Archive for the ‘Walter Kasper’ Category

Another Vatican II Peritus Confirmed to be Estranged from the Gospel

January 4, 2011

From Cardinal Biffi comes testimony of a speech prepared by Vatican II peritus, Fr. Giuseppi Dossetti containing plain dual-covenant theology.

A few comments: Cardinal Biffi’s assessment of a grave distortion of the Gospel at the most fundamental level is exceedingly mild.

The “contemporary German author” Cardinal Biffi has in mind is likely Jürgen Moltmann, although, it could be any given German Cardinal or Bishop, or a certain German Pope who is in the habit of reckless statements and acts that betray an ambivalence towards the Gospel at best.

This is useful information but in the big picture it seems to be a limited hang-out for English speakers. Could Cardinal Biffi be unaware of his neighbor, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini’s, L’assurdo di Auschwitz e il Mistero della Croce and many other such works? Could he be unaware that one of John Paul II’s first papal acts was to offer a Mass at Auschwitz and proclaim, “I kneel at this Golgotha of the modern world”? Does this not at least represent a grave alteration of Christology fatally compromising the whole perspective of “sacred doctrine”? Dual-covenant (“Noahide”) theology and the Calvary-relativising theology of Auschwitz are tightly intertwined within the contemporary German school of philosophy/theology that Biffi makes reference to which John Paul II and Benedict XVI were certainly influenced by.

That such violence to the Gospel could be excused as a concession to “Jewish-Christian dialogue” only demonstrates the problem inherent to that “dialogue.”

… AN UNPRESENTABLE CHRISTOLOGY

At the end of October 1991, [Vatican II peritus, Fr. Giuseppi] Dossetti graciously brought me the speech I had commissioned from him for the centenary of Lercaro’s birth. “Examine it, change it, add, remove freely,” he told me. He was certainly sincere: at that moment, the man of God and faithful priest was speaking.

Unfortunately, I found something that wasn’t right. And it was the idea, presented favorably by Dossetti, that just as Jesus is the Savior of the Christians, so also the Torah, the Mosaic law, is also currently the path of salvation for the Jews. The assertion was shared by a contemporary German author, and was probably favored by Dossetti because he saw its usefulness for Jewish-Christian dialogue.

But with chief responsibility for orthodoxy in my Church, I could never have accepted putting into doubt the revealed truth that Jesus Christ is the only Savior of all. […]

“Fr. Giuseppe,” I said to him, “haven’t you ever read the pages of Saint Paul, and the narration of the Acts of the Apostles? Doesn’t it seem to you that in the first Christian community, the problem was exactly the opposite? In those days, it was accepted peacefully and without a doubt that Jesus was the Redeemer of the Jews; if anything, what was discussed was whether the gentiles could also be fully reached by his salvific action.”

Besides, it should be enough – I thought to myself – not to forget a little phrase from the letter to the Romans, where it says that the Gospel of Christ “is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: for Jew first, and then Greek” (cf. Rm. 1:16).

Dossetti was not in the habit of renouncing any of his convictions. Here in the end he gave in when I warned him that, if necessary, I would interrupt and publicly contradict him; and he acquiesced to say only this: “It does not seem consistent with the thinking of Saint Paul to say that the way of salvation for Christians is Christ, and for Jews is the Mosaic Law.” There was no longer anything erroneous in this statement, and I did not raise any objections, even if I would have preferred that there had not even been a reference to such an aberrant theological opinion.

This “incident” made me reflect a great deal, and I immediately judged it to be of extreme gravity, although I did not speak of it with anyone at the time. Any alteration of Christology fatally compromises the whole perspective of “sacred doctrine.” In a man of faith and of sincere religious life like Fr. Dossetti, it was plausible that the misstep was the result of a mistaken and inexact general methodological approach … (“Cardinal Biffi Breaks Another Taboo. On Dossetti,” Sandro Magister, Chiesa, January 3, 2011)

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1346167?eng=y

Also see:

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

Kasper’s "Judeo-Christian" Deception

February 24, 2008

Catholic Church Conservation blog has provided the following translation of a statement made by Cardinal Walter Kasper on Radio Vatikan:

