?

11 Jesus answered: Thou shouldst not have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above. Therefore, he that hath delivered me to thee, hath the greater sin. 12 And from henceforth Pilate sought to release him. But the Jews cried out, saying: If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar's friend. For whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Caesar. 13 Now when Pilate had heard these words, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat, in the place that is called Lithostrotos, and in Hebrew Gabbatha. 14 And it was the parasceve of the pasch, about the sixth hour, and he saith to the Jews: Behold your king. 15 But they cried out: Away with him; away with him; crucify him. Pilate saith to them: Shall I crucify your king? The chief priests answered: We have no king but Caesar.

16 Then therefore he delivered him to them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him forth. 17 And bearing his own cross, he went forth to that place which is called Calvary, but in Hebrew Golgotha. 18 Where they crucified him, and with him two others, one on each side, and Jesus in the midst. 19 And Pilate wrote a title also, and he put it upon the cross. And the writing was: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. (John 19;1-19)

***

On Passover Eve they hanged Jesus of Nazareth. And the herald went out before him for forty days: 'Jesus of Nazareth is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited [to idol worship] and led Israel astray. Whoever knows an argument in his favor should come and argue on his behalf.' But they did not find an argument in his favor, and they hanged him on Passover Eve ... Jesus ... had close connections with the non-Jewish authorities, and those authorities were interested in his acquittal. Thus it was necessary to give him all the opportunity to clear himself, so that the justice of his conviction not be challenged ... Was Jesus of Nazareth deserving of a search for an argument in his favor? He was an inciter, and the Torah (lit., "the Merciful") says: "You shall not spare, nor shall you conceal him"! (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, Steinsaltz edition, Vol XVII, Part III)

***

... the Talmud is here offering a subtle commentary upon Jesus' political connections. The Gospels portray the Roman governor Pontius Pilate as going to great lengths to spare Jesus (Mark 15: 6-15). Although this passage may well have been written to appease the Roman authorities and blame the Jews, the Talmudic passage points in the same direction ...

... the passage suggests rabbinic willingness to take responsibility for the execution of Jesus. No effort is made to pin his death upon the Romans. In all likelihood, the passage in question emanates from fourth-century Babylon, then the center of Talmudic scholarship, and beyond the reach of both Rome and Christianity. Although several hundred years had elapsed since the lifetime of Jesus, and therefore this is not at all a contemporary source, the Talmudic passage indicates rabbinic willingness to acknowledge, at least in principle, that in a Jewish court and in a Jewish land, a real-life Jesus would indeed have been executed ... ("Jesus in the Talmud," Steven Bayme, American Jewish Committee National Director, September 24, 2003)
http://web.archive.org/web/20030925214732/http://www.ajc.org/inthemedia/RelatedArticles.asp?did=933

***

The very fact that the Talmud's claim of Jesus' closeness to the Roman government reflects some knowledge ... of the New Testament narrative, particularly of of John's version of it ... this detail exonerates the Roman government from the blame of Jesus' condemnation and consequently, adopting the Gospels' message, puts the thrust of the accusation on the Jews ... What we then have here in the [Babylonian Talmud] is a powerful confirmation of the New Testament Passion narrative, a creative rereading, however, that not only knows some of its distinct details but proudly proclaims Jewish responsibility of Jesus' execution. (Jesus in the Talmud, Peter Schafer, Princeton University Press, pp.73-74)

High Praise for Rabbis and their Talmud From JPII

JPII lauds the rabbis and their use of the Talmud as a means of "putting Sacred Scripture into practice":

When we consider Jewish tradition we see how profoundly you venerate Sacred Scripture, the Migra, and in particular the Torah. You live in a special relationship with the Torah, the living teaching of the living God. You study it with love in the Talmud Torah, so as to put it into practice with joy. Its teaching on love, on justice and on the law is reiterated in the Prophets - Nevi’im, and in the Ketuvim. God, his holy Torah, the synagogal liturgy and family traditions, the Land of holiness, are surely what characterize your people from the religious point of view. And these are things that constitute the foundation of our dialogue and of our cooperation. (JPII Address for 25th Anniversary of Nostra Aetate, Thursday, 6 December 1990)

But Jesus Christ said that the rabbinic, Talmudic tradition--the tradition of the elders--makes the Scriptures void (Mark 7;9).

