Corpus Separandum is Latin – The Catholic Church demanded Jerusalem not be part of Israel in 1947?

December 18, 2011
His Blood Be Upon Us

Pious XII personally intervened after 1945 to commute the sentences of convicted German war criminals. This solicitude for Nazi criminals contrasts sharply with Pius XII ignoring all entreaties to make a public statement against anti-Semitism even after the full horrors of the death camps had been revealed in 1945. “A provisional conclusion, drawn from the study of thousands of documents, is that the mass murder of Jews was fairly low on his list of priorities. Of course, much the same could be said of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin, but they did not claim to be the “Vicar of Christ” or to represent the Christian conscience.”… “The million or so unpublished documents from the pontificate of Pius XII (1939-1958) according to the Vatican’s most recent estimate, will only be available in about four year’s time.”…

The_United_Nations ran “Durban II” and on the first day of the conference, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the only head of state to attend, made a speech condemning Israel as “totally racist” and referred to the Holocaust as an “ambiguous and dubious question.” When Ahmadinejad began to speak against the Jews, all European Union delegates left the conference room. The Vatican delegation didn’t say a word. Pope Benedict visited Bethlehem, where the Christian population has dropped from a majority to less than 20%. Benedict delivered a message of solidarity to the 1.4 million Palestinians isolated in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. He said nothing of the suffering of Gaza’s 3,000 Christians since Hamas took over that territory in 2007. Benedict could have decried the bombings, shootings and other Islamist attacks against Gaza Christian establishments, the brutal murder of the only Bible-store owner of Gaza, or the regular intimidation and persecution of Christians there. Instead, the Pope stood beside Mahmoud Abbas as the Palestinian leader deceptively pointed to a concrete separation barrier in Bethlehem and blamed that barrier, as well as Israeli “occupation,” for the plight of Christians.


Carroll a lapsed Catholic priest is a prolific writer on Church-related subjects, such as Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews — A History, and he writes thoughtful and intelligent books. Here’s what Carroll has to say about the UN intention in 1947 to preserve Jerusalem outside either a Palestinian or a Jewish state: Arabs, both Christian and Muslim, wanted control of the sacred centers, but they were not alone in being unable to abide the thought of Jewish control. Yes, the city was the most disputed real estate in Palestine, but mere political turf was not really the issue. The clue to the significance of the Corpus Separandum proposal for the city lay in its being offered in a Latin phrase – the language of Rome, which had initiated Jerusalem’s condition as an apocalyptic nerve center (see the Arch of Titus, near the Colosseum, with its bas-relief celebration of the first century destruction), and of Catholicism, which had kept the condition current. Greeks, too, were part of this, as Byzantium had carried forward assumptions about Jewish expulsion from the land that Constantine and his mother, Helena, had made holy. But by now the Vatican was the chief custodian of exile theology, and it was universally expected to be a party to any internationalizing arrangement. Rome’s unfulfilled desire for Jerusalem was the very genesis of the mimesis – The mimetic rivalry. The Holy See has previously expressed support for the status of corpus separatum. Pope Pius XII was the among the first to make such a proposal in the 1949 encyclical Redemptoris Nostri Cruciatus. This idea was later re-proposed during the papacies of John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II. Corpus separatum is Latin for “separated body”. The term refers to a city or region which is given a special legal and political status different from its environment, but which falls short of being an independent city state.

Jews Expelled from Jerusalem in 1948

Tuesday, February 15, 2000 – In a historic meeting at the Vatican, Pope John Paul II and the leader of the PLO terrorist organisation, Yasser Arafat, signed a covenant. “According to this agreement, Jerusalem should be an international city based on international resolutions and an international guarantee. (The UN decided on more than one occasion that Jerusalem should be an international city.)”“They also decided that any step or activity taken by Israel to change this position of Jerusalem is against the law. The agreement also recognises a “Palestinian” state in the land of Israel and agrees on cooperation between the Vatican and the PLO and the Vatican committed itself to assist the so-called “Palestinians”. Authorities in the Vatican explained: “the agreement paves the way for establishment of full diplomatic relations with a Palestinian state when it is founded”. The PLO representative in the Vatican stated: “This is an historical covenant”.