Curial Cardinal, Walter Kasper has given the assessment that Christian-Islamic dialogue continues to be difficult. There should be in this respect be no illusions, said the President of the Pontifical Council for Unity on Friday at a meeting of the Academy of Sciences in Mainz. Muslims derived from the Koran a different understanding of people. He stressed that the Catholic Church wants dialogue and cooperation with the moderate Muslims. With the radicals, however, this was not possible. No false “idea of harmony ” should be allowed to develop, said Kasper. Also, Islam and Judaism are not on an equal footing. Christianity was without the Jewish religion not possible, however, Islam was founded after Christianity.

http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2008/02/radio-vatikan-deutschsprachige.html

http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/ted/Articolo.asp?c=188586

Walter Kasper is a protege of the Hasidic philosopher, Martin Buber and the Pope’s liaison to the rabbis, so we know that he is well informed on Judaism and therefore we can rule out ignorance here. Kasper is well aware that the authoritative texts of Judaism post-date Christ, a fact which undercuts Jewish-Christian dialogue by the same argument he applies to dialogue with Muslims. Furthermore, “Jews” through their Bible-nullifying Talmud and Kabbalah, derive an understanding of humanity entirely incompatible with Christianity–precisely the argument Kasper applies to Muslims and the Koran in claiming there is a poor basis for dialogue with Muslims.

Can you spot the other aspects of the deception in Kasper’s statement above?

If not, read the following:

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/02/whos-interest-does-vatican-represent.html

Who stands to benefit from Kasper’s deceptive statement?

Kasper’s "Judeo-Christian" Deception

February 24, 2008

Catholic Church Conservation blog has provided the following translation of a statement made by Cardinal Walter Kasper on Radio Vatikan:

Curial Cardinal, Walter Kasper has given the assessment that Christian-Islamic dialogue continues to be difficult. There should be in this respect be no illusions, said the President of the Pontifical Council for Unity on Friday at a meeting of the Academy of Sciences in Mainz. Muslims derived from the Koran a different understanding of people. He stressed that the Catholic Church wants dialogue and cooperation with the moderate Muslims. With the radicals, however, this was not possible. No false “idea of harmony ” should be allowed to develop, said Kasper. Also, Islam and Judaism are not on an equal footing. Christianity was without the Jewish religion not possible, however, Islam was founded after Christianity.

http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2008/02/radio-vatikan-deutschsprachige.html

http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/ted/Articolo.asp?c=188586

Walter Kasper is a protege of the Hasidic philosopher, Martin Buber and the Pope’s liaison to the rabbis, so we know that he is well informed on Judaism and therefore we can rule out ignorance here. Kasper is well aware that the authoritative texts of Judaism post-date Christ, a fact which undercuts Jewish-Christian dialogue by the same argument he applies to dialogue with Muslims. Furthermore, “Jews” through their Bible-nullifying Talmud and Kabbalah, derive an understanding of humanity entirely incompatible with Christianity–precisely the argument Kasper applies to Muslims and the Koran in claiming there is a poor basis for dialogue with Muslims.

Can you spot the other aspects of the deception in Kasper’s statement above?

If not, read the following:

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/02/whos-interest-does-vatican-represent.html

Who stands to benefit from Kasper’s deceptive statement?

Chaos and Transformation

February 9, 2008

The chaos caused by the recent replacement of a prayer from the ancient Catholic liturgy due to pressure from Judaic organizations has become a perfect opportunity for rebirth, reinvention and transformation. As we have seen that “The Remnant Resistance” now provides support for the characters they formerly resisted against, now, even the foaming-at-the-mouth change-agent, Walter Kasper is transformed in the other direction. Watch this protégé of Hasidic philosopher Martin Buber–whom Benedict also is a student of–as he is transformed into a tough-talking “defender of the faith”:

“We think that reasonably this prayer cannot be an obstacle to dialogue because it reflects the faith of the Church and, furthermore, Jews have prayers in their liturgical texts that we Catholics don’t like,”

“I must say that I don’t understand why Jews cannot accept that we can make use of our freedom to formulate our prayers,” Kasper, a German, told the Corriere della Sera. (Adi Schwartz, “Vatican rejects criticism of new prayer for Jewish conversion” Haaretz, 07/02/2008)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/952188.html

This is pure stagecraft between the rabbis and Kasper. But what is really taking place here? Walter Kasper is defending the altering of an ancient Catholic prayer which expressed pure, crystal clear, orthodox theology, to a novel, mysterious prayer intended to express Benedict’s Orwellian theology of the “elder brothers.”

