Archive for the ‘Cardinal Bea’ Category

Vatican Cover-Up of Rabbi Heschel Duplicity

August 15, 2009

Google books has a preview of the Rabbi Abraham Heschel biography Spiritual radical: Abraham Joshua Heschel in America, 1940-1972 by Edward K. Kaplan which I’ve referenced HERE and HERE. Kaplan is a devotee of Heschel and therefore apologetic in his narrative of Heschel’s outrageous duplicity and anti-Christian hostility which should have been the end of the Judeo-Christian ‘dialogue’ fraud. Nevertheless, the facts are there, more than enough to ascertain that the image of the “elder brother” and maintaining ‘dialogue’ trumps the welfare of souls in the Vatican. Pages 266-274 are of the essence:

Spiritual radical: Abraham Joshua Heschel in America, 1940-1972

Advertisements

"Auschwitz: Beginning of a New Era?"

April 28, 2009

I have been reading a book titled, Auschwitz: Beginning of a New Era? This is a collection of papers given at an “International Symposium on the Holocaust” held at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City, June 3 to 6, 1974. The book is edited by Eva Fleischer and published by the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine and the “Anti-Defamation League” of “B’nai B’rith.”

The title of the book should be Theological Contrivances Rationalizing Displacement of Calvary by Auschwitz to be Taught in Christian Churches and Schools because that is precisely what Catholic priests, Protestant ministers, rabbis and others including Elie Wiesel came together to synthesize at this symposium.

Gregory Baum was a Judaic (alleged) convert to Catholicism and Catholic priest, assistant to Cardinal Bea and peritus (theological advisor) at the Second Vatican Council, particularly on the three most troubling Vatican II documents, Dignitatis Humanæ, Unitatis Redintegratio and Nostra Aetate. For the moment I will focus primarily on his words because he was a priest of great influence in Rome and at the Vatican II Council.

Getting straight to business, Fr. Gregory Baum opened his talk thus:

After Auschwitz the Christian churches no longer wish to convert the Jews. While they may not be sure of the theological grounds that dispense them from this mission, the churches have become aware that asking the Jews to become Christians is a spiritual way of blotting them out of existence and thus only reinforces the effects of the Holocaust. The churches, moreover, realize the deadly irony implicit in a Christian plea for the conversion of the Jews; for after Auschwitz and the participation of the nations, it is the Christian world that is in need of conversion. The major churches have come to repudiate mission to the Jews, even if they have not justified this by adequate doctrinal explanations. We have here a case, frequently found in church history, where a practical decision on the part of the churches, in response to a significant event, precedes dogmatic reflection and in fact becomes the guide to future doctrinal development. Moved by a sense of shame over the doctrinal formulations that negate Jewish existence, the churches have come to recognize Judaism as an authentic religion before God, with independent value and meaning, not as a stage on the way to Christianity …

The new openness to Jewish faith and the emergence of a new understanding of mission reflect the response of the Christian conscience to the voice of the Holocaust … The churches believe that they have been addressed by God’s Word through these events: they have placed themselves under God’s judgment.

Fr. Baum later returns to this idea that “God’s Word” is spoken to the “Christian conscience” through “The Holocaust” and explains what is “demanded” in response to “God’s call.”

Even without elaborating an adequate dogmatic basis, they have made significant public declarations and changed the public policy in remarkable ways. Christian theologians have reflected on the new trends and tried to establish their doctrinal foundation. Christian educators have begun to rewrite catechisms and schoolbooks. Many missionary congregations and Christian-action groups have abandoned their former ideal of evangelization and adopted a new policy, according to which missionaries enter into solidarity with the people in whose midst they serve, bear the burdens of life with them, and promote the self-discovery and humanization taking place in their midst. In particular the churches have renounced the desire to convert the Jews; they have begun to call them brothers and sisters.

While these changes have taken place on the highest ecclesiastical level, in official circles and among Christians intensely involved in the problems of contemporary life, the effect of the new policy on the great majority of Christians is negligible. Most Christians have not even begun to reflect on these issues … the reason why the new policies adopted by the churches have so little power and influence among Christians is that the negation of Judaism and other religions seems to be built into the central Christian symbols. The corrections made on the margins hardly affect the central teaching. Since Christian teaching confesses Jesus as the one mediator between God and man, and the church as the true Israel, the unique vehicle of salvation, in whom the peoples of the world will find forgiveness and new life, the dangerous social trends against which the new ecclesiastical policies have reacted continue to affect the Christian understanding of history. Unless people are well informed and belong to a religious elite, the traditional language continues to shape their outlook and attitude. What is demanded, therefore, is that the churches interpret the central Christian doctrine, in obedience to God’s call, in a more socially responsible way and find a sound dogmatic basis for their new policies … (Auschwitz, Beginning of a New Era?, pp. 113, 116-117)

As we can see, Vatican II peritus Fr. Gregory Baum was not a convert to Catholicism, but rather, a subvert who sought to convert Catholics to a new religion as he stated explicitly himself: “… after Auschwitz … it is the Christian world that is in need of conversion.”