Not satisfied with mocking Jesus' teaching on the Talmudic tradition and stating that this mockery constitutes the foundation of Vatican-rabbinic dialog and cooperation, JPII then attempts to intertwine the Gospel of Jesus Christ with Talmud:

In the Babylonian Talmud we read: "The world stands upon the single column that is the just man" (Hagigah, 12b). In the Gospel, Jesus Christ tells us that blessed are the peacemakers (Cf. Matt. 5:9). May justice and peace fill our hearts and guide our steps towards the fullness of redemption for all peoples and for the whole universe. May God hear our prayers! (JPII Address for 25th Anniversary of Nostra Aetate, Thursday, 6 December 1990)

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1990/december/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19901206_xxv-nostra-aetate_en.html

I have no doubt that God did hear these unspeakably blasphemous "prayers" as they screamed to the heavens for justice, and not "justice" of the Talmudic variety.

What an insane attempt to mix light with darkness.

For background on the rabbinic tradition's descent from the Pharisees follow this link:

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/02/whos-interest-does-vatican-represent.html

.

Motu Proprio Held Up By Process Of Kosher Certification

Another extremely senior clerical source tells me that the motu proprio is still coming, but that, as other blogs have reported, it might in fact not be this month after all. It appears the Pope, concerned by the German protest and holding his compatriot bishops close tohis heart, wanted to see if the protest would take on a more international flavour. Of particular concern is the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of Jews. Cardinal Kasper, of course, President of the Council of Christians and Jews, will have objected strongly to this. This prayer, rightly, is expected to come out. In its place might go one of the many available traditional prayers emphasising the Catholic Church's 'unique' role in salvation.

Full article:

http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2007/05/latest_on_tride.html

EDITOR'S NOTE: I would warn those who have a strong attachment to the traditional liturgy and rubrics that it is the Gospel, not the liturgy, which is the primary target of the rabbis. This is not to say that the actual text of the Gospel could be altered as cavalierly as the liturgy has been, but the interpretation certainly can be, as it has already been.

If the Motu Proprio is promulgated, I expect there to be many traditional Latin Masses with the smell of incense strong in the air, flawlessly executed rubrics, perfectly authentic Roman vestments, beautifully performed hymns and chants, during which one will hear sermons of rabbi-approved theology. This is nothing to celebrate. It's diabolical, and I've seen examples of this taking place already. What's worse, I see very little from those who hear these camel-sized errors that would indicate any suspicion on their part.

The theology of a priest dressed as a clown will not be taken seriously by conservative minded people. Theology preached by a pious looking priest in traditional vestments, on the other hand, is more likely to be accepted at face value.

Keep your eyes on the Gospel. The Motu Proprio is likely a bone intended to create the impression of a step taken forward towards the restoration of orthodoxy. The ten steps backwards will come at the 2008 synod when Catholic scriptural exegesis will be subjected to the next stage of the kosher certification process.

Pope Engages The Rabbis in Dialectics Around Christ and the Gospel

EDITOR'S NOTE: Astute Popes of the past critically analyzed rabbinic texts and subjected them to public debate in which the perverse idiocy of the rabbinic tradition was laid bare for all to see as is to be expected in any fair debate on the matter. Modern Popes brush the ugliness of Judaism under the rug and engage the rabbis in dialectical pilpul around Christ and the Gospel. This is the era of Judaic domination in which we live: when the backwards tradition of rabbinic Judaism which maintains that a man must put his mouth on a baby's penis during the circumcision ritual in order for the circumcision to be valid is exalted while the liberating Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is subject to unrelenting Pharisaic scrutiny which the Pope responds to, not in the spirit with which Christ confronted the Pharisees but in the spirit of the Pharisees themselves--by engaging them in pilpul.

