She's a hoot!
Mark, where is Joe D'Hippolito's comment about this nonsense?
Lord save us from our humor-challenged brethren. And sistern.
where is Joe D'Hippolito's comment about this nonsense?
His is the initial comment to her post.
>Mark, where is Joe D'Hippolito's comment about this nonsense?
I reply: In the comments box.
Actually I understand why she was confused - that site is terribly unfunny.
Stephen Colbert MUST interview Carrie.
+J.M.J+
Sorry, but I've read JP2 and he would never have said anything like:
"The radiant depth of harmonious relations will transcend the restoration of our great hope for peace."
or:
"The immense liturgy of universal spiritual resources will evoke acceptance of the Church's dialogue of hope."
(Randomly-generated quotes from when I visited the John Paul II Quote Generator.)
Some of what JP2 wrote may be a bit difficult to understand, but it wasn't stupid, meaningless mush. If you re-read it a few times, you get what he's saying and he makes sense.
Every quote from that generator is based on the following sentence structure:
"The (adjective noun) of (adjective noun, maybe prepositional phrase) will (verb)(phrase)."
Just plug in a few words and phrases from JP2's writings - carefully leaving out any mention he made of Jesus Christ, Blessed Mother or of God (except in the phrase "People of God") - and voila! Pointless gobbledygook that sorta sounds a bit like JP2 to people who don't like him very much.
Ha, ha, funny, funny, yuk, yuk, yuk.
In Jesu et Maria,
Well, I am probably against the grain on this one, but I have an appreciation for Fish Eaters, since as a Protestant minister looking to come into the Church, I stumbled across it on the web. I quickly could tell that it was from a - shall we say - traditional perspective to say the least. But it also gave some samples of Catholic ways and practices. If you don’t have a family member or friend who is Catholic, and are forced to come in somewhat incognito because of inevitable job loss, there isn’t much to explain this big old thing called Catholicism, and books studies don’t always do it. After all, if the Catholic Church is anything, it ain’t seeker sensitive. If you are coming in blind, then blind you remain until you grab onto something through luck or divine providence. I had Scott Hahn, ol’ Mr. Shea, and the Coming Home Network. But this also helped in some of the nitty gritty basics that you are often too embarrassed to admit you don’t know (like why Catholics cross themselves and what does it mean?) Though in hindsight FE is a website with a purpose all its own, it was there when my wife and I needed it. And for that, I will remain thankful, no matter how goofy it may be sometimes; in all truthfulness, no more goofy than most. After all, it was one of many things that helped us come back home to the fullness of the Truth.
Once again, Catholic puritans prove themselves to be even worse than Protestant puritans, if only because the Catholics ought to know better.
One of the benefits of belonging to a religion with unbending dogmas is that with those dogmas comes a surety that allows you to laugh at yourself, even if the butt of the jokes is a beloved Pope, and I bet that JPII also would find the site funny and would be perplexed by Tomko's umbrage, the source of which is nothing but damnable pride. "Angels fly because they can take themselves lightly," Chesterton wrote, while "Satan fell by the weight of his own gravity."
I have a sneaking suspicion that Tomko comes from the Furrowed Brow Wing of the Catholic Church and also was completely hornswaggled by The Onion article on Harry Potter.
Maybe white is the color that they had on hand...sometimes white is just white...and a cigar is just a cigar...and Cabbalists are NOT involved.
The generator...well it's more funny (hysterical actually) in its original iteration, that is as a postmodern dissertation generator where large and obtuse words are strung together into high sounding but even more obtuse “text.” Yeah…as in…deconstruct this.
Seems when you have a Masonic boogeyman tapping on the inside of your skull with a tiny trowel...anything's possible. I think I saw Carrie lurking in Foucault’s Pendulum.
+J.M.J+
...Oh yeah, and while you're leaving out all mention of God or Christ from what JP2 said, don't forget to add in some mention of the United Nations (even if that gives the false impression that the former Pontiff cared more about the UN than Our Lord).
And if you toss in an occasional "Be not afraid!" after a quote, that makes it sound even more JohnPaulTwoish. *Howls of derisive laughter*!