“After Auschwitz” is of course Baum’s designator for the measurement of time in the new dispensation he is operating in. As Calvary is replaced by Auschwitz in this new religion, so, Anno Domini is replaced by Anno Auschwitz. If you believe that I’m reading into his words, then listen to co-speaker Johannes Hoekendijk in his response to Baum’s paper:

“Are we anno Auschwitz 30 in a new era? That is what the theme of our colloquium suggests … After Auschwitz: The State of Israel–A New era.” (ibid p.129)

Note that Gregory Baum lamented in 1974 that while he and his comrades in Rome were inebriated on the new “Holocaust” religion that the laity in the pews hadn’t yet received the message. I imagine that he must be quite pleased with the “Holocaust” religion teaching opportunity which materialized in January-February 2009 HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE.

Fr. Baum speaks at length on the topic of the revised Vatican II “mission” of the Church which negates Catholic traditional missionary theology and activity which he was involved in formulating. Just as the central dogmas of Catholicism are subordinate to “Holocaust” theology as quoted above, so is Christian missionary activity, in Gregory Baum’s universe:

“The new openness to the Jewish faith and the emergence of a new understanding of mission reflect the response of the Christian conscience to the voice of the Holocaust …

Fr. Baum repeats his delusional language suggesting that God, speaking in judgment through “The Holocaust,” is commanding this change in mission:

“The churches believe that they have been addressed by God’s Word through these events: they have placed themselves under God’s judgment.” (ibid p.116)

Gregory Baum proposed a replacement theology in which the “existence” of “The Jews” is the first principle to which even the most fundamental Catholic dogmas must yield. I reiterate that it is a Vatican II peritus who wrote these things 35 years ago. Clearly we can see in recent events that many prelates in and outside the Vatican have made these lunatic ideas their own.

See:

The New Catholic “Shoah” Theology: Newsletter #47

"Auschwitz: Beginning of a New Era?"

April 28, 2009

I have been reading a book titled, Auschwitz: Beginning of a New Era? This is a collection of papers given at an “International Symposium on the Holocaust” held at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City, June 3 to 6, 1974. The book is edited by Eva Fleischer and published by the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine and the “Anti-Defamation League” of “B’nai B’rith.”

The title of the book should be Theological Contrivances Rationalizing Displacement of Calvary by Auschwitz to be Taught in Christian Churches and Schools because that is precisely what Catholic priests, Protestant ministers, rabbis and others including Elie Wiesel came together to synthesize at this symposium.

Gregory Baum was a Judaic (alleged) convert to Catholicism and Catholic priest, assistant to Cardinal Bea and peritus (theological advisor) at the Second Vatican Council, particularly on the three most troubling Vatican II documents, Dignitatis Humanæ, Unitatis Redintegratio and Nostra Aetate. For the moment I will focus primarily on his words because he was a priest of great influence in Rome and at the Vatican II Council.

Getting straight to business, Fr. Gregory Baum opened his talk thus:

After Auschwitz the Christian churches no longer wish to convert the Jews. While they may not be sure of the theological grounds that dispense them from this mission, the churches have become aware that asking the Jews to become Christians is a spiritual way of blotting them out of existence and thus only reinforces the effects of the Holocaust. The churches, moreover, realize the deadly irony implicit in a Christian plea for the conversion of the Jews; for after Auschwitz and the participation of the nations, it is the Christian world that is in need of conversion. The major churches have come to repudiate mission to the Jews, even if they have not justified this by adequate doctrinal explanations. We have here a case, frequently found in church history, where a practical decision on the part of the churches, in response to a significant event, precedes dogmatic reflection and in fact becomes the guide to future doctrinal development. Moved by a sense of shame over the doctrinal formulations that negate Jewish existence, the churches have come to recognize Judaism as an authentic religion before God, with independent value and meaning, not as a stage on the way to Christianity …

The new openness to Jewish faith and the emergence of a new understanding of mission reflect the response of the Christian conscience to the voice of the Holocaust … The churches believe that they have been addressed by God’s Word through these events: they have placed themselves under God’s judgment.