And it is interesting to see Kasper state the plain fact that Judaic prayers and texts contain offenses against Christians. Although this hardly scratches the surface of the true nature of the Judaic tradition, it is yet another public admission from a prominent Cardinal that the texts of Judaism harbor real teachings of contempt towards Christians, even as he calls these haters of Christ “elder brothers in the faith” and supports “correction” of Catholic theology and liturgy to suit them.

I will remind readers that not very long ago, the story was that it was deemed “Jew hate” to claim that the texts of Judaism contained hateful passages against Christians. When a high-profile figure like Kasper states that fact publicly, it is clear evidence that we are in a new era of revelations. The information is now getting out there. The establishment won’t allow independent researchers to handle the information. They must control it themselves.

And how is the release of this information handled by Kasper? Just as it was handled by Cardinal George. The correct response should be outrage, ending of “dialogue” and a call for the rabbis to correct their hateful traditions. Kasper gives every indication that “dialogue” with the rabbis should continue, even though Catholics have nothing to gain from “religious relations” with rabbinic enemies of the faith in an arrangement where Catholic theology and tradition is “corrected” to suit rabbinic sensibilities while the rabbis keep their hateful traditions intact. If a banker threw a tantrum and threatened to tear up a 100% interest loan contract while the debtor begged him not to, that would not even begin to approach the insanity at play here.

The charade is plain and in the open for those with eyes to see.

Also read:

Cardinal George Induces the Double Mind

and

Pontifical Household Preacher: A Revelation and Obfuscation

Chaos and Transformation

February 9, 2008

The chaos caused by the recent replacement of a prayer from the ancient Catholic liturgy due to pressure from Judaic organizations has become a perfect opportunity for rebirth, reinvention and transformation. As we have seen that “The Remnant Resistance” now provides support for the characters they formerly resisted against, now, even the foaming-at-the-mouth change-agent, Walter Kasper is transformed in the other direction. Watch this protégé of Hasidic philosopher Martin Buber–whom Benedict also is a student of–as he is transformed into a tough-talking “defender of the faith”:

“We think that reasonably this prayer cannot be an obstacle to dialogue because it reflects the faith of the Church and, furthermore, Jews have prayers in their liturgical texts that we Catholics don’t like,”

“I must say that I don’t understand why Jews cannot accept that we can make use of our freedom to formulate our prayers,” Kasper, a German, told the Corriere della Sera. (Adi Schwartz, “Vatican rejects criticism of new prayer for Jewish conversion” Haaretz, 07/02/2008)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/952188.html

This is pure stagecraft between the rabbis and Kasper. But what is really taking place here? Walter Kasper is defending the altering of an ancient Catholic prayer which expressed pure, crystal clear, orthodox theology, to a novel, mysterious prayer intended to express Benedict’s Orwellian theology of the “elder brothers.”

And it is interesting to see Kasper state the plain fact that Judaic prayers and texts contain offenses against Christians. Although this hardly scratches the surface of the true nature of the Judaic tradition, it is yet another public admission from a prominent Cardinal that the texts of Judaism harbor real teachings of contempt towards Christians, even as he calls these haters of Christ “elder brothers in the faith” and supports “correction” of Catholic theology and liturgy to suit them.

I will remind readers that not very long ago, the story was that it was deemed “Jew hate” to claim that the texts of Judaism contained hateful passages against Christians. When a high-profile figure like Kasper states that fact publicly, it is clear evidence that we are in a new era of revelations. The information is now getting out there. The establishment won’t allow independent researchers to handle the information. They must control it themselves.

And how is the release of this information handled by Kasper? Just as it was handled by Cardinal George. The correct response should be outrage, ending of “dialogue” and a call for the rabbis to correct their hateful traditions. Kasper gives every indication that “dialogue” with the rabbis should continue, even though Catholics have nothing to gain from “religious relations” with rabbinic enemies of the faith in an arrangement where Catholic theology and tradition is “corrected” to suit rabbinic sensibilities while the rabbis keep their hateful traditions intact. If a banker threw a tantrum and threatened to tear up a 100% interest loan contract while the debtor begged him not to, that would not even begin to approach the insanity at play here.

The charade is plain and in the open for those with eyes to see.

