|
Post by Zostrianos on Jun 17, 2016 13:19:34 GMT -5
That's what I'm curious about. In times past, popes had openly condemned the Jews as being the constant agitators behind all sorts of errors and heresies. And as Voxx has pointed out, even a modern error such as communism can be said to have some roots in Jewish materialism. So did the Jews actually take a vacation from what had long been perceived as their troublemaking, or were the modern popes somewhat neglectful of their influence? I don't think so, the Pope like all Catholics is bound by the moral law. Accusations must be substantiated with evidence. If they didn't have the evidence, then the assertion cannot be justly made. So is Voxx making an unsubstantiated claim? Wasn't there a pope who accused Jews of the ritual murder of Christian children? I think the Church later on retracted it. I'm just interested in why a group that the Church for a long time denounced as seditious and sneaky eventually ceased to be spoken of in those terms.
|
|
clare
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by clare on Jun 17, 2016 15:20:52 GMT -5
Was Ann Emmerich 20th century? Nineteenth, but so was Our Lady of La Salette. I'm not sure if Clare meant all apparitions, approved apparitions, or 20th century apparitions. I meant initially 20th century Marian apparitions; but then thought I'd never heard of Our Lady warning of the Jews at all (apart from that La Salette reference, which isn't really a warning). But then, my knowledge of Marian apparitions is sketchy. I feel sure, though, that had she warned of the Jews explicitly, trad social media would be full of memes sharing the quote(s)!
|
|
clare
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by clare on Jun 17, 2016 15:29:35 GMT -5
Wasn't there a pope who accused Jews of the ritual murder of Christian children? I think the Church later on retracted it. Papal Protection of the Jews, Pope Gregory X, 1272: Now, I don't know why, but every version of that document I've seen on line has a [commentary in brackets] throughout!
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jun 17, 2016 15:38:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Zostrianos on Jun 17, 2016 15:44:29 GMT -5
Wasn't there a pope who accused Jews of the ritual murder of Christian children? I think the Church later on retracted it. Papal Protection of the Jews, Pope Gregory X, 1272: Now, I don't know why, but every version of that document I've seen on line has a [commentary in brackets] throughout! The date of that letter (1272) is interesting. The case I was thinking of was much later: Beatus Andreas by Pope Benedict XIV, in 1755. In that document, he affirmed that a three-year-old Austrian boy named Andreas Oxner had died at the hands of Jews in a ritual slaughter. (Benedict had beatified the boy a year or two earlier). I wonder if that one ever got overturned.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 17, 2016 22:30:06 GMT -5
I don't think so, the Pope like all Catholics is bound by the moral law. Accusations must be substantiated with evidence. If they didn't have the evidence, then the assertion cannot be justly made. So is Voxx making an unsubstantiated claim? Wasn't there a pope who accused Jews of the ritual murder of Christian children? I think the Church later on retracted it. I'm just interested in why a group that the Church for a long time denounced as seditious and sneaky eventually ceased to be spoken of in those terms. The Church throughout her history has always been reactionary against errors or acts of evil, or against the groups or persons who promote such errors or evil upon the church or the world. When the Church took a strong stand against the Jews, the hierarchy at that time obviously perceived them as a significant enough threat to Catholics to warn against them. It is also a fact that because the Church is not actively teaching against the errors or warning against groups or persons, that this does not mean that it is no longer a problem, it just is not significant enough of a problem to draw the attention of the hierarchy at a given time. The Popes of the last two centuries were dealing with significant and immanent threats to Catholics, the Church in general and the natural law. That is where they clearly saw the need for intervention, and that is why they directed their energy to this. It is obvious that if they perceived the Jews of that time to be a threat and failed to warn Catholics, they would have been negligent in their duties. As Catholics, we are required under the moral law to construe other's actions in the best light unless the opposite interpretation is clear. In this case, without any evidence against these Popes to accuse them of negligence, the favorable opinion of them must be given: either there was no significant threat by the Jews during this time, or the Popes themselves were unaware of such a threat.
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Aug 19, 2016 10:54:17 GMT -5
Both Benedict XV and Pius XI encouraged the work of Mgr. Ernest Jouin, one of the leading authorities on the Jewish conspiracy. This speech of his recapitulates anti-Masonic papal teaching from the 18th century all the way to the 20th.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 19, 2016 10:58:49 GMT -5
Both Benedict XV and Pius XI encouraged the work of Mgr. Ernest Jouin, one of the leading authorities on the Jewish conspiracy. This speech of his recapitulates anti-Masonic papal teaching from the 18th century all the way to the 20th. I appreciate a good url...but folks may not know to click on your words...you need to let folks know.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 19, 2016 11:03:31 GMT -5
I give you permission to post your submission here to the resources page....no commentary please
|
|