Fr. Baum later returns to this idea that “God’s Word” is spoken to the “Christian conscience” through “The Holocaust” and explains what is “demanded” in response to “God’s call.”

Even without elaborating an adequate dogmatic basis, they have made significant public declarations and changed the public policy in remarkable ways. Christian theologians have reflected on the new trends and tried to establish their doctrinal foundation. Christian educators have begun to rewrite catechisms and schoolbooks. Many missionary congregations and Christian-action groups have abandoned their former ideal of evangelization and adopted a new policy, according to which missionaries enter into solidarity with the people in whose midst they serve, bear the burdens of life with them, and promote the self-discovery and humanization taking place in their midst. In particular the churches have renounced the desire to convert the Jews; they have begun to call them brothers and sisters.

While these changes have taken place on the highest ecclesiastical level, in official circles and among Christians intensely involved in the problems of contemporary life, the effect of the new policy on the great majority of Christians is negligible. Most Christians have not even begun to reflect on these issues … the reason why the new policies adopted by the churches have so little power and influence among Christians is that the negation of Judaism and other religions seems to be built into the central Christian symbols. The corrections made on the margins hardly affect the central teaching. Since Christian teaching confesses Jesus as the one mediator between God and man, and the church as the true Israel, the unique vehicle of salvation, in whom the peoples of the world will find forgiveness and new life, the dangerous social trends against which the new ecclesiastical policies have reacted continue to affect the Christian understanding of history. Unless people are well informed and belong to a religious elite, the traditional language continues to shape their outlook and attitude. What is demanded, therefore, is that the churches interpret the central Christian doctrine, in obedience to God’s call, in a more socially responsible way and find a sound dogmatic basis for their new policies … (Auschwitz, Beginning of a New Era?, pp. 113, 116-117)

As we can see, Vatican II peritus Fr. Gregory Baum was not a convert to Catholicism, but rather, a subvert who sought to convert Catholics to a new religion as he stated explicitly himself: “… after Auschwitz … it is the Christian world that is in need of conversion.”

“After Auschwitz” is of course Baum’s designator for the measurement of time in the new dispensation he is operating in. As Calvary is replaced by Auschwitz in this new religion, so, Anno Domini is replaced by Anno Auschwitz. If you believe that I’m reading into his words, then listen to co-speaker Johannes Hoekendijk in his response to Baum’s paper:

“Are we anno Auschwitz 30 in a new era? That is what the theme of our colloquium suggests … After Auschwitz: The State of Israel–A New era.” (ibid p.129)

Note that Gregory Baum lamented in 1974 that while he and his comrades in Rome were inebriated on the new “Holocaust” religion that the laity in the pews hadn’t yet received the message. I imagine that he must be quite pleased with the “Holocaust” religion teaching opportunity which materialized in January-February 2009 HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE.

Fr. Baum speaks at length on the topic of the revised Vatican II “mission” of the Church which negates Catholic traditional missionary theology and activity which he was involved in formulating. Just as the central dogmas of Catholicism are subordinate to “Holocaust” theology as quoted above, so is Christian missionary activity, in Gregory Baum’s universe:

“The new openness to the Jewish faith and the emergence of a new understanding of mission reflect the response of the Christian conscience to the voice of the Holocaust …

Fr. Baum repeats his delusional language suggesting that God, speaking in judgment through “The Holocaust,” is commanding this change in mission:

“The churches believe that they have been addressed by God’s Word through these events: they have placed themselves under God’s judgment.” (ibid p.116)

Gregory Baum proposed a replacement theology in which the “existence” of “The Jews” is the first principle to which even the most fundamental Catholic dogmas must yield. I reiterate that it is a Vatican II peritus who wrote these things 35 years ago. Clearly we can see in recent events that many prelates in and outside the Vatican have made these lunatic ideas their own.

See:

The New Catholic “Shoah” Theology: Newsletter #47

"Auschwitz: Beginning of a New Era?"

April 28, 2009

I have been reading a book titled, Auschwitz: Beginning of a New Era? This is a collection of papers given at an “International Symposium on the Holocaust” held at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City, June 3 to 6, 1974. The book is edited by Eva Fleischer and published by the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine and the “Anti-Defamation League” of “B’nai B’rith.”