the NT curses Jews. some xians translate that curse differently then other xians, but in the end I don’t feel very comfortable with a faith that is based on a document that confused people for 2000 years (supposedly)… and frankly I don’t …think they were confused. I take people at their word that they are peaceful, but history is not interpreting that curse well… and Jews are aware of this. I’m not orthodox… I’d like to be, but my life is cushioned in secularism. I live next door to a minister who lends me his lawn mower in the summer despite the fact that he is a Ron Paul fan and thinks the Rothschilds control the banks. I understand that there are people who do not understand their own texts and therefor act on their own human nature. I’ve had a nice conversation with a guy from New Guinea… eating people was just part of his culture. I get it. I also understand that we can not survive if we point out the truth all the time and have to get along. I would like to clarify… I don’t fear Christians. I will tell you why. The Holocaust proved to be the absolute worst thing that ever happened to the church. If another Holocaust happened it would be exponentially bad for Christians. The reason is that if every last Jew were killed off (1) it would not deny the messianic prophesy… because our messiah could be the child of gentiles who were from the line of David. (2) many moral Christians would be angered and would convert to Judaism after every last Jew was killed. Judaism is an inherent Western position. As long as there are Christians there will be Jews… till the end of time. If I were a church leader it would make sense on a pure level of benefit to protect ‘Israel. To not support Judaism from a Christian position is suicide. It is true that we Jews now depend on you for our protection. Our planes will not fly without your technology. We Jews might contribute, but our relationship is symbiotic. So do not fear any hate from me. On the other hand… as much as our relationship is dependent on one another… there is also an inherent character of the Christians to kill Jews that comes directly from your doctrine. it is like a death wish however. it might be seen as a misinterpretation… but it appears to be a misinterpretation that won’t ever go away because replacement theology can be argued axiomatically.

"Jews Care About Their Own!" Is Not An Indictment

November 15, 2011
Edward Gilbert, the leader of the Catholic Church in Port of Spain…
EXERCISING THE EMPATHY MUSCLE (h/t Daled Amos) by Rabbi Avi Shafran


Politicians are often subject to derision, often for good reason. Recently, though, a Catholic cleric hurled an unusual and creative insult at local politicos: They are like Jews.
Edward Gilbert, the leader of the Catholic Church in Port of Spain, the capital of the southern Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago, made the comparison between elected officials and “the original Jewish people,” explaining that Jews, at least in ancient times, cared only about their own.
“The Jews were compassionate and caring to the people of their nation, to the people of their race…,” Archbishop Gilbert reportedly said during an October 24 religious ceremony commemorating the 225th anniversary of the Roman Catholic presence on Trinidad. Christianity, he proudly asserted, “universalized the concept of love.”
Predictably, the Anti-Defamation League protested the sermon, calling Mr. Gilbert’s statements “a disturbing repackaging of ancient anti-Jewish canards and supersessionist beliefs.” The American Jewish Committee chimed in with chiding of its own, contending that “such prejudicial comments not only reflect personal ignorance, but also ignorance of the teaching of the Catholic Church since Nostra Aetate.” That was a reference to the Vatican II declaration repudiating the centuries-old “deicide” charge against all Jews, stressing the religious bond shared by Jews and Catholics, and reaffirming the eternal covenant between G-d and the People of Israel (though it does not, of course, renounce the essential beliefs of Christianity).
Personally, I wasn’t insulted by the Archbishop’s characterization, even if he meant to include contemporary Jews.

Because caring for one’s own is eminently defensible. In fact, it’s the only way to truly care for anyone.
Not much effort is needed to profess true love for all the world; but to actually feel such love just isn’t possible. Gushing good will at everyone is offering it to no one.
That is because, by definition, care grows within boundaries; our empathy for those closest to us, to be real, must be of a different nature than our concern for others with whom we don’t share our personal lives. Boundaries are what make those beloved to us… beloved to us.
Every person lives at the center of a series of concentric circles, the smallest one (in a healthy dynamic) encompassing parents, spouses, and children; the next circle out, other family members and friends; the one beyond that, members of their ethnic or religious groups. At a distance removed from that is a larger circle of human beings with similar values. And further out still, the circle containing the rest of humanity.
It is perfectly proper that we feel, and demonstrate, our deepest concern for the circle closest to us. More: it is the only way to achieve genuine care, providing us the ability to bestow it, if in a less intense form, upon those in the next circle out, and, in turn, on those beyond it.
Nothing demonstrates the danger of “universalizing the concept of love” better than the religion Mr. Gilbert represents. For all Christianity’s claim to have expanded its affection to all of humanity, early Church history was characterized by the vicious intolerance demonstrated by early “fathers” and emperors; the Middle Ages’ Crusades left swollen rivers of blood; and, a few centuries later, Reformation battles between Catholics and Protestants added millions of corpses to the body count.
Perceptive Jews and non-Jews alike understand how essential it is that ethnic or religious groups show special concern for other members of their “tribes.” They sense what to some may seem counterintuitive: it is precisely the intense empathy we feel and express for our “inner circles” alone that enables us to feel genuine, if somewhat less acute, concern for those in more distant ones. People who focus their deepest feelings on those close to them are those most likely to truly care about their fellow citizens or wider circles still. Exercising the “empathy muscle,” so to speak, provides the ability to feel—less intensely but more genuinely—concern for people who are not close to us.
So while the Trinidadian cleric may have been attempting an insult, he inadvertently provided his listeners—and all who were reached by media reports of his words—something else: a valuable opportunity to ponder how caring works.

