Archive for the ‘Relativism’ Category

Vatican ‘Jew’ Enforces Vatican II

May 4, 2012
This should be read in tandem with: Opus Pharisaei

“One must take this occasion to express the deep hope that leniency will be denied” to anyone who does not accept the [Second Vatican] council’s teaching and “that there will be no being content with fake, quasi-adhesions accompanied by evident verbal and mental reservations to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council in general and to ‘Nostra Aetate’ in particular.”

Last year we noted that the Israeli tribalist Fr. David Jaeger was installed as a prelate auditor of the Roman Rota, the highest court of the Catholic Church. We noted Jaeger’s candid admission that at the Vatican court he would be as loyal to the people of Counterfeit Israel and the nation of Counterfeit Israel as any other Israeli working for a supranational body, mentioning the interesting example of Israelis working at the International Monetary Fund as a reference as to how his tribal loyalty would manifest itself as he works at the Vatican’s highest court. We appreciate the candor because it reveals the farce of the court historian portrayal of the court ‘Jew’ as a turncoat and lays bare the previously well hidden reality.

Jaeger was a key figure in the Vatican’s official recognition of Counterfeit Israel of 1993, a typically raw deal where the gangster state was afforded undeserved credibility by the venerable 2000 year-old Church institution and Catholics got nothing except spat upon. This can only last so long, however. Whatever residual credibility the Vatican may be coasting on presently that was not lost in the pedophilia scandal is being squandered entirely in the massive Zionist vortex of consumption.

Jaeger’s suggestion that without Vatican II and Nostra Aetate ‘The Jews’ are in danger of annihilation by violent mobs of ‘non-Jews’ fueled by Christian theological hatred of ‘Jews’ is itself a form of hatred of the historical Church and the Christian people; a blood libel. Always the double standard. And Jaeger’s appeals to victimhood as he sits at the head of the Vatican’s highest court inciting an inquisition against Catholics strains chutzpah beyond most previous wild examples.

Jeager’s work, like that of the misnamed ‘Opus Dei,’ is the relativisation away of the the Church’s past authoritative teachings and making an absolute out of a  document lobbied for by haters of the Church and the Gospel--Jules Isaac, B’nai B’rith, AJC, WJC, etc., etc,–and co-written by a rabbi who admitted that he wanted to attack Christians’ souls.

Church should not accept members who deny Vatican II, official says

ROME (CNS) — The Second Vatican Council’s teaching, particularly on Judaism and other religions, is rooted in traditional Christian theology and the Bible, and the Catholic Church should not offer concessions to those who do not accept its teaching, said an Israeli-born Franciscan who serves as a judge on a top Vatican court.

Msgr. David Jaeger, a judge at the Roman Rota, defined as worrying a tendency, “here and there in Catholicism, to look leniently upon stray groups that are marginal but well-publicized who denounce the doctrine of the council, including the declaration ‘Nostra Aetate'” on the relationship of the church to non-Christian religions.

Msgr. Jaeger, who grew up in a Jewish family, spoke about “Nostra Aetate” during a conference on the Second Vatican Council at Rome’s Opus Dei-run Holy Cross University May 3-4.

“While often presented as if it were absolutely new,” he said, the teaching of “Nostra Aetate” “perfectly corresponds to the most ancient intuitions of Christian theology” when it affirms “there can be, and in particular cases, are elements of truth and holiness” in other religions, he said. In addition, the document emphasized that Judaism [the religion which teaches Jesus got what he deserved at Calvary] has a special status, which “already was extensively explained by St. Paul, particularly in the Epistle to the Romans” [a ridiculous falsehood. St. Paul addresses a remnant of Israelites, not the Pharisaic religion of Judaism that revels in responsibility for Jesus’ execution].

The council’s document explained the church’s “doctrine on Judaism, the only religion which, while not knowing Christ, has its origins in biblical revelation, which is why the church does not regard it simply as a ‘non-Christian religion,’ but ascribes to it a unique status,” Msgr. Jaeger said [falsely. Judaism has its origins in the Pharisees and the Mishnah and their making the Bible of no effect].

While recognizing the unique and special relationship between God and the Jewish people, he said, the council did not say say that Judaism was a “parallel path to salvation” and it did not deny that somehow, in the end, all salvation would be accomplished through Christ.

Obviously motivated by the horrors of the Holocaust, but also by centuries of injustices and persecution of Jews “by those who called themselves Christians and believed they therefore could justify their brutality, the declaration took care to severely condemn such conduct and to highlight the complete illegitimacy of supporting it with any reference to Christianity,” he said.

“The proof of Nostra Aetate’s effectiveness is that it seems strange to have to say it today,” the monsignor said.

However, he said, “One must take this occasion to express the deep hope that leniency will be denied” to anyone who does not accept the council’s teaching and “that there will be no being content with fake, quasi-adhesions accompanied by evident verbal and mental reservations to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council in general and to ‘Nostra Aetate’ in particular.”

“In fact,” he said, “the extreme gravity of the counter-witness of those who have, for centuries, abused the name of Christ and the term Christian to persecute and oppress the Jews must never be forgotten or underestimated in any way.”