To those who accuse the late Holy Father of being "difficult to understand": the man was a theologian. Theologians are, generally speaking, hard to understand. I know, I've read (or tried to read) some of them.
Don't believe me? Just try briskly skimming through the theological writings of St. Augustine, or St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. They're not exactly light reading, I'll tell you that. Mystical theology isn't much easier; I found the writings of St. John of the Cross almost incomprehensible when I attempted to read them years ago (turns out he was a favorite of JP2's. Why am I not surprised 
).
Yet I don't hear anyone saing that Sts. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and John of the Cross are useless (if not potentially heterodox) because the are so hard to understand. Why then have people said the same of JP2?
Some of the difficulty with the works of these saints (and of JP2) could be due to the quality of the translation. Yet even some texts composed in English can be quite abstruse. I had a very difficult time slogging through Fr. Frederick Faber's The Precious Blood, and my husband says he found the high English prose of John Cardinal Newman's "Apologia Pro Vita Sua" very difficult to understand.
Just because someone uses big words, or non-English words (the Quote Generator contains the word "mysterion") doesn't mean there's something wrong with them. Recondite =/= heterodox.
Y'know, I doubt Catholics of the past would have ever invented a "Pius XI Quote Generator" if they had the technology. Why such scandalous (not to mention childish) disrespect for a recent Holy Father?
I'll leave you with some more purile gibberish from the Quote Generator:
"The joyful profundity of modern life will transcend tomorrow's celebration."
"The radiant radiance of solidarity will embrace the restoration of our dignity."
Riiiiiiiiight. Like His Holiness would have ever said that. Way to make a learned theologian sound like a blathering moron.
Servant of God John Paul II, pray for us.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie, I have the suspicion that these same people would gnash their teeth at Aquinas for daring to "baptize" Aristotle. There's always been a reactionary element in the Church, and that's the word I would attach to the mocking of our late Holy Father's philosophical and theological prose.
For my own part, I am extremely grateful that I lived my adolescence and young adulthood under the aegis of one of the most intellectually gifted pontiff's in the history of the Church. In the hazy spiritual and intellectual climate of college, John Paul the Great's spiritual explorations were - and remain - a guiding light.
Aquinas may be hard to read, but he is easy to understand, and very precise, especially in the Summa. Some of the saints are less precise and certainly more difficult to understand, but few of them are as imprecise and difficult to understand as JPII. That doesn't say that he is heterodox, just challenging, and with a potential to be understood with a "hermeneutic of rupture".
Oh, and Apologia Pro Vita Sua is difficult to read, though it helps oddly enough to read Hopkins at the same time (who Newman knew). The two of them in tandem helped me write my first graduate student paper.
Or the potential to be unfairly criticized by those using the hermeneutic of suspicion...
To do the random quote generator right, you'd need a footnote, probably an in-line quotation of Scripture (followed by chapter and verse), and something italicized.
Rosemarie, I have the suspicion that these same people would gnash their teeth at Aquinas for daring to "baptize" Aristotle. There's always been a reactionary element in the Church, and that's the word I would attach to the mocking of our late Holy Father's philosophical and theological prose.
Oh, give me a break. If you spend ten minute on Fish Eaters, you'll find jokes, games, music, recipes, poetry, artwork, loads of fascinating information and - horrors - lots of Catholic traditionalists having fun and enjoying each others' company.
It won't fit your convenient sterotype of puritanical teeth-gnashing reactionaries. Frankly, no traditionalist I've ever met is like that. That is a boogeyman haunting the imaginations of thin-skinned neo-Catholics who can't stand the slightest bit of lighthearted criticism regarding John Paul II. Who's the reactionary here?
Yea, I have to agree with one of the commenters above - maybe they just ran out of red or yellow fabric.
A Peanuts cartoon shows Linus examining a drawing that Charlie Brown has done of a man. The man's hands are behind his back. Linus theorizes about why the man's hands are behind his back. He comes up with serveral theories - things like, "You yourself feel an insecurity...blah blah blah." Charlie Brown replies that he drew it that way because "I myself can't draw hands."