this post gets to the heart of why liberal universalism (also meaning Catholicism) is the heart of what is wrong with the world today and how true love does not come from abstract ideas like “the world”, but rather true love comes from loving within boundaries. That means NATIONALISM, and your FAMILY. The real haters think they are in love with Gaia or some material everything. The real lovers have walls. The real haters want to tear down borders. The real haters want to push standards that are not compatible with FAMILY. The real haters want to create universal equivalencies. They want to take away difference. The real haters don’t want to recognize gender. The real haters don’t want to recognize borders. The real haters are what today we consider social liberals… and they have so much in common with the liberals of yesteryear… yes the liberals called Christians.


Palestinian Theologian" Trashes "Palestinian Theology

November 14, 2011

(Hudson) For over two decades, parts of the Christian world have been bemused by the writings of self-styled “Palestinian Christian theologians.” Since their brightest lights are Protestant pastors, they are minor figures among the overwhelmingly Orthodox and Catholic faithful of the Holy Land. But they are strangely popular in Liberal Protestant circles abroad and especially beloved of church bureaucrats.
Now one of them, Lutheran Pastor Mitri Raheb of Bethlehem, has trashed all the efforts of “Palestinian theology” to date as an irrelevant rehash of nineteenth century European theology. And what is his new starting point? Basically, nineteenth century race theory.
For decades, Raheb and his Anglican counterpart Naim Ateek have been touring Protestant churches in Europe and North America and conducting seminars in “Palestinian theology.” That is: purported theological underpinning for Palestinian political aims. Students in Protestant universities have been obliged to swallow down their books and regurgitate them in examinations. Those who questioned this new orthodoxy might face serious obstacles to their academic future.
Ateek in Jerusalem and Raheb in Bethlehem opened educational institutions to which theology students were sent from abroad. Recently, Raheb received authorization from the Palestinian Authority to grant BA and MA degrees. So for Raheb to denounce all that purported theologizing was to drop a big bomb.
Raheb was talking on “Contextual Palestinian Theology as It Deals with Realities on the Ground” at the March 2010 “Christ at the Checkpoint” conference in Bethlehem. He began by promising a “new way of thinking” because “we all, even as Palestinians theologians, we were dancing on the rhythm of European theology of the 19th Century, trying to react here, to react there, to change here and there, but the assumptions, the systems of thinking, was [sic] still 19th Century Europe.”
Thus far, in trashing all the previous work of himself and Ateek, together with the lesser luminaries of this genre, Raheb was correct. Both Raheb and Ateek hold doctorates from foreign universities, written under that kind of old-time European influence. But the continuation of Raheb’s talk is so academically frivolous that one wonders how he received a doctorate in the first place.
The “first assumption” of his new way of thinking, he announced, is that “the Bible could not have been written anywhere else but in Palestine.” Now, such books as Esther and Revelation explicitly state that they were composed outside the Land of Israel (in Persia and on a Greek island respectively). Is Raheb so ignorant of his Bible?
His second assumption is outrageous, echoing nineteenth century attempts to obscure the Jewish origins of Jesus, which peaked in the “Aryan Christianity” of Nazi Germany. It is that “the Palestinian people and part of the Jewish people are the continuation of the peoples of the land” whereas “Israel represents Rome of the Bible, not the people of the land.”
Why? Because “I’m sure if we were to do a DNA test between David, who was a Bethlehemite, and Jesus, born in Bethlehem, and Mitri, born just across the street from where Jesus was born, I’m sure the DNA will show that there is a trace. While, if you put King David, Jesus and Netanyahu, you will get nothing, because Netanyahu comes from an East European tribe who converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages.”