The title of the book should be Theological Contrivances Rationalizing Displacement of Calvary by Auschwitz to be Taught in Christian Churches and Schools because that is precisely what Catholic priests, Protestant ministers, rabbis and others including Elie Wiesel came together to synthesize at this symposium.

Gregory Baum was a Judaic (alleged) convert to Catholicism and Catholic priest, assistant to Cardinal Bea and peritus (theological advisor) at the Second Vatican Council, particularly on the three most troubling Vatican II documents, Dignitatis Humanæ, Unitatis Redintegratio and Nostra Aetate. For the moment I will focus primarily on his words because he was a priest of great influence in Rome and at the Vatican II Council.

Getting straight to business, Fr. Gregory Baum opened his talk thus:

After Auschwitz the Christian churches no longer wish to convert the Jews. While they may not be sure of the theological grounds that dispense them from this mission, the churches have become aware that asking the Jews to become Christians is a spiritual way of blotting them out of existence and thus only reinforces the effects of the Holocaust. The churches, moreover, realize the deadly irony implicit in a Christian plea for the conversion of the Jews; for after Auschwitz and the participation of the nations, it is the Christian world that is in need of conversion. The major churches have come to repudiate mission to the Jews, even if they have not justified this by adequate doctrinal explanations. We have here a case, frequently found in church history, where a practical decision on the part of the churches, in response to a significant event, precedes dogmatic reflection and in fact becomes the guide to future doctrinal development. Moved by a sense of shame over the doctrinal formulations that negate Jewish existence, the churches have come to recognize Judaism as an authentic religion before God, with independent value and meaning, not as a stage on the way to Christianity …

The new openness to Jewish faith and the emergence of a new understanding of mission reflect the response of the Christian conscience to the voice of the Holocaust … The churches believe that they have been addressed by God’s Word through these events: they have placed themselves under God’s judgment.

Fr. Baum later returns to this idea that “God’s Word” is spoken to the “Christian conscience” through “The Holocaust” and explains what is “demanded” in response to “God’s call.”

Even without elaborating an adequate dogmatic basis, they have made significant public declarations and changed the public policy in remarkable ways. Christian theologians have reflected on the new trends and tried to establish their doctrinal foundation. Christian educators have begun to rewrite catechisms and schoolbooks. Many missionary congregations and Christian-action groups have abandoned their former ideal of evangelization and adopted a new policy, according to which missionaries enter into solidarity with the people in whose midst they serve, bear the burdens of life with them, and promote the self-discovery and humanization taking place in their midst. In particular the churches have renounced the desire to convert the Jews; they have begun to call them brothers and sisters.

While these changes have taken place on the highest ecclesiastical level, in official circles and among Christians intensely involved in the problems of contemporary life, the effect of the new policy on the great majority of Christians is negligible. Most Christians have not even begun to reflect on these issues … the reason why the new policies adopted by the churches have so little power and influence among Christians is that the negation of Judaism and other religions seems to be built into the central Christian symbols. The corrections made on the margins hardly affect the central teaching. Since Christian teaching confesses Jesus as the one mediator between God and man, and the church as the true Israel, the unique vehicle of salvation, in whom the peoples of the world will find forgiveness and new life, the dangerous social trends against which the new ecclesiastical policies have reacted continue to affect the Christian understanding of history. Unless people are well informed and belong to a religious elite, the traditional language continues to shape their outlook and attitude. What is demanded, therefore, is that the churches interpret the central Christian doctrine, in obedience to God’s call, in a more socially responsible way and find a sound dogmatic basis for their new policies … (Auschwitz, Beginning of a New Era?, pp. 113, 116-117)

As we can see, Vatican II peritus Fr. Gregory Baum was not a convert to Catholicism, but rather, a subvert who sought to convert Catholics to a new religion as he stated explicitly himself: “… after Auschwitz … it is the Christian world that is in need of conversion.”

“After Auschwitz” is of course Baum’s designator for the measurement of time in the new dispensation he is operating in. As Calvary is replaced by Auschwitz in this new religion, so, Anno Domini is replaced by Anno Auschwitz. If you believe that I’m reading into his words, then listen to co-speaker Johannes Hoekendijk in his response to Baum’s paper:

“Are we anno Auschwitz 30 in a new era? That is what the theme of our colloquium suggests … After Auschwitz: The State of Israel–A New era.” (ibid p.129)

Note that Gregory Baum lamented in 1974 that while he and his comrades in Rome were inebriated on the new “Holocaust” religion that the laity in the pews hadn’t yet received the message. I imagine that he must be quite pleased with the “Holocaust” religion teaching opportunity which materialized in January-February 2009 HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE.

