Archive for the ‘Gregory Baum’ Category

In Benedict’s Own Words: His Latin Good Friday Prayer

November 22, 2010

An except from Pope Benedict XVI’s new book, Light of the World:

… naturally what happened in the Third Reich struck us as Germans, and drove us all the more to look at the people of Israel with humility, shame, and love.

In my theological formation, these things were interwoven, and marked the pathway of my theological thought…

A change also seemed necessary to me in the ancient liturgy. In fact, the formula was such as to truly wound the Jews, and it certainly did not express in a positive way the great, profound unity between Old and New Testament. For this reason, I thought that a modification was necessary in the ancient liturgy, in particular in reference to our relationship with our Jewish friends. I modified it in such a way that it contained our faith, that Christ is salvation for all. That there do not exist two ways of salvation, and that therefore Christ is also the savior of the Jews, and not only of the pagans. But also in such a way that one did not pray directly for the conversion of the Jews in a missionary sense, but that the Lord might hasten the historic hour in which we will all be united. For this reason, the arguments used polemically against me by a series of theologians are rash, and do not do justice to what was done.

Obviously, this prayer is not a papal masterstroke and I don’t anticipate a retraction of The Remnant’s sugar coating of this poisonous prayer even after the Pope himself has admitted its intention is entirely eschatological and does not desire conversion at the present time.

I stand by what I wrote of this prayer in February 2008:

… The problem with the new prayer, despite its hearkening to Romans 11;25-26, is that it takes the present-time intention of the original prayer and thrusts it into the realm of mystery and prophesy dealing with the future. The intention and meaning of the original prayer was perfectly clear: Christians pray for the conversion of the Jews here and now. Romans 11;25-26 deals with a mystery prophesied to take place in the future at the last days. The message seems to be that we should pray for the end-times to come quickly so the “Jews” will convert, and that they don’t need Christ in the meantime. This is not, nor has it ever been the position of the Church. The Church always sought the conversion of Jews–real and fake “Jews” alike–not just at the second coming, but from the Pentecost until the time of the Second Vatican Council–at all times. St. Vincent Ferrer and all of the evangelists knew nothing of the new theology of the “elder brothers.” Apparently, he was wrong?

Benedict wrote a new prayer as a means of remedying what he viewed in the traditional prayer’s intention of present time conversion as “a wound to the Jews.” What he has done is severely wound Jesus’ mission and His Gospel and the spiritual welfare of these ‘Jews’ that he calls ‘elder brothers.’ If the Pope’s role as shepherd and vicar of Christ has any meaning at all it is to seek the salvation of ALL souls. But he has contrived a dispensation from the Church’s mission for a particular class of people just as Vatican II peritus Gregory Baum said should be done at a 1974 B’nai B’rith conference titled, “Auschwitz: A New Era?”:

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.

Benedict says that his German ‘Holocaust’ “humility and shame,” among other things, “marked the pathway of [his] theological thought” causing him to see traditional prayer for the conversion of “the people of Israel” as “a wound to the Jews” and so, “a modification was necessary.” There’s little difference between what Benedict XVI says and what Gregory Baum says other than the degree of subtlety. The message is clear: Because of ‘The Holocaust’ Christians, not “Jews,” must be converted. The intention within Christian prayer must change.

It’s not Christian to await the conversion of a remnant of Jews in the last days and to disregard the spiritual welfare of real or counterfeit Jews until then. Any Christian who buys this message will have been converted, and that would be a satanic masterstroke.

Advertisements

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

April 26, 2010

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

"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