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201832.htm 

Also see:

Opus Pharisaei

Advertisements

AIPAC Removes Constitutional Obstacles to War; Judaic Dialectics

March 14, 2007

EDITOR’S NOTE: The U.S. founding fathers, in their wisdom, made constitutional provisions specifically intended to prevent a warmongering tyrant president from running amok, as G. W. Bush under the influence of his Court “Jews” and philo-Judaic advisors has. AIPAC, in it’s subversion, has sought to remove those constitutional provisions and to block any attempts to reinforce them. This shouldn’t surprise anyone who knows that “Israel” doesn’t even have a constitution. That’s right. There’s just the dialectic process and fluid case law. It’s government based on Talmudic pilpul (dialectics), which brings us to this article and the dialectics which it’s writer applies.

Note the highlighted text. This is what most people would consider “balanced” reporting. But is it though? Are both positions equally reasonable and worthy of consideration? That’s what the term “balance” implies, doesn’t it? This is only a matter of constitutional principles, and who takes those old things seriously anymore, right? Or, is the Zionist position–that the U.S. Constitution should be disregarded because it’s an obstacle to Zionist warmongering–really equal to the position which maintains that the Constitutional principles that the U.S. was founded upon should be upheld?

No, of course, those are not equal positions. To represent these two positions as equally valid and worthy of consideration is no different than relativising child rape with traditional Christian parenting. That’s precisely how rabbinic dialectics work. And there is a point to it all: the synthesis.

In this case the Zionists have moved closer to their goal of the destruction of Iran. And any irrational belief there is among the goyim that it’s perfectly reasonable for the Zionists to destroy Iran while trashing the U.S. Constitution in the process is the synthesis that the dialectic process has yielded. Through the process of dialectics the US has gone from a nation based upon Constitutional principles to a nation which disregards and overturns it’s Constitutional principles and accepts actions completely at odds with the U.S. Constitution for the sake of an enemy of the American people as perfectly reasonable.

Now, can you see how that process has also worked within the Church?

AIPAC backed removal of Iran war provision

AIPAC lobbying helped remove a provision from a bill that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval for war against Iran. A number of congressional sources confirmed that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee backed dropping the provision from the Iraq war spending bill introduced Tuesday by Democrats. The bill ties funding to deadlines for withdrawal from Iraq.

AIPAC and a number of Democrats close to Israel said the provision would have hampered the president as he attempted to leverage Iran into backing down from its alleged nuclear weapon plans. Others said the provision simply reasserted the constitutional role of the U.S. Congress in declaring war that is believed to have been eroded by Bush during the Iraq war.

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/100580.html

AIPAC Removes Constitutional Obstacles to War; Judaic Dialectics

March 14, 2007

EDITOR’S NOTE: The U.S. founding fathers, in their wisdom, made constitutional provisions specifically intended to prevent a warmongering tyrant president from running amok, as G. W. Bush under the influence of his Court “Jews” and philo-Judaic advisors has. AIPAC, in it’s subversion, has sought to remove those constitutional provisions and to block any attempts to reinforce them. This shouldn’t surprise anyone who knows that “Israel” doesn’t even have a constitution. That’s right. There’s just the dialectic process and fluid case law. It’s government based on Talmudic pilpul (dialectics), which brings us to this article and the dialectics which it’s writer applies.

Note the highlighted text. This is what most people would consider “balanced” reporting. But is it though? Are both positions equally reasonable and worthy of consideration? That’s what the term “balance” implies, doesn’t it? This is only a matter of constitutional principles, and who takes those old things seriously anymore, right? Or, is the Zionist position–that the U.S. Constitution should be disregarded because it’s an obstacle to Zionist warmongering–really equal to the position which maintains that the Constitutional principles that the U.S. was founded upon should be upheld?

No, of course, those are not equal positions. To represent these two positions as equally valid and worthy of consideration is no different than relativising child rape with traditional Christian parenting. That’s precisely how rabbinic dialectics work. And there is a point to it all: the synthesis.

In this case the Zionists have moved closer to their goal of the destruction of Iran. And any irrational belief there is among the goyim that it’s perfectly reasonable for the Zionists to destroy Iran while trashing the U.S. Constitution in the process is the synthesis that the dialectic process has yielded. Through the process of dialectics the US has gone from a nation based upon Constitutional principles to a nation which disregards and overturns it’s Constitutional principles and accepts actions completely at odds with the U.S. Constitution for the sake of an enemy of the American people as perfectly reasonable.

Now, can you see how that process has also worked within the Church?

AIPAC backed removal of Iran war provision

AIPAC lobbying helped remove a provision from a bill that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval for war against Iran. A number of congressional sources confirmed that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee backed dropping the provision from the Iraq war spending bill introduced Tuesday by Democrats. The bill ties funding to deadlines for withdrawal from Iraq.

AIPAC and a number of Democrats close to Israel said the provision would have hampered the president as he attempted to leverage Iran into backing down from its alleged nuclear weapon plans. Others said the provision simply reasserted the constitutional role of the U.S. Congress in declaring war that is believed to have been eroded by Bush during the Iraq war.

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/100580.html