Dan, I was referring to the kind of suspicious reader Rosemarie was describing, certainly not traditionalists in general (of which I am one). I was also not referring to Fish Eater's specifically or the rest of its contents, though I am eager to plunge into the more serious side of the site in articles such as "The Church as Battered Bride."
Furthermore, I was exaggerating to make the point that trailblazers in the Church are often unduly criticized or controversial.
But since you brought up the question of humor, I do find it in bad taste to make fun of the later Holy Father's style of spiritual writing and make it seem like gobblegok. Either I have very deep appreciate for a Pope I and many Catholics the world view as a saint, or I am thin-skinned about this. Probably both.
But maybe a more contemporary example will help get at what I mean: Picture of Benedict waving with the quotes "I give you my blessing and that's no papal bull" at splendoroftruth - a papacy joke in good taste. Benedict singing "Stop in the name of Caritas" - even better.
But making fun of the Pope's writing style through a random quote generator, and thus eroding possible appreciation of the substance of "Deus Caritas Est," on the other hand - bad taste and not very funny. Savvy?
Ryan: Rosemarie was complaining about the Fish Eaters site, not Carrie Tomko, so I don't know how I was supposed to read your remark about Aristotle except as an unfair imputation of views to the creators of that website, since you directed your remarks to Rosemarie.
Frankly, no traditionalist I've ever met is like that.
Mr Mitsui,
From the page:
None of them sound even remotely Roman Catholic; however, I've been reading gnostic literature over the last several days, and now they are sounding familiar.
From the comments:
On the other hand, what makes it not at all funny is that they could very well be his quotes.
and
Yeah, Justin, they very well could be.
And Emma, I'm with you, this is not funny. Especially after you read Rosicrucian material for a few days. This is not funny at all.
and
In that sense, I agree with you - [JPII's] theological writings are incomprehensible, giving no practical, substantive ways of applying the faith to our lives, much less understandable doctrine.
and
There is a similar site for Frank Griswold, the retiring Presiding Bishop of ECUSA. [...]
The Griz and JP2 ... strange pair.
(That last one just might not be paranoid, just pointing out a ludicrous truth.)
Some people are humorless and paranoid, and as long as they remain so it will be almost impossible to get all that stupidly dumped tradition that we love and fisheaters.com is all about back into our lives because the powers that be (the bishops and priests) will see it as just a tool for the pharisees to hit people over the head.
It seems to me that fisheaters.com has it right: Pope John Paul II had a convoluted style? Have some fun with it. But Carrie and company are freaking out at nothing.
I like that you defend traditionalists, but not all of them are worth defending (at least on their humorlessness).
Hi Dan,
Rosemarie was complaining about a specific joke on the Fish Eaters site, not the site itself, and certainly not traditionalists, a word neither she nor I mentioned. And when I said the site was unfunny I was referring to the random quote generator itself, since obviously I didn't have time to read every humorous piece on the site. And as for that, lots of sites host things written elsewhere, or by someone at the site who doesn't represent the opinions of everyone at said site, or post things at times that are not funny.
I also think I should add the caveat that just because one is a reactionary in one area (reacting against a certain theological style or approach) does not mean that one is a reactionary in every area of their spiritual life. Saint-Saens was a reactionary when it came to music, but whether his opinions on art or literature were equally reactionary I don't know - and even if so one did not necessarily have anything to do with the other. My criticism, again, was for those who would balk specifically at John Paul the Great's language. I don't care -and I did not try - to bring other issues into it.
Jon W: I've never met Carrie Tomko, or anyone like her.
Ryan C: I don't care -and I did not try - to bring other issues into it.
Sure you did. You're the one who made that ridiculous statement about Aristotle. If you care to retract it. I'll accept that.
+J.M.J+
>>>That is a boogeyman haunting the imaginations of thin-skinned neo-Catholics who can't stand the slightest bit of lighthearted criticism regarding John Paul II.
Lighthearted criticism? Try haphazard mockery.