Also read:

Cardinal George Induces the Double Mind

and

Pontifical Household Preacher: A Revelation and Obfuscation

Walter Kasper’s Statement on the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews

February 9, 2008

Catholic Church Conservation blog has provided the following translation of Cardinal Walter Kasper’s statement on the new Good Friday Prayer for the Jews. I’m certain that those who are familiar with Benedict’s theology of the “elder brothers” will see that theology reinforced in this statement. For “Jews,” conversion to Christ is not a pressing issue. That can wait until the Apocalypse. For now, we must only be concerned with “reconciliation” with the “elder brothers,” always respecting their “faithfulness to the covenant” and working together “for peace and justice in the world.”

For those who have a working knowledge of the actual anti-biblical Talmudic and Kabbalistic traditions of the “elder brothers,” this is a spiritual and temporal death sentence for Catholics. It also is cause for deprivation of the only possible means of salvation for Jews–both real Jews and the fake Jews whom Vatican prelates demand that we have “religious relations” with, that is, “religious relations” devoid of even the thought of evangelism.

And note that, as pointed out earlier, this change is a “correction” which is to say that there was error (“antisemitism”) in one of the most ancient prayers of the Catholic liturgy. Those who accuse the Catholic Church of harboring “teachings of contempt” have scored a huge victory here.

“The Holy Father, the Holy See, is aware that the history between Jews and Christians is a difficult and complicated history. We must take this into account, there are many sensitivities. Therefore, the prayer for the Good Friday has been corrected in the so-called old liturgy which is now the “extraordinary” liturgy. The blindness of the Jews was cited. This was perceived as insulting and the sentence has been deleted.

But on the other hand, the Pope did not remove what is specific to our faith, namely the belief in Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God, the Saviour of all people, which includes according to our belief also the Jews. The Pope wanted to express this Faith. This is not an obstacle for dialogue, because the dialogue presupposes that the identity of the Jewish faith and identity of the Christian faith can be mutually recognised and naturally, this leads to dialogue.

We have much in common with Jewish people, but this is a difference which you cannot ignore.

When the Pope presently speaks on the conversion of Jews, then you have to understand correctly. He cited literally the Eleventh Chapter of the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Romans. The apostle, says that we, as Christians, hope, when the fullness of pagans enters the church, then that Israel will completely convert. This is an eschatological hope for the end of the ages, which does not mean that we have the intention now to be missionaries to Jews as one sends missions to the heathens.

We have in the meantime now shoulder to shoulder to recognise our mutual diversity. We Christians must of course give testimony of our faith in Jesus the Christ. This is also a freedom of religion, which we have to be given to say and confess what we believe, as the Jews themselves have the opportunity to express their Faith. One could also say that in the place of the old language of contempt is now respect and mutual recognition in our diversity. With this difference, in faith in Jesus Christ, we must live and we must recognize, which does not exclude in any way that there are the many things on which we agree, the possibility of working together for peace and justice in the world.”

http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2008/02/cardinal-kaspers-statement-on-good.html

Walter Kasper’s Statement on the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews

February 9, 2008

Catholic Church Conservation blog has provided the following translation of Cardinal Walter Kasper’s statement on the new Good Friday Prayer for the Jews. I’m certain that those who are familiar with Benedict’s theology of the “elder brothers” will see that theology reinforced in this statement. For “Jews,” conversion to Christ is not a pressing issue. That can wait until the Apocalypse. For now, we must only be concerned with “reconciliation” with the “elder brothers,” always respecting their “faithfulness to the covenant” and working together “for peace and justice in the world.”

For those who have a working knowledge of the actual anti-biblical Talmudic and Kabbalistic traditions of the “elder brothers,” this is a spiritual and temporal death sentence for Catholics. It also is cause for deprivation of the only possible means of salvation for Jews–both real Jews and the fake Jews whom Vatican prelates demand that we have “religious relations” with, that is, “religious relations” devoid of even the thought of evangelism.

And note that, as pointed out earlier, this change is a “correction” which is to say that there was error (“antisemitism”) in one of the most ancient prayers of the Catholic liturgy. Those who accuse the Catholic Church of harboring “teachings of contempt” have scored a huge victory here.

“The Holy Father, the Holy See, is aware that the history between Jews and Christians is a difficult and complicated history. We must take this into account, there are many sensitivities. Therefore, the prayer for the Good Friday has been corrected in the so-called old liturgy which is now the “extraordinary” liturgy. The blindness of the Jews was cited. This was perceived as insulting and the sentence has been deleted.