There will be no Christlike defense of the Gospel or rebuke of the rabbinic tradition from Pope Benedict XVI, a man whom papal Rabbi-Knight, David Rosen--whom Benedict himself appointed--described as being "aware of his special responsibility to reaffirm the Church's commitment to a more pro-Jewish attitude." No, Benedict VXI has nothing but respect for the depraved, so-called "religion," but in fact, corrupt racket of Judaism, which will certainly be evident in his "dialogical thinking" around Christ with Rabbi Neusner whom he can't seem to praise enough.

For your thoughtful comparison, here is how Pope Innocent IV described the rabbinic tradition of Judaism which Benedict XVI respects so highly:

The ... Jews ... omitting or scorning the Mosaic law and the prophets, follow certain traditions of their seniors concerning which the Lord rebukes them in the Gospel, saying: Why do you transgress the mandate of God and irritate Him by your traditions, teaching human doctrines and mandates? [Matthew 15;9]

Upon this sort of traditions, which in Hebrew are called the Talmud--and there is a great book among them exceeding the text of the Bible in length, in which are manifest blasphemies against God and Christ and the blessed Virgin, intricate fables, erroneous abuses, and unheard-of stupidities--they nourish and teach their sons and render them utterly alien from the doctrine of the law and the prophets, fearing lest, if they knew the truth, which is in the law and the prophets, and which testifies openly that the only begotten son of God will come in the flesh, they would be converted to the faith and humbly return to their Redeemer. And not content with these things, they make Christian women nurses of their sons in contumely of the Christian faith, with whom they commit many shameful things. On which account the faithful should be afraid lest they incur divine wrath while they unworthily allow them to perpetrate acts which bring confusion upon our faith. (Pope Innocent IV, May 9, 1244 Letter to King Louis IX of France)

Both popes speak of the same rabbinic, Talmudic tradition which contains the same manifest blasphemies against God and Christ and the blessed Virgin, intricate fables, erroneous abuses, and unheard-of stupidities as it did at the time of Innocent IV's writing (and which Talmud, incidentally, Rabbi Jacob Neusner refers to as "the founding document of Judaism" (Jacob Neusner, How the Talmud Works (Boston: Brill, 2002) ix). But one Pope confronts the rabbinic tradition with the single mind of Christ, the other with the dialectical mind of the rabbis.

Note that Pope Innocent IV makes a direct connection between the Talmudic, rabbinic tradition and the Pharisaic "tradition of the elders" which Christ execrated throughout the Gospels. Innocent IV also plainly states the fact that the rabbis render their followers utterly alien from the doctrine of the law and the prophets. Benedict XVI tells us that the rabbinic tradition of the elders is a valid interpretation of biblical scripture; is what Christianity has "sprung from;" and encourages Christians to establish stronger religious relations with it. Could there possibly be greater disparity between the thinking and actions of these two Popes? Which position more closely reflects that of Christ towards the tradition of the elders? I seem to recall that Christ told His disciples to beware the Pharisaic tradition of the elders--"the leaven of the Pharisees"--and that the Apostles understood "leaven" to mean the doctrine of the Pharisees (Matthew 16:12). But here is Pope Benedict telling us precisely the opposite.

Benedict's preaching of rabbis and popes who "love" and "respect" one another and each other's traditions is nothing short of occult alchemy. What fellowship hath light with darkness? What did Christ speak more harshly against than the Pharisees and their tradition--the tradition which Rabbi Jacob Neusner carries on today? Benedict and his "elder brothers in the faith" apparently figure these difficulties in the Gospel are nothing that can't be circumvented with a little pilpul. And they will likely bring confusion upon our faith to use Innocent IV's words, but not without incurring divine wrath. God is not mocked.

If the Pope had true Christian love for Rabbi Neusner he would correct his errors, not praise them, if not only for the sake of Rabbi Neusner's soul, for the sake of the millions of Christian souls who's faith he brings confusion upon by failing to do so.

After saints, most-quoted author in pope's new book is a U.S. rabbi

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- After the Gospel writers and the apostle Paul, the author most quoted in Pope Benedict XVI's new book is Rabbi Jacob Neusner, a U.S. professor of religion and theology.