The Quote Generator doesn't intelligently criticize JP2 at all; if it did it would at least be intellectually stimulating, if nothing else. No, it mocks a strawman version of the late Pontiff, ripping some of his more recondite phrases out of context and blindly stringing them together with the help of a random computer generation program. The result are absurd sentences that sound worse than the ramblings of a stoned 1960's guru, which are then put forward as the kind of things JP2 supposedly "might" have said (though he didn't say such things, of course).
Also, as I pointed out above, whoever put that generator together left out any mention of God the Father, Our Lord, the Holy Ghost, Our Lady, St. Joseph or any other saint, of the holy angels, and many other Catholic elements which permeated the late Holy Father's writings. That's unfairly "stacking the deck", which is sure to diminish the Catholic content of any of the quotes. No, what I read did not resemble the speeches and writings of JP2 - they were at best poor caricatures of his style.
Call it "humor" if you like, (how much Catholic-bashing is often justified by saying, "Lighten up, it's just a joke!"). Yet at least one person (Carrie Tompko) took it for real.
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
>>>Rosemarie was complaining about a specific joke on the Fish Eaters site, not the site itself, and certainly not traditionalists, a word neither she nor I mentioned.
FWIW, I have traditionalist sympathies. I attend an Indult Mass as often as I can and want to see the return of a lot that was wrongly discarded in the name of the false "spirit of Vatican II" (which had nothing to do with the actual *writings* of the Second Vatican Council). I look forward to the death of Amchurch as much as any trad does.
Yet I find ignorant mockery of the Successor of St. Peter offensive; the "John Paul II Random Speech Generator" will not further the cause of orthodoxy in the Church.
BTW, notice that the title "John Paul II Random Speech Generator" and the phrase "John Paul II Randomly Says" could give the false impression that these are authentic quotes from his speeches and writings. Nothing on that page indicates that these are fabricated "quotes". No wonder some people are confused! Maybe the Fisheaters should have put a clear disclaimer stating that these quotes are made up by a computer program, not exerpted from actual papal speeches and letters.
In Jesu et Maria,
They're not excerpted from actual papal speeches and letters, either. Sorry for all the typos; I'm typing rather quickly.
In Jesu et Maria,
Hi Dan,
My words were basically a paraphrase of something Chesterton noted a long time ago in his book on Aquinas, so it they are ridiculous I plead that the fault lies with him. :-D
Rosemarie makes a good point (again). There's an old adage: if a joke has to be explained, it probably wasn't funny to begin with.
"I have traditionalist sympathies. I attend an Indult Mass as often as I can and want to see the return of a lot that was wrongly discarded in the name of the false "spirit of Vatican II" (which had nothing to do with the actual *writings* of the Second Vatican Council). I look forward to the death of Amchurch as much as any trad does."
Rosemarie, you basically sum up my feelings here, though I would add that I'm also very much attracted to Eastern tradition (an aspect of traditionalism that deserves more attention).
FishEaters are Jew-baiting anti-Semitic Radtrads in the mold of CAI(whom they link too) & they link to SSPX articles about the Jews.
Also they repeat the same slanders & calumnies against the Talmud that got Sungenis consigned to the fringes of Catholic Apologetics and a one-way ticket to Crankville.
See for yourselves
http://www.fisheaters.com/jc1.html
QUOTE Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (Gentile) hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed, hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God.
Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old."
Sanhedrin 57a. A Jew need not pay a Gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.
Sanhedrin 57a. When a Jew murders a Gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty, and what a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep.END QUOTE
Of course these old slanders have been long ago answered by Gil Student a young Orthodox Rabbi. The ADL has an article ghost written by Gil giving a detailed defense. These aren't even original charges, they've been recycled(almost verbatim) from notorious anti-Semites & Jew-baiters Elizabeth Dillings & Michael Hoffman II. I'm not endorcing the Talmud(as the clueless ones over at CAI claimed in the past). But, well, I don't know, I just have this strange Catholic desire to uphold that particularly Jewish commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"!
When alleged Catholics(like these clowns are) misrepresent & outright lie about the content of the Talmud, learned Jews will roll their eyes at them, because they know what the Talmud actually teaches & means(The above are not direct quotes from the Talmud but interpretations of texts taken out of context).