But on the other hand, the Pope did not remove what is specific to our faith, namely the belief in Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God, the Saviour of all people, which includes according to our belief also the Jews. The Pope wanted to express this Faith. This is not an obstacle for dialogue, because the dialogue presupposes that the identity of the Jewish faith and identity of the Christian faith can be mutually recognised and naturally, this leads to dialogue.

We have much in common with Jewish people, but this is a difference which you cannot ignore.

When the Pope presently speaks on the conversion of Jews, then you have to understand correctly. He cited literally the Eleventh Chapter of the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Romans. The apostle, says that we, as Christians, hope, when the fullness of pagans enters the church, then that Israel will completely convert. This is an eschatological hope for the end of the ages, which does not mean that we have the intention now to be missionaries to Jews as one sends missions to the heathens.

We have in the meantime now shoulder to shoulder to recognise our mutual diversity. We Christians must of course give testimony of our faith in Jesus the Christ. This is also a freedom of religion, which we have to be given to say and confess what we believe, as the Jews themselves have the opportunity to express their Faith. One could also say that in the place of the old language of contempt is now respect and mutual recognition in our diversity. With this difference, in faith in Jesus Christ, we must live and we must recognize, which does not exclude in any way that there are the many things on which we agree, the possibility of working together for peace and justice in the world.”

http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2008/02/cardinal-kaspers-statement-on-good.html

The Dialogical Path Towards Disaster

December 3, 2007

The dialectical method (“dialogical reasoning”) in practice between Vatican prelates and the rabbis in recent decades, a type of pilpul or Kabbalistic sorcery which has effected radical change in every aspect of Catholicism, was expounded upon by Kasper and Ratzinger mentor, Hasidic philosopher, Martin Buber in his book, I and Thou. I highly recommend this book to those seeking to understand the illogic in “Jewish”-Catholic dialogue. I would say this book is far more influential in the thinking of Benedict, Kasper, et al, than most books commonly ascribed.

A lecture recently given by Massimo Giuliani, a professor of Jewish Studies and Philosophical Hermeneutics at the University of Trent, at the Pontifical Gregorian University of Rome titled, “The Shoah as a Shadow upon Jewish-Christian Dialogue and as a Stimulus to It” illustrates how this Kabbalistic sorcery works.

It is stated that:

“the Shoah” is “the climax of a centuries-long history of discrimination and persecution against the Jewish people in the West.”

I would argue that the Nazi persecution of Judaic persons during W.W.II was a reaction (antithesis) to Judaic Bolshevism and Communism (thesis); an unsurprising event in an increasingly antagonized and deChristianized Europe (synthesis). How does one expect “the West” to be Christian when Christianity is stripped from it? The Nazi persecutions of Judaic persons was the climax of a dialectic between utterly anti-Christian ideologies, Communism and Nazism, set in motion by the Judaic Zionist, Moses Hess (see: Judaism Discovered pp. 853-878 or Revisionist History Newsletter no. 40: The Zionist Who Founded Communism and Revisionist History Newsletter No. 39: The Russian Roots of Nazism).

Nevertheless, it is stated that this ridiculous alleged truth is painful to acknowledge, but “all ethically formed consciouses” accept this alleged truth and the pain inherent to it and that acceptance of both:

“are already an integral part of the dialogic commitment. In other words they are already constitutive and constructive elements of that readiness to listen and to interact with the other, without which no dialogue, no encounter is possible. Indeed, in the reciprocal attention of Christians and Jews the memory of the pain that was inflicted and was endured during the Shoah, and the anxiety induced by the gradual realization of the first and the more remote causes that made that tragedy possible, truly represent necessary conditions to ensure that our attention is authentic and the dialogue is sincere.”

In other words, the game is rigged. The thesis is discarded and the antithesis becomes the starting point for the dialogue. The dialogue–the dialogical process– must begin with the “pain of acknowledgement” of alleged Christian guilt for the “Shoah” as it’s genesis, rather than, for instance, the Judaic-Bolshevik terror in Russia that preceded “the Shoah,” which many would say is a culmination of millennia worth of Judaic discrimination against Christians, but hardly it’s climax. No:

“… in this dialogue Christians “begin” from this memory [of ‘The Shoah’], well expressed by the document of March 16th, 1998 called We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah, signed by the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews.”

In such a relativist game, it is rather comical to see such a rigid, absolute first principle. But there it is: “The Shoah,” the point of reference by which all (and I do mean ALL) things are evaluated.