Even if Raheb’s claims about the ancestry of himself and Binyamin Netanyahu were true, he would be putting them at the service of a shameless racism. But, of course, he also has not the slightest evidence to support those claims. He knows nothing of Netanyahu’s ancestry. And he himself, for all he knows, may be descended from Greek pilgrims or from Europeans who arrived with the Crusaders, as I have pointed out elsewhere. As for DNA, had he taken the trouble, Raheb could have found that genetic studies on Jews have shown that European Jews are genetically much more closely related to Jews in the Middle East, and even to some non-Jews there, than to non-Jewish Europeans.
Recall that the leitmotif of “Christ at the Checkpoint” was the claim that today Israeli checkpoints would prevent Joseph, Mary and Jesus from ever getting to Bethlehem. In fact, of course, if today a Jewish couple expecting their first child tried to set up house in Bethlehem, they would be denounced by the UN, the US State Department and all the world’s foreign ministries as illegal settlers. And Mary would be lucky to live long enough to give birth.
So here comes Raheb to the rescue. As Yasser Arafat liked to say, Jesus and Mary were not Jews but Palestinians; so no problem. “And being born just across the street from where Jesus was born,” adds Raheb, “I always loved to say that most probably one of my grand, grand, grand, grandmas used to babysit for Jesus.” Once again, Raheb displays ignorance of or contempt for his Bible. According to Matthew’s Gospel, the Holy Family fled Bethlehem for Egypt shortly after the birth of Jesus. If anyone babysat for Jesus, it was Copts.
We need not pursue further Raheb’s “new thinking” except to note its fundamental aim: to show that wherever the Bible talks about a Chosen People, it means today’s Palestinians and specifically the Palestinian Arab Christians. Yes, he really means to make that preposterous claim. Consider a few quotations, and note that his initial inclusion of “part of the Jewish people” has vanished: now it is just Palestinians.
“Actually, the Palestinian Christians are the only ones in the world that, when they speak about their forefathers, they mean their actual forefathers, and also the forefathers in the faith.” “So, that is the reality of the peoples of the land. Again, they aren’t Israel. This experience I’m talking about, it’s only the Palestinians who understand this, because Israel represents Rome.” “It was our forefathers to whom the revelation was given…”
If one reads attentively all the “Palestinian theology” produced by Raheb and Ateek and their like, one finds that this claim about Palestinian chosenness, with the concomitant disqualification of Israel, is the whole point of the exercise. All the rest is baseless rigmarole, churned out in the attempt to get to that conclusion. The significance of Raheb’s speech is his acknowledgement that all their previous rigmarole cannot survive serious examination. His puerile attempt to start a new rigmarole merely confirms this.
Not that this will diminish the adulation of Raheb and Ateek among their admirers. For they are admired not for their intellectual integrity, but for their services in the delegitimization of contemporary Israel and of the contemporary Jewish people. Despite his averred repudiation of nineteenth century theology, Raheb is repackaging the claim of old-time theologians that the Church is the “New Israel” that has replaced the Jewish people, that the Bible now belongs to Christians alone. In Raheb’s view – it belongs just to Palestinian Christians.
Thus Raheb habitually receives rapt attention in Germany. He was awarded the “International Aachen Peace Prize” in 2008. Frequently, he has been fêted at Kirchentage, the mass jamborees of German Christians. He was most recently featured at the joint Protestant-Catholic Kirchentag hosted by the Lutheran Church of Bavaria in May 2010, two months after his Bethlehem speech. No matter what he said.
Raheb was also the star witness at the session of the 2004 General Assembly at which the Presbyterian Church of the USA voted to divest from various firms that do business with Israel. Two years later, after much controversy, the next General Assembly of the PCUSA voted to replace that resolution and apologize for allowing itself to be misled in 2004.
Still, we have to be grateful for the spectacle of Raheb’s performance in Bethlehem. On the one hand, he threw all previous “Palestinian theology” into the rubbish bin. On the other, any decent university would grade his “new thinking” with a fail, if submitted by a non-Palestinian student. “Palestinian theology” may still have its admirers, but they are staring at a naked mini-monarch.


Holocaust Enabling in Catholic Church Continues. Pope needs to take a que from Goldstone

April 9, 2011

Vatican body asks UN to ‘end Israeli occupation’

…I bet it pisses the Pope off that Israel will survive and Judaism will not submit to Rome. Not ever!