A similar effect would be when anti-Catholic fruitcakes try to quote the GLORIES OF MARY by St. Alphonsus de Liguori to "prove" that we Catholics think Mary is God & worship her as a Fourth Member of the Trinity. We Catholics roll our eyes at that, since we understand the Church's teachings on Mary & know that there is a difference between a theologicial treatise which uses precise language & a devotional treatise which does not. Learned Jews will similarly roll their eyes at these guys & will not be inclined to embrace Jesus as their Messiah. If anything it reinforces the belief of some of them that Catholics are hateful Jew-bashing bigots. That's just pure evil.
I wouldn't give 2 cents for this web page. To paraphrase one of their arguments, no traditionalist needs this page, you can find other traditional web pages that don't contain anti-Semitic crankery.
I haven't even touched upon their conspiracy theories on how the Jews created Bolshevism, neo-con conspiracies, & an article by John Sharp criticizing the Vatican's positive approach to the Jews & other trash. So you people who are praising this site, maybe you haven't looked at it carefully enough or, if you have, then I'm sorry but you failed to fool me.
Note to Jew-bashing so-called "traditionalists": If you want me to like traditionalism, keep crap like this to yourselves & off the Internet.
That last one was me, not Rosemarie. She never gets that angry.
I thought the JP2 random quote generator was funny ... and visiting the site did not make me into a JP2-hater or a radtrad or an anti-semite. (I did not look at the rest of the site, so I did not see the stuff that BenYachov refers to.)
As I noted in Carrie's combox, there is an analogous site on a conservative Anglican web site, which generates random answers to questions that one might pose to Frank T. Griswold, the outgoing Presiding Bishop of ECUSA. (Among his foes, his nickname is "Grizzy', and his speeches are prime examples of ecclesiastical fog.)
The web site is this:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/
...rizzolator.html
Visit the 2 random generator sites, have a laugh or two ... and then move along.
Lee
>I did not look at the rest of the site, so I did not see the stuff that BenYachov refers to.
I reply: The smears from the Talmud are on the very page I linked too above. How did you miss that?
+J.M.J+
>>>I thought the JP2 random quote generator was funny ... and visiting the site did not make me into a JP2-hater or a radtrad or an anti-semite.
Not everyone who plays with that Random Quote Generator is (or will become) a "JP2-hater" - even if he finds it amusing. I myself didn't find it amusing because it is offensive to logic and fairness. If you're going to critique someone, then critique what he actually said. Don't make stuff up; that's a strawman tactic.
I didn't want to critique the JP2 Random Quote Generator without doing my "homework" first. So I visited the page itself and kept clicking the button again and again, reading each sentence it spat out. I wanted to get an idea of exactly what words and phrases had been entered into the program, so that I wouldn't be critiquing it blindly.
I found that, though a number of words and phrases came out again and again (such as solidarity, mysterion, diakonia, enculturation, ecumenical, modern man, social systems, etc.), absolutely nothing was coming up about Jesus Christ, God the Father, the Holy Spirit, the Blessed Trinity, the holy Mother of God (to whom JP2 was especially devoted - his motto was the Montfortian "Totus Tuus") or any saint. Practically nothing about Catholic doctrine either - apart from the word "Incarnation".
Now, JP2 did talk about ecumenism, inculturation and such, but he also talked and wrote a whole lot about Christ and His Mother, along with various other heavenly Personages. It soon became crystal clear that whoever programmed this generator had been very selective, including only certain words from JP2's speeches and writings while leaving out most of the specifically Catholic words.
That's why I say that it is an unfair parody of the former Pontiff. It selectively portrays him more like some kind of addled New Ager than the deeply Catholic man that he was. No wonder Carrie immediately "saw" Rosicrucianism in those phony "quotes"! Yet they do not at all reflect the actual beliefs and teachings of the Servant of God JP2.
Allow me to close with some more gems of foolishness from the Random Generator-in-question:
"The mysterious mysterion of the United Nations will develop our future new Springtime." (Yeah, the Pope always attributed the coming new Springtime to the United Nations, didn't he? :-P)
"And remember, friends, future events such as these will affect you in the future." (Sorry, that was a quote from Criswell in Plan 9 From Outer Space. Well, at least it's easier to understand than anything the Generator spits out....)