In his book, "Jesus of Nazareth," released April 16 in Italian, German and Polish, Pope Benedict joined the literary dialogue that Rabbi Neusner invented for himself in his 1993 book, "A Rabbi Talks With Jesus."

The pope said that Rabbi Neusner's "profound respect for the Christian faith and his faithfulness to Judaism led him to seek a dialogue with Jesus."

Imagining himself amid the crowd gathered on a Galilean hillside when Jesus gave his Sermon on the Mount, Rabbi Neusner "listens, confronts and speaks with Jesus himself," the pope wrote.

"In the end, he decides not to follow Jesus," the pope wrote. "He remains faithful to that which he calls the 'eternal Israel.'"

Pope Benedict said Rabbi Neusner makes painfully clear the differences between Christianity and Judaism, but "in a climate of great love: The rabbi accepts the otherness of the message of Jesus and takes his leave with a detachment that knows no hatred."

The pope praised Rabbi Neusner for taking the Gospel of Jesus seriously and, in fact, more seriously than many modern Christian scholars do.

Jesus is the Son of God, the unique savior, and not simply a social reformer, a liberal rabbi or the teacher of a new morality, the pope said.

Pope Benedict wrote that in trying to understand who Jesus was and his relationship with his Jewish faith and with the Torah, the law given to Moses, Rabbi Neusner's book "was of great help."

Rabbi Neusner, a prolific author and professor at Bard College in Annandale-on-Hudson, N.Y., told Catholic News Service in Rome that he did not want to talk about the pope's book until he had seen it. The English edition is scheduled for a May release.

In the introduction to the revised and expanded 2000 edition of his book, Rabbi Neusner wrote, "If I had been in the land of Israel in the first century, I would not have joined the circle of Jesus' disciples. ... If I heard what he said in the Sermon on the Mount, for good and substantive reasons I would not have followed him.

"Where Jesus diverges from the revelation by God to Moses at Mount Sinai, he is wrong and Moses is right," Rabbi Neusner wrote.

In Pope Benedict's treatment of the Sermon on the Mount, 18 of the 25 pages refer to Rabbi Neusner's book.

"More than any of the other interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount with which I am familiar, this debate between a believing Jew and Jesus, son of Abraham, conducted with respect and frankness, opened my eyes to the greatness of the word of Jesus and to the choice the Gospel places before us," the pope wrote.

Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna, presenting the pope's book at an April 13 Vatican conference, said reading Rabbi Neusner's book was "one of the reasons" Pope Benedict decided to write his.

"What Pope Benedict says about the book (by Rabbi Neusner) is so essential for understanding his own book about Jesus," the cardinal said.

"More than discussions about exegetical methods" used to understand what the Scriptures say about Jesus, Cardinal Schonborn said, the pope has "at heart the discussion with the rabbi."

"Rabbi Neusner is so important for the book of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI" precisely because he accepts what Jesus says about himself in the Gospels, the cardinal said.

German Father Joseph Sievers, director of the Cardinal Bea Center for Judaic Studies at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, where Rabbi Neusner has been a guest speaker, said the rabbi "takes very seriously the extraordinary claims of Jesus: He is not just a rabbi teaching the golden rule."

Both Rabbi Neusner and Pope Benedict, Father Sievers said, "have a high Christology," emphasizing the divinity of Christ even if Rabbi Neusner cannot accept Christ's claim.

"(Rabbi) Neusner, even when he spoke here, did not try to find easy solutions or to bridge gaps" between Christians and Jews, Father Sievers said.

In his book, Rabbi Neusner said he hoped to contribute to Christian-Jewish dialogue by taking Christian teaching and Jewish teaching seriously.

"It is one model for a starting point for dialogue -- to recognize differences and not try to make them disappear or to hide them," Father Sievers said.

Father Sievers said Pope Benedict's new book is a further sign that he "is strong on Judaism, he respects it and he knows the contemporary scholarship."

"Basically, he loves a good discussion and so does (Rabbi) Neusner," he said.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702134.htm