Fr. Baum speaks at length on the topic of the revised Vatican II “mission” of the Church which negates Catholic traditional missionary theology and activity which he was involved in formulating. Just as the central dogmas of Catholicism are subordinate to “Holocaust” theology as quoted above, so is Christian missionary activity, in Gregory Baum’s universe:

“The new openness to the Jewish faith and the emergence of a new understanding of mission reflect the response of the Christian conscience to the voice of the Holocaust …

Fr. Baum repeats his delusional language suggesting that God, speaking in judgment through “The Holocaust,” is commanding this change in mission:

“The churches believe that they have been addressed by God’s Word through these events: they have placed themselves under God’s judgment.” (ibid p.116)

Gregory Baum proposed a replacement theology in which the “existence” of “The Jews” is the first principle to which even the most fundamental Catholic dogmas must yield. I reiterate that it is a Vatican II peritus who wrote these things 35 years ago. Clearly we can see in recent events that many prelates in and outside the Vatican have made these lunatic ideas their own.

See:

The New Catholic “Shoah” Theology: Newsletter #47

The Precedent Was Set Long Ago

February 18, 2008

An excerpt from the “Resolution on the revised Latin text on the Jews” from the Rabbinical Assembly of Conservative Judaism:

Whereas our teacher, Professor Abraham Joshua Heschel, met in the Vatican with Cardinal Bea and Pope Paul VI and convinced the [Second Vatican] Council to remove a proposed passage in Nostra Aetate calling for the conversion of the Jews … http://www.sidic.org/en/docOnLineView.asp?class=Doc00559

Background on this virtually unknown matter here:

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/12/vatican-ii-kabbalist-sage-rabbi-abraham.html

The Precedent Was Set Long Ago

February 18, 2008

An excerpt from the “Resolution on the revised Latin text on the Jews” from the Rabbinical Assembly of Conservative Judaism:

Whereas our teacher, Professor Abraham Joshua Heschel, met in the Vatican with Cardinal Bea and Pope Paul VI and convinced the [Second Vatican] Council to remove a proposed passage in Nostra Aetate calling for the conversion of the Jews … http://www.sidic.org/en/docOnLineView.asp?class=Doc00559

Background on this virtually unknown matter here:

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/12/vatican-ii-kabbalist-sage-rabbi-abraham.html

Vatican II Kabbalist Sage, Rabbi Abraham Heschel: "I Want to Attack Their Souls"

December 22, 2007
Rabbi Abraham Heschel with Cardinal Augustin Bea

Returning to the biography of the Hasidic change agent, Rabbi Abraham Heschel (Spiritual Radical, by Edward K. Kaplan, Yale University Press). In this book is an account of an interview of Rabbi Heschel during the time the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate, which Heschel collaborated on, was being deliberated. The interview reveals an attitude of remarkable hostility to Christians, which should come as no surprise to those knowledgeable of the rabbinic tradition. What may surprise some (but shouldn’t at this point) is that such a hostile character would be invited by Vatican officials to participate in the writing of a Church council document.

First some background: In Heschel’s many meetings with Vatican officials (as an agent of the American Jewish Comittee) regarding Nostra Aetate, mostly with Augustin Bea, but including a secretive meeting with Paul VI, Heschel was most adamant that the document should clearly proclaim his belief that it is unacceptable for Christians to seek the conversion of “Jews.” Heschel’s chutzpah in peddling this absurd idea (which consequently would undercut Christ’s incarnation, evangelical mission and sacrifice) went to the extreme of appealing to the non-Biblical, relativistic, Talmudic anti-principle mipnei darchai shalom during his meeting with Paul VI.

During the deliberations, a draft of the Nostra Aetate document was leaked to the press which did not include the prohibition against converting “Jews” which Heschel desired. This infuriated Heschel, and in response he wrote an editorial published by the New York Times and Time magazine in which he proclaimed, “As I have repeatedly stated to leading personalities of the Vatican, I am ready to go to Auschwitz any time, if faced with the alternative of conversion or death.”

Edward Kaplan (citing Schuster’s notes on record at AJC/Paris) writes that AJC European director, Zachariah Schuster warned Heschel that this outburst had been embarrassing to their Vatican collaborators but that Heschel replied undauntedly, “I had my own private reasons for making this remark.” Heschel later revealed what those private reasons were to Stern Gang terrorist, Geula Cohen in an interview which she conducted for the Israeli newspaper, Ma’ariv.