The lecturer, dead seriously, demonstrates what absurd lengths this is taken to by quoting Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger:

The drama of the Shoah has placed the whole question [of Christian Old Testament hermeneutics] in another light. [The Pontifical Biblical Commission] faced two main problems: After all that has happened, can the Christians continue in their untroubled claim that they are the legitimate heirs of the Bible of Israel? Can they continue with a Christian interpretation of this Bible, or should they rather, respectfully and humbly, abandon a claim, which, in the light of all that has taken place, necessarily smacks of presumption? And here we also find a second problem: Is it perhaps the case that the presentation of the Jews and of the Jewish people in the very text of the New Testament contributed to the creation of a hostility against this people, which favored the ideology of those who wanted to suppress it?”

To which the lecturer adds the notion that Christians are “forever spiritually linked” to the people of the Talmud and in light of “The Shoah” must rework every aspect of Christian religion:

“These are questions, therefore, that induce Christians – provided they have understood the deep significance of the greatest tragedy in Jewish history, and in virtue of the link that spiritually and forever ties the people of the Bible and the Talmud to those baptized in the name of Jesus Christ – to rethink their very identity and their own interpretation of revealed Scripture, and thus to rediscover “the holy root that supports us,” that Israel “after the flesh” (in other words, in history), which the Apostle Paul discusses with the highest theological and existential pathos. The Shoah, from being an obstacle to Jewish-Christian dialogue, has become not only a stimulus to rediscover and to reappraise Israel, its texts and its traditions, enabling Christians to dialogue with the Jews, but also a sting and a key for an analysis and a “work on oneself” that somehow encompasses all components of Christian identity: from the hermeneutics of Scripture to Christology, from ecclesiological reflection even to liturgy …” (The Shoah as a Shadow upon Jewish-Christian Dialogue and as a Stimulus to It, Massimo Giuliani, Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome – November 16th, 2004)

Prof. Massimo Giuliani teaches Jewish Studies and Philosophical Hermeneutics at the University of Trent, Italy.

He has authored several books and articles on contemporary Jewish thought and the Holocaust.

The rest of this remarkable Hasidic philosophical prose and alchemical conjunction of opposites can be read at the following link:

http://bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/center/conferences/Bea_Centre_C-J_Relations_04-05/Giuliani.htm#_ednref11

The Dialogical Path Towards Disaster

December 3, 2007

The dialectical method (“dialogical reasoning”) in practice between Vatican prelates and the rabbis in recent decades, a type of pilpul or Kabbalistic sorcery which has effected radical change in every aspect of Catholicism, was expounded upon by Kasper and Ratzinger mentor, Hasidic philosopher, Martin Buber in his book, I and Thou. I highly recommend this book to those seeking to understand the illogic in “Jewish”-Catholic dialogue. I would say this book is far more influential in the thinking of Benedict, Kasper, et al, than most books commonly ascribed.

A lecture recently given by Massimo Giuliani, a professor of Jewish Studies and Philosophical Hermeneutics at the University of Trent, at the Pontifical Gregorian University of Rome titled, “The Shoah as a Shadow upon Jewish-Christian Dialogue and as a Stimulus to It” illustrates how this Kabbalistic sorcery works.

It is stated that:

“the Shoah” is “the climax of a centuries-long history of discrimination and persecution against the Jewish people in the West.”

I would argue that the Nazi persecution of Judaic persons during W.W.II was a reaction (antithesis) to Judaic Bolshevism and Communism (thesis); an unsurprising event in an increasingly antagonized and deChristianized Europe (synthesis). How does one expect “the West” to be Christian when Christianity is stripped from it? The Nazi persecutions of Judaic persons was the climax of a dialectic between utterly anti-Christian ideologies, Communism and Nazism, set in motion by the Judaic Zionist, Moses Hess (see: Judaism Discovered pp. 853-878 or Revisionist History Newsletter no. 40: The Zionist Who Founded Communism and Revisionist History Newsletter No. 39: The Russian Roots of Nazism).

Nevertheless, it is stated that this ridiculous alleged truth is painful to acknowledge, but “all ethically formed consciouses” accept this alleged truth and the pain inherent to it and that acceptance of both:

“… are already an integral part of the dialogic commitment. In other words they are already constitutive and constructive elements of that readiness to listen and to interact with the other, without which no dialogue, no encounter is possible. Indeed, in the reciprocal attention of Christians and Jews the memory of the pain that was inflicted and was endured during the Shoah, and the anxiety induced by the gradual realization of the first and the more remote causes that made that tragedy possible, truly represent necessary conditions to ensure that our attention is authentic and the dialogue is sincere.”