….In final statement of two-week conference, bishops’ synod says Biblical concept of ‘promised land’ cannot be used to justify settlements.  Israel cannot use the Biblical concept of a promised land or a chosen people to justify new “settlements” in Jerusalem or territorial claims, a Vatican synod on the Middle East said on Saturday. In its concluding message after two weeks of meetings, the synod of bishops from the Middle East also said it hoped a two-state solution for peace between Israel and the Palestinians could be lifted from dream to reality and called for peaceful conditions that would stop a Christian exodus from the region.

…the Church still thinks there is a “Two State” solution when you have the Shia, the Sunni… not to mention Fatah, Hamas and Hezbollah… and these groups really do hate each other.  Where in the two states is the Pope thinking this is possible?

March 2: Pope Benedict XVI  delivers his blessing during a general audience in the Pope Paul VI  hall at the Vatican.
“His blood be on us and on our children”

“We have meditated on the situation of the holy city of Jerusalem. We are anxious about the unilateral initiatives that threaten its composition and risk to change its demographic balance,” the message said. US-brokered peace talks have stalled since Israel rejected appeals to extend a temporary moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank that expired last month. Since the freeze expired, Israel has announced plans to build another 238 homes in two east Jerusalem neighborhoods, drawing the condemnation of Palestinians and world leaders. In a separate part of the document, a section on cooperation with Jews, the synod fathers also took issue with Jews who use the Bible to justify settlements in the West Bank, which Israel captured in 1967. “Recourse to theological and biblical positions which use the Word of God to wrongly justify injustices is not acceptable,” the document said. Many Jewish settlers and right-wing Israelis claim a biblical birthright to the West Bank, which they call Judea and Samaria and regard as a part of historical, ancient Israel given to the Jews by God. Asked about the passage at a news conference, Greek-Melchite Archbishop Cyrille Salim Bustros, said: “We Christians cannot speak about the promised land for the Jewish people. There is no longer a chosen people. All men and women of all countries have become the chosen people. “The concept of the promised land cannot be used as a base for the justification of the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of Palestinians,” he added. “The justification of Israel’s occupation of the land of Palestine cannot be based on sacred scriptures.” The synod’s concluding message repeated a Vatican call for Jerusalem to have a special status “which respects its particular character” as a city sacred to the three great monotheistic religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Jerusalem remains a key issue of dispute. Palestinians want east Jerusalem for capital of a future state. Israel has annexed the area, a move never recognized internationally, and has declared Jerusalem to be its “united and eternal” capital. Israel did not include east Jerusalem as part of its 10-month building freeze, though most plans there were put on hold in March, when the US protested reports of a new housing project leaked during a visit by Vice President Joe Biden. While recognizing “the suffering and insecurity in which Israelis live” and the need for Israel to enjoy peace within internationally recognized borders, the document was much more expansive and detailed on the situation of Palestinians. It said Palestinians “are suffering the consequences of the Israeli occupation: the lack of freedom of movement, the wall of separation and the military checkpoints, the political prisoners, the demolition of homes, the disturbance of socio-economic life and the thousands of refugees.” It urged Christians in the region not to sell their homes and properties. “It is a vital aspect of the lives of those who remain there and for those who one day will return there.” It condemned terrorism “from wherever it may proceed” as well as anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and discrimination against Christians.

sorry about the vulgarity… but when I saw the headline what went through my head was… well something to do with Sodomy… and I got this image… which made me feel better… which I’m sure G-d will forgive me.


yes I can doubt a narrative without rejecting g-d

April 8, 2011


How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!

Islam wants to kill me… it said so, but I do not believe Jesus thinks it is clockwork because I don’t have some one else’s answers as to the meaning of life. when things are clear, the messiah will be here… till that point a good messiah would never bully those who don’t know the answer to questions.




if Jesus is blackmailing me then he is no better then Mohammed. I like to think better of him then that and I certainly would never follow a religion that strictly enables murderers of innocent people that I have nothing to do with.that sounds like an ugly form of Christianity and I know there are many believers of Jesus who know better.

this man was insinuating that until we accept Jesus that we will be on the run from Islam. (see conversation linked above) I refuse to believe that Jesus would need anything. He doesn’t need me to know what I can’t observe and he doesn’t need a star ship to travel in… and he isn’t going to blackmail me either. till the end of time… I will not know and a g-d I love would never punish me for not accepting a narrative. my g-d is not punishing me with Islam, my g-d is working to free us of what is blackening his reputation.


DR. NERVE

November 4, 2010

http://xrl.us/CorporateChess