In interviewing Rabbi Abraham Heschel, Geula Cohen made reference to Heschel’s hysterical “ready to go to Auschwitz” statement saying she was proud of it, but that she would have handled it differently:

“This statement of yours made me proud. Yet, I would have written it differently, saying: ‘if this were the only way in which I would be permitted to live, I would have endeavored to send them [Christians] to Auschwitz.'”

Cohen relayed that Heschel was not shocked by her words, but explained that his statement was stronger than hers:

“Frankly, I assert that the statement on Auschwitz, of which you are proud, is the strongest statement possible, and it has shaken many people throughout the world.”

Heshel further clarified, explaining the private reasons he earlier said he had for making the “Auschwitz” statement:

“[Christians] correctly understood that I was comparing them to the Nazis. If I had made the statement in a straightforward fashion saying ‘you are Nazis,’ it would have sounded ridiculous. My style of writing is by hinting, because truth is in the depths. There are those who would like to attack their bodies. I want to attack their souls. Today, there is no longer any place for religious wars as such. Today there is occasion for conversation and discussion. Do you consider the desire to discuss a sign of weakness?” (Rabbi Abraham Heschel, interviewed by Geula Cohen for Ma’ariv, January 4, 1965 as translated by AJC/Paris)

And there you have the motivation behind “dialogue” with “elder brothers” so succinctly summed up by one of the greatest pioneers of interfaith “dialogue” who participated in the writing of a Church council document, Nostra Aetate. Rabbinic warfare against Christian souls is not fought with guns and bombs, but with “conversation” and “discussion.”

Here we see the subtlety of rabbinic warfare–utterly undefended against–even as the rabbis conscribe their spiritually conquered prisoners of war and their resources to fight their war against the specter of “Islamofascist” “Amalek.”

Vatican II Kabbalist Sage, Rabbi Abraham Heschel: "I Want to Attack Their Souls"

December 22, 2007
Rabbi Abraham Heschel with Cardinal Augustin Bea

Returning to the biography of the Hasidic change agent, Rabbi Abraham Heschel (Spiritual Radical, by Edward K. Kaplan, Yale University Press). In this book is an account of an interview of Rabbi Heschel during the time the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate, which Heschel collaborated on, was being deliberated. The interview reveals an attitude of remarkable hostility to Christians, which should come as no surprise to those knowledgeable of the rabbinic tradition. What may surprise some (but shouldn’t at this point) is that such a hostile character would be invited by Vatican officials to participate in the writing of a Church council document.

First some background: In Heschel’s many meetings with Vatican officials (as an agent of the American Jewish Comittee) regarding Nostra Aetate, mostly with Augustin Bea, but including a secretive meeting with Paul VI, Heschel was most adamant that the document should clearly proclaim his belief that it is unacceptable for Christians to seek the conversion of “Jews.” Heschel’s chutzpah in peddling this absurd idea (which consequently would undercut Christ’s incarnation, evangelical mission and sacrifice) went to the extreme of appealing to the non-Biblical, relativistic, Talmudic anti-principle mipnei darchai shalom during his meeting with Paul VI.

During the deliberations, a draft of the Nostra Aetate document was leaked to the press which did not include the prohibition against converting “Jews” which Heschel desired. This infuriated Heschel, and in response he wrote an editorial published by the New York Times and Time magazine in which he proclaimed, “As I have repeatedly stated to leading personalities of the Vatican, I am ready to go to Auschwitz any time, if faced with the alternative of conversion or death.”

Edward Kaplan (citing Schuster’s notes on record at AJC/Paris) writes that AJC European director, Zachariah Schuster warned Heschel that this outburst had been embarrassing to their Vatican collaborators but that Heschel replied undauntedly, “I had my own private reasons for making this remark.” Heschel later revealed what those private reasons were to Stern Gang terrorist, Geula Cohen in an interview which she conducted for the Israeli newspaper, Ma’ariv.

In interviewing Rabbi Abraham Heschel, Geula Cohen made reference to Heschel’s hysterical “ready to go to Auschwitz” statement saying she was proud of it, but that she would have handled it differently:

“This statement of yours made me proud. Yet, I would have written it differently, saying: ‘if this were the only way in which I would be permitted to live, I would have endeavored to send them [Christians] to Auschwitz.'”

Cohen relayed that Heschel was not shocked by her words, but explained that his statement was stronger than hers:

“Frankly, I assert that the statement on Auschwitz, of which you are proud, is the strongest statement possible, and it has shaken many people throughout the world.”