In other words, the game is rigged. The thesis is discarded and the antithesis becomes the starting point for the dialogue. The dialogue–the dialogical process– must begin with the “pain of acknowledgement” of alleged Christian guilt for the “Shoah” as it’s genesis, rather than, for instance, the Judaic-Bolshevik terror in Russia that preceded “the Shoah,” which many would say is a culmination of millennia worth of Judaic discrimination against Christians, but hardly it’s climax. No:

“… in this dialogue Christians “begin” from this memory [of ‘The Shoah’], well expressed by the document of March 16th, 1998 called We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah, signed by the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews.”

In such a relativist game, it is rather comical to see such a rigid, absolute first principle. But there it is: “The Shoah,” the point of reference by which all (and I do mean ALL) things are evaluated.

The lecturer, dead seriously, demonstrates what absurd lengths this is taken to by quoting Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger:

The drama of the Shoah has placed the whole question [of Christian Old Testament hermeneutics] in another light. [The Pontifical Biblical Commission] faced two main problems: After all that has happened, can the Christians continue in their untroubled claim that they are the legitimate heirs of the Bible of Israel? Can they continue with a Christian interpretation of this Bible, or should they rather, respectfully and humbly, abandon a claim, which, in the light of all that has taken place, necessarily smacks of presumption? And here we also find a second problem: Is it perhaps the case that the presentation of the Jews and of the Jewish people in the very text of the New Testament contributed to the creation of a hostility against this people, which favored the ideology of those who wanted to suppress it?”

To which the lecturer adds the notion that Christians are “forever spiritually linked” to the people of the Talmud and in light of “The Shoah” must rework every aspect of Christian religion:

“These are questions, therefore, that induce Christians – provided they have understood the deep significance of the greatest tragedy in Jewish history, and in virtue of the link that spiritually and forever ties the people of the Bible and the Talmud to those baptized in the name of Jesus Christ – to rethink their very identity and their own interpretation of revealed Scripture, and thus to rediscover “the holy root that supports us,” that Israel “after the flesh” (in other words, in history), which the Apostle Paul discusses with the highest theological and existential pathos. The Shoah, from being an obstacle to Jewish-Christian dialogue, has become not only a stimulus to rediscover and to reappraise Israel, its texts and its traditions, enabling Christians to dialogue with the Jews, but also a sting and a key for an analysis and a “work on oneself” that somehow encompasses all components of Christian identity: from the hermeneutics of Scripture to Christology, from ecclesiological reflection even to liturgy …” (The Shoah as a Shadow upon Jewish-Christian Dialogue and as a Stimulus to It, Massimo Giuliani, Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome – November 16th, 2004)

Prof. Massimo Giuliani teaches Jewish Studies and Philosophical Hermeneutics at the University of Trent, Italy.

He has authored several books and articles on contemporary Jewish thought and the Holocaust.

The rest of this remarkable Hasidic philosophical prose and alchemical conjunction of opposites can be read at the following link:

http://bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/center/conferences/Bea_Centre_C-J_Relations_04-05/Giuliani.htm#_ednref11

The Dialogical Path Towards Disaster

December 3, 2007

The dialectical method (“dialogical reasoning”) in practice between Vatican prelates and the rabbis in recent decades, a type of pilpul which has effected radical change in every aspect of Catholicism, was expounded upon by Kasper and Ratzinger mentor, Hasidic philosopher, Martin Buber in his book, I and Thou. I highly recommend this book to those seeking to understand the illogic in “Jewish”-Catholic dialogue. I would say this book is far more influential in the thinking of Benedict, Kasper, et al, than most books commonly ascribed.

A lecture recently given by Massimo Giuliani, a professor of Jewish Studies and Philosophical Hermeneutics at the University of Trent, at the Pontifical Gregorian University of Rome titled, “The Shoah as a Shadow upon Jewish-Christian Dialogue and as a Stimulus to It” illustrates how this Kabbalistic sorcery works.

It is stated that:

“the Shoah” is “the climax of a centuries-long history of discrimination and persecution against the Jewish people in the West.”

