Wednesday, July 6, 2011

"What is the Vatican Apologizing For?"

I'm liking this Pope Shenouda guy now. Oh the Copts!! (In reality, there is no way I can verify the translation in the captions, but there's no reason to doubt it either). As some of you know, I've written on the Jewish question only very occasionally, but it still irritates me sometimes.



"I don't like things that are done for appearance's sake" either, frankly.

13 comments:

naturgesetz said...

I don't much like things that are done for appearance's sake, either. Even less do I like hieararchs who are unwilling or unable to grasp the distinction between those Jews of Jesus' day who had a hand in his death and those of that time and subsequently who did not. I'm also less than thrilled at his hostility to the State of Israel, but perhaps it should be understood as PR on his part given the violence which certain Muslims (not "the Muslims" or "the Arabs") have committed against Copts. He's in a very precarious position.

A Sinner said...

"Even less do I like hieararchs who are unwilling or unable to grasp the distinction between those Jews of Jesus' day who had a hand in his death and those of that time and subsequently who did not."

Ah, but that's exactly the thing: you can't have it both ways.

If the CURRENT Pope and CURRENT Vatican can be expected to be held responsible and apologize for the sins of churchmen in the past...then why couldn't we likewise expect an apology from Jews today for their ancestors killing Christ??

Either the present representatives of a group can speak for members of their group in the PAST...or they can't.

But you can't apply one standard to the Jews and another to the Church.

Jews alive today never killed Christ. But then, Pope Benedict himself was never was anti-semitic. So why can THEY not be held accountable for actions done long ago in the past, but we can?

If we're somehow "corporately responsible" for things done, say, 600 years ago...why is it such a stretch to treat a group the same way for things done 2000 years ago? Is the difference between 600 years and 2000 years really a substantial one? Or even 100 years and 2000 years??

Who Am I said...

"The Catechism of the Council of Trent, issued by Pope St. Pius V (A.D. 1566-1572), taught:

Furthermore men of all ranks and conditions were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. Gentiles and Jews were the advisers, the authors, the ministers of His Passion: Judas betrayed Him, Peter denied Him, all the rest deserted Him.
and

In this guilt are involved all those who fall frequently into sin; for, as our sins consigned Christ the Lord to the death of the cross, most certainly those who wallow in sin and iniquity crucify to themselves again the Son of God, as far as in them lies, and make a mockery of Him. This guilt seems more enormous in us than in the Jews, since according to the testimony of the same Apostle: If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory; while we, on the contrary, professing to know Him, yet denying Him by our actions, seem in some sort to lay violent hands on him.

As taken from here: http://www.fisheaters.com/jc3.html#3

I'm currently in QUITE the HEATED debate concerning The Inquisition. Apparently the fact that The Church INTERVENED AGAINST what might be called WAHABBI Christians who took The Codex Justinianus to mean they could force conversions, define who was a heretic etc. does not register. I'm perverse for even attempting to provide a HISTORICAL and ETHNOGRAPHIC context that details what was happening during those times.

James Kabala said...

In many of your other posts you have criticized paternalistic clergy who try to shield the laity from all remotely negative influences (e.g., by wanting to turn Catholic colleges into near-monastic institutions). Forbidding pilgrimages to Jerusalem because the faithful will be brainwashed by the mere sight of an Israeli newspaper or television program seems to be an extreme manifestation of this paternalistic tendency, so I'm surprised you don't condemn it as well.

Who Am I said...

@James: Not that your response was directed towards me, BUT I do believe you're missing the scope of the post and video posted. The point being, one doesn't apologize for the sake of saving face. The Catechism of The Council of Trent as I cited makes it QUITE clear that The Church has NEVER taught that SOLELY The Jews were responsible for Christ's death. For that matter, The Church ALWAYS made a distinction between modern Jews and those from the time of Christ responsible for His crucifixion. HOWEVER, the fixation of MANY Jews is that The Church REMOVE THAT FACT from that which is recorded in The NT. Namely, no Jews of ANY era ever had a hand in Christ's crucifixion. THAT is the point being made by the post and video posted, yet as alluded to by "A Sinner" there seems to be a HUGE double standard concerning events wherein Christianity is concerned in relation to Jews. Christians regardless of age are NEVER forgiven for the errors of SOME CHRISTIANS from a PARTICULAR TIME AND PLACE IN HISTORY in relation to Jews. Are The Jews just as willing to forgive Christians in relation to those events ? Are they as willing to remove the Toledoth Yeshu, citations in The Talmud where Christ is said to be boiling in excrement etc. ? After all, if we're playing fair, might as well remove those as well. What about The Bar Kochba revolt etc. ?