Heshel further clarified, explaining the private reasons he earlier said he had for making the “Auschwitz” statement:

“[Christians] correctly understood that I was comparing them to the Nazis. If I had made the statement in a straightforward fashion saying ‘you are Nazis,’ it would have sounded ridiculous. My style of writing is by hinting, because truth is in the depths. There are those who would like to attack their bodies. I want to attack their souls. Today, there is no longer any place for religious wars as such. Today there is occasion for conversation and discussion. Do you consider the desire to discuss a sign of weakness?” (Rabbi Abraham Heschel, interviewed by Geula Cohen for Ma’ariv, January 4, 1965 as translated by AJC/Paris)

And there you have the motivation behind “dialogue” with “elder brothers” so succinctly summed up by one of the greatest pioneers of interfaith “dialogue” who participated in the writing of a Church council document, Nostra Aetate. Rabbinic warfare against Christian souls is not fought with guns and bombs, but with “conversation” and “discussion.”

Here we see the subtlety of rabbinic warfare–utterly undefended against–even as the rabbis conscribe their spiritually conquered prisoners of war and their resources to fight their war against the specter of “Islamofascist” “Amalek.”

Vatican II Kabbalist Sage, Rabbi Abraham Heschel: "I Want to Attack Their Souls"

December 22, 2007
Rabbi Abraham Heschel with Cardinal Augustin Bea

Returning to the biography of the Hasidic change agent, Rabbi Abraham Heschel (Spiritual Radical, by Edward K. Kaplan, Yale University Press). In this book is an account of an interview of Rabbi Heschel during the time the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate, which Heschel collaborated on, was being deliberated. The interview reveals an attitude of remarkable hostility to Christians, which should come as no surprise to those knowledgeable of the rabbinic tradition. What may surprise some (but shouldn’t at this point) is that such a hostile character would be invited by Vatican officials to participate in the writing of a Church council document.

First some background: In Heschel’s many meetings with Vatican officials regarding Nostra Aetate, mostly with Augustin Bea, but including a secretive meeting with Paul VI, Heschel was most adamant that the document should clearly proclaim his belief that it is unacceptable for Christians to seek the conversion of “Jews.” Heschel’s chutzpah in peddling this absurd idea (which consequently would undercut Christ’s incarnation, evangelical mission and sacrifice) went to the extreme of appealing to the non-Biblical, relativistic, Talmudic principle mipnei darchai shalom during his meeting with Paul VI.

During the deliberations, a draft of the Nostra Aetate document was leaked to the press which did not include the prohibition against converting “Jews” which Heschel desired. This infuriated Heschel, and in response he wrote an editorial published by the New York Times and Time magazine in which he proclaimed, “As I have repeatedly stated to leading personalities of the Vatican, I am ready to go to Auschwitz any time, if faced with the alternative of conversion or death.”

Edward Kaplan (citing Schuster’s notes on record at AJC/Paris) writes that AJC European director, Zachariah Schuster warned Heschel that this outburst had been embarrassing to their Vatican collaborators but that Heschel replied undauntedly, “I had my own private reasons for making this remark.” Heschel later revealed what those private reasons were to Stern Gang terrorist, Geula Cohen in an interview which she conducted for the Israeli newspaper, Ma’ariv.

In interviewing Rabbi Abraham Heschel, Geula Cohen made reference to Heschel’s hysterical “ready to go to Auschwitz” statement saying she was proud of it, but that she would have handled it differently:

“This statement of yours made me proud. Yet, I would have written it differently, saying: ‘if this were the only way in which I would be permitted to live, I would have endeavored to send them [Christians] to Auschwitz.'”

Cohen relayed that Heschel was not shocked by her words, but explained that his statement was stronger than hers:

“Frankly, I assert that the statement on Auschwitz, of which you are proud, is the strongest statement possible, and it has shaken many people throughout the world.”

Heshel further clarified, explaining the private reasons he earlier said he had for making the “Auschwitz” statement:

“[Christians] correctly understood that I was comparing them to the Nazis. If I had made the statement in a straightforward fashion saying ‘you are Nazis,’ it would have sounded ridiculous. My style of writing is by hinting, because truth is in the depths. There are those who would like to attack their bodies. I want to attack their souls. Today, there is no longer any place for religious wars as such. Today there is occasion for conversation and discussion. Do you consider the desire to discuss a sign of weakness?” (Rabbi Abraham Heschel, interviewed by Geula Cohen for Ma’ariv, January 4, 1965 as translated by AJC/Paris)

And there you have the motivation behind “dialogue” with “elder brothers” so succinctly summed up by one of the greatest pioneers of interfaith “dialogue” who participated in the writing of a Church council document, Nostra Aetate. Rabbinic warfare against Christian souls is not fought with guns and bombs, but with “conversation” and “discussion.”