I would argue that the Nazi persecution of Judaic persons during W.W.II was a reaction (antithesis) to Judaic Bolshevism and Communism (thesis); an unsurprising event in an increasingly antagonized and deChristianized Europe (synthesis). How does one expect “the West” to be Christian when Christianity is stripped from it? The Nazi persecutions of Judaic persons was the climax of a dialectic between utterly anti-Christian ideologies, Communism and Nazism, set in motion by the Judaic Zionist, Moses Hess (see: Judaism Discovered pp. 853-878 or Revisionist History Newsletter no. 40: The Zionist Who Founded Communism and Revisionist History Newsletter No. 39: The Russian Roots of Nazism).

Nevertheless, it is stated that this ridiculous alleged truth is painful to acknowledge, but “all ethically formed consciouses” accept this alleged truth and the pain inherent to it and that acceptance of both:

“… are already an integral part of the dialogic commitment. In other words they are already constitutive and constructive elements of that readiness to listen and to interact with the other, without which no dialogue, no encounter is possible. Indeed, in the reciprocal attention of Christians and Jews the memory of the pain that was inflicted and was endured during the Shoah, and the anxiety induced by the gradual realization of the first and the more remote causes that made that tragedy possible, truly represent necessary conditions to ensure that our attention is authentic and the dialogue is sincere.”

In other words, the game is rigged. The thesis is discarded and the antithesis becomes the starting point for the dialogue. The dialogue–the dialogical process– must begin with the “pain of acknowledgement” of alleged Christian guilt for the “Shoah” as it’s genesis, rather than, for instance, the Judaic-Bolshevik terror in Russia that preceded “the Shoah,” which many would say is a culmination of millennia worth of Judaic discrimination against Christians, but hardly it’s climax. No:

“… in this dialogue Christians “begin” from this memory [of ‘The Shoah’], well expressed by the document of March 16th, 1998 called We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah, signed by the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews.”

In such a relativist game, it is rather comical to see such a rigid, absolute first principle. But there it is: “The Shoah,” the point of reference by which all (and I do mean ALL) things are evaluated.

The lecturer, dead seriously, demonstrates what absurd lengths this is taken to by quoting Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger:

The drama of the Shoah has placed the whole question [of Christian Old Testament hermeneutics] in another light. [The Pontifical Biblical Commission] faced two main problems: After all that has happened, can the Christians continue in their untroubled claim that they are the legitimate heirs of the Bible of Israel? Can they continue with a Christian interpretation of this Bible, or should they rather, respectfully and humbly, abandon a claim, which, in the light of all that has taken place, necessarily smacks of presumption? And here we also find a second problem: Is it perhaps the case that the presentation of the Jews and of the Jewish people in the very text of the New Testament contributed to the creation of a hostility against this people, which favored the ideology of those who wanted to suppress it?”

To which the lecturer adds the notion that Christians are “forever spiritually linked” to the people of the Talmud and in light of “The Shoah” must rework every aspect of Christian religion:

“These are questions, therefore, that induce Christians – provided they have understood the deep significance of the greatest tragedy in Jewish history, and in virtue of the link that spiritually and forever ties the people of the Bible and the Talmud to those baptized in the name of Jesus Christ – to rethink their very identity and their own interpretation of revealed Scripture, and thus to rediscover “the holy root that supports us,” that Israel “after the flesh” (in other words, in history), which the Apostle Paul discusses with the highest theological and existential pathos. The Shoah, from being an obstacle to Jewish-Christian dialogue, has become not only a stimulus to rediscover and to reappraise Israel, its texts and its traditions, enabling Christians to dialogue with the Jews, but also a sting and a key for an analysis and a “work on oneself” that somehow encompasses all components of Christian identity: from the hermeneutics of Scripture to Christology, from ecclesiological reflection even to liturgy …” (The Shoah as a Shadow upon Jewish-Christian Dialogue and as a Stimulus to It, Massimo Giuliani, Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome – November 16th, 2004)

Prof. Massimo Giuliani teaches Jewish Studies and Philosophical Hermeneutics at the University of Trent, Italy.

He has authored several books and articles on contemporary Jewish thought and the Holocaust.

The rest of this remarkable Hasidic philosophical prose and alchemical conjunction of opposites can be read at the following link:

http://bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/center/conferences/Bea_Centre_C-J_Relations_04-05/Giuliani.htm#_ednref11