The intelligent enlightenment of ethical values will evolve modern man's liturgical renewal. (Ah, if only those involved in "liturgical renewal" had more ethical values. Then they wouldn't cruelly torture us with Marty Haugen and liturgical dance.)
"The brotherly profundity of woman will create tomorrow's new evangelization." ("Brotherly profundity of woman"? Sexist language alert! Sexist language alert! Ms Radford Reuther, call your office!)
Well, good night all, and God bless.
In Jesu et Maria,
Um the last one was me. We're using the same computer tonight; I knew we were one flesh in marriage but who knew the computer would use our names interchangeably.
Just call me Mrs. Jim Scott IV
In Jesu et Maria,
BTW, this is now me, BenYachov, not my wife.
Context is everything. If I see a bunch of self-depreciating Jewish jokes on a Jewish website, that means one thing. But if I read them on a Neo-Nazi website, it's easier to presume the bad faith of the posters. Same thing with jokes about African Americans: If I find them on a black commedian's website that's one thing. But if they're on a KKK website, that's quite another.
Now, here's this Radtrad website which for some reason is portraying JP2 as a befuddled, babbling New Ager. Were it on Mark Cameron or Jeff Cuthbert's website, I'd laugh. But on this Radtrad site, OTOH it's not funny.
Yachov:
How 'bout a link to the article you claim gives a defense to the FishEater one?
Ben,
Do you have a source other than a young Orthodox Rabbi and The ADL to backup your claims that the alleged false quotes from the Talmud you reference from the article are in fact false? I would prefer a Catholic source. Not reading Hebrew, it's kind of hard to figure this out for oneself.
Thanks.
As one with traditionalist sympathies AND as a connoisseur of humor, the quote generator is unfunny and a sad imitation of the somewhat funny Post-modern generator.
This is starting to sound similar to the flap where it was suggested that anyone who doesn't think Garrison Keillor funny must be basing that on his right-wind ideology rather than the plain fact that he usually isn't funny (sometimes he is. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally).
Perhaps the reason the random quote generator doesn't mention God, Jesus, Mary, the saints, and any Catholic doctrine was because if it DID mention God, Jesus, Mary, the saints, etc, there would even be more of an uproar charging FishEaters of blasphemy, etc, so perhaps it was better that it didn't.
The generator was meant to poke a little fun at JP2's more esoteric phrases, and is clearly not going to reflect the entirety of his writings. I'm sure John Paul himself, a man of great humor, would find it amusing.
I have read Crossing The Threshhold of Hope and Rise Let Us Be on Our Way and I didn't think they were hard to understand. Maybe some of JPII's other writings are more difficult. I thought the quote generator was unfair and unfunny as well.
What can I say? I found the site amusing. No, I don't hate Jews. No, I don't hate JP2. No, I don't hate those who find it unamusing. I may, however, have a rotten sense of humor. I find that the random quotes, while obviously not capturing the depth of the content of JP2's thought, nevertheless do capture a little bit, if only a glimpse, of his style. Long sentences full of big words that left one with the vague impression that they knew what he was talking about, but would be unable to explain it to someone else until the third read. Whatever.
I'm with you Dave (the Protestant miniter who is converting). While I agree with Mark's comments, I found the site has a lot of useful information, and added it to my bookmarks.
As someone who's struggled through many a page of JPII--because I think the struggle is worth it--I found the quote-generator funny. I clicked the box a few times and then moved on.
But looking at the rest of the fish-eaters site, I find really ugly attacks on JPII (e.g. a link to a SSPX article charging him with inventing the new luminous mysteries in order to shove ecuminism down our throats). In light of that, I go back to the quote-generator and see that the buzz-words they chose make for really unjust parody. The U.N.??!?
The Quote Generator doesn't intelligently criticize JP2 at all; if it did it would at least be intellectually stimulating, if nothing else. No, it mocks a strawman version of the late Pontiff, ripping some of his more recondite phrases out of context and blindly stringing them together with the help of a random computer generation program.