Before anyone claims I am some anti-Semite, ask ANYONE (including A Sinner), just how many times I have defended Jews against their accusers. Just thought I'd mention that.

As to Pope Shenouda's claim regarding pilgrimages to Jerusalem, that may be as the first poster to this thread stated, for the sake of PR. I don't believe A Sinner has to necessarily condemn his words given that a) Pope Shenouda is Coptic ORTHODOX and b) lets not kid ourselves, Israel may be "paradise" compared to surrounding Muslim nations in its treatment of Christians, but Israel is FAR from ideal in its treatment of non Jews (Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's statements anyone ? SHAS ? Haredim in The Old City ?).

James Kabala said...

Since the political part takes up more than half the clip, I think it is relevant, especially when it is so similar to one of our host's pet peeves. I find it less offensive for a college to act in loco parentis than for a patriarch to act in loco travelis agentis (bad Latin deliberate). I don't think telling people what countries they can or cannot go to is a proepr function of the Church hierarchy, Catholic or Orthodox.

A Sinner said...

To be honest, I would indeed chafe at the idea of being told where I could and could not travel. But. I REALLY don't like Zionism or the State of Israel, so I'm conflicted.

Thom, SFO said...

fwiw, the translation is accurate.

I'm not a fan of the state of Israel OR the institutional Coptic Church, so I really don't have a goat in this race.

Yes, it's a goat race, I checked.

Joshua G. said...

You can totally not be a fan of the State of Israel and visit Jerusalem. It's mostly about the Holy Land, visiting the tomb where Christ was laid, seeing the spot where His cross stood, not about a modern political entity.

A Sinner said...

"Yes, it's a goat race, I checked."

LOL!!!!

"You can totally not be a fan of the State of Israel and visit Jerusalem. It's mostly about the Holy Land, visiting the tomb where Christ was laid, seeing the spot where His cross stood, not about a modern political entity."

But what if you find your own people so credulous that you think the Israelis will turn them into little Zionists while they're there?!?!?

That's, apparently, what Shenouda thinks about his own people...

Who Am I said...

"But what if you find your own people so credulous that you think the Israelis will turn them into little Zionists while they're there?!?!?

That's, apparently, what Shenouda thinks about his own."

That is precisely what he is saying.

If I were to go to say Israel as a Christian from a war torn nation such as Egypt where I am ACTIVELY persecuted and upon arriving there, experienced what I believed to be "the good life", I might think to myself "Hey, perhaps Israel is where its at." Namely, forgetting about HOW Israel came to be and HOW individual Christian families have been making their exodus from The Holy Land as a result of discrimination on the basis of being Christian and an Arabized people within The Land.

Again, we can only infer what he is perhaps referring to, as his intentions are SOLELY known to him and GOD.

Katherine said...

But you can't apply one standard to the Jews and another to the Church.

Nonsense. The Church is and claims to be a living, organic entity. As canon law says, a juridical person. If the Church signs a contract or issues an edict, it remains effective across generations.

"The Jews" are not a juridical person. While all of humanity, through our sin, are corporately responsible for the death of Christ, those individuals directly involved committed personal acts.

A Sinner said...

Katherine,

If "the Jews" are not a juridical person...then to whom exactly is the Pope apologizing for things that happened centuries ago??

You can't claim to be a valid recipient of APOLOGY on behalf of your ancestors but then NOT a valid recipient of BLAME.

Either it's all simply individuals, at which point the possibility for both apology and blame dies with the individuals in question...or the collective has some meaning, and the present community is a valid subject of both receiving AND giving apologies for its members in the past. But you have to be consistent there.

THAT is the double-standard.

[And, in our theology, I would say that Synagoga most definitely IS a juridical/mystical person too...though her reality is more complicated than just "the Jews" consider according to the flesh]