Here we see the subtlety of rabbinic warfare–utterly undefended against–even as the rabbis conscribe their spiritually conquered prisoners of war and their resources to fight their war against the specter of “Islamofascist” “Amalek.”

Vatican II Kabbalist Sage, Rabbi Abraham Heschel: "I Want to Attack Their Souls"

December 22, 2007
Rabbi Abraham Heschel with Cardinal Augustin Bea

Returning to the biography of the Hasidic change agent, Rabbi Abraham Heschel (Spiritual Radical, by Edward K. Kaplan, Yale University Press). In this book is an account of an interview of Rabbi Heschel during the time the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate, which Heschel collaborated on, was being deliberated. The interview reveals an attitude of remarkable hostility to Christians, which should come as no surprise to those knowledgeable of the rabbinic tradition. What may surprise some (but shouldn’t at this point) is that such a hostile character would be invited by Vatican officials to participate in the writing of a Church council document.

First some background: In Heschel’s many meetings with Vatican officials (as an agent of the American Jewish Comittee) regarding Nostra Aetate, mostly with Augustin Bea, but including a secretive meeting with Paul VI, Heschel was most adamant that the document should clearly proclaim his belief that it is unacceptable for Christians to seek the conversion of “Jews.” Heschel’s chutzpah in peddling this absurd idea (which consequently would undercut Christ’s incarnation, evangelical mission and sacrifice) went to the extreme of appealing to the non-Biblical, relativistic, Talmudic anti-principle mipnei darchai shalom during his meeting with Paul VI.

During the deliberations, a draft of the Nostra Aetate document was leaked to the press which did not include the prohibition against converting “Jews” which Heschel desired. This infuriated Heschel, and in response he wrote an editorial published by the New York Times and Time magazine in which he proclaimed, “As I have repeatedly stated to leading personalities of the Vatican, I am ready to go to Auschwitz any time, if faced with the alternative of conversion or death.”

Edward Kaplan (citing Schuster’s notes on record at AJC/Paris) writes that AJC European director, Zachariah Schuster warned Heschel that this outburst had been embarrassing to their Vatican collaborators but that Heschel replied undauntedly, “I had my own private reasons for making this remark.” Heschel later revealed what those private reasons were to Stern Gang terrorist, Geula Cohen in an interview which she conducted for the Israeli newspaper, Ma’ariv.

In interviewing Rabbi Abraham Heschel, Geula Cohen made reference to Heschel’s hysterical “ready to go to Auschwitz” statement saying she was proud of it, but that she would have handled it differently:

“This statement of yours made me proud. Yet, I would have written it differently, saying: ‘if this were the only way in which I would be permitted to live, I would have endeavored to send them [Christians] to Auschwitz.'”

Cohen relayed that Heschel was not shocked by her words, but explained that his statement was stronger than hers:

“Frankly, I assert that the statement on Auschwitz, of which you are proud, is the strongest statement possible, and it has shaken many people throughout the world.”

Heshel further clarified, explaining the private reasons he earlier said he had for making the “Auschwitz” statement:

“[Christians] correctly understood that I was comparing them to the Nazis. If I had made the statement in a straightforward fashion saying ‘you are Nazis,’ it would have sounded ridiculous. My style of writing is by hinting, because truth is in the depths. There are those who would like to attack their bodies. I want to attack their souls. Today, there is no longer any place for religious wars as such. Today there is occasion for conversation and discussion. Do you consider the desire to discuss a sign of weakness?” (Rabbi Abraham Heschel, interviewed by Geula Cohen for Ma’ariv, January 4, 1965 as translated by AJC/Paris)

And there you have the motivation behind “dialogue” with “elder brothers” so succinctly summed up by one of the greatest pioneers of interfaith “dialogue” who participated in the writing of a Church council document, Nostra Aetate. Rabbinic warfare against Christian souls is not fought with guns and bombs, but with “conversation” and “discussion.”

Here we see the subtlety of rabbinic warfare–utterly undefended against–even as the rabbis conscribe their spiritually conquered prisoners of war and their resources to fight their war against the specter of “Islamofascist” “Amalek.”