Well, Jerry Ford wasn't really a clumsy buffoon, either, but that doesn't mean that Chevy Chase's portrayal of him wasn't funny. Oh, yeah: Nor was Jimmy Carter actually scared witless by a rabbit. That doesn't make the "killer rabbit" jokes any less funny.
+J.M.J+
>>>Do you have a source other than a young Orthodox Rabbi and The ADL to backup your claims that the alleged false quotes from the Talmud you reference from the article are in fact false? I would prefer a Catholic source. Not reading Hebrew, it's kind of hard to figure this out for oneself.
I am curious why the statements of the Orthodox Rabbi and ADL aren't "enough". They're Jewish, so they should know what their documents say better than non-Jews - particularly those with an ax to grind against Judaism.
If someone wanted to read a book about Catholicism, would you recommend they read an anti-Catholic book or a Catholic one? Surely the former would be unacceptable - and even "neutral" non-Catholic sources, while perhaps not hostile to our Faith, might still inadvertently misrepresent it. Yet a solid, orthodox Catholic source would present our beliefs accurately. I don't see why the same standard wouldn't apply when finding out what Judaism teaches.
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
Seamus: I was answering Daniel's assertion that the Generator was just "lighthearted criticism", by stating that it does not qualify as "criticism" at all. Criticism should involve an intelligent, point-by-point discussion, not a computer program that randomly burps up words and phrases.
I'm not denying that there is an element of truth to the Generator. The former Pontiff evidently did use those phrases - or at least his translators did. How accurately they may reflect the Holy Father's actual words is another question, especially now that the Daughters of St Paul are about to release a new translation of JP2's talks on the Theology of the Body. The new translator evidently points out several inadequacies of the text currently in print, which raises a few questions about translations of the pope's other works as well.
>>>I have read Crossing The Threshhold of Hope and Rise Let Us Be on Our Way and I didn't think they were hard to understand.
They weren't theological treatises, so he evidently wrote them in an easier-to-understand "style". The same person can use different writing styles for different occasions; I'm sure most theologians don't use a bunch of technical terms when writing letters to Mom, for instance.
>>>The generator was meant to poke a little fun at JP2's more esoteric phrases, and is clearly not going to reflect the entirety of his writings. I'm sure John Paul himself, a man of great humor, would find it amusing.
Possibly, for just a click or two. Yet when one clicks it twenty times and the UN keeps popping up and the Nameso of Jesus and Mary are completely absent, that ultimately distorts JP2's teachings, which were strongly focused on Christ and His Mother. All we are left with is a lot of flaky, non-Christian mush with a vague touch of "spirituality" - hence Carrie's judgment that it sounded "Rosicrucian".
(Incidentally, are there any Rosicrucian lurkers out there who can tell us whether your religion really believes that "The brotherly profundity of woman will create tomorrow's new evangelization"? Or that "The radiant Incarnation of our elder brothers in the Faith will beautify our future dignity"? I know we have a Swedenborgian who occasionally posts, but are there any Rosicrucians?)
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
>>>Perhaps the reason the random quote generator doesn't mention God, Jesus, Mary, the saints, and any Catholic doctrine was because if it DID mention God, Jesus, Mary, the saints, etc, there would even be more of an uproar charging FishEaters of blasphemy, etc, so perhaps it was better that it didn't.
A telling statement. After all, JP2 wrote about God, Jesus, Mary, the saints, etc, without blaspheming. If the Generator would be unable to avoid blasphemy, it causes one to question just how well its fabrications actually compare to the actual writings of the Servant of God.
In Jesu et Maria,
I'm no Rosicrucian, but I have read Francis Bacon's New Atlantis, which has Rosicrucian imagery in it, and seems far removed from the matter of the JPII generator (far more interesting too).
Rosemarie says,
"I am curious why the statements of the Orthodox Rabbi and ADL aren't "enough". They're Jewish, so they should know what their documents say better than non-Jews - particularly those with an ax to grind against Judaism."
As far as the ADL, I consider it an anti-Christian organization. Call me what you want Rosemarie.
With regards to grinding axes, are you saying there are no Catholics who can give an objective answer as to whether these alleged passages are or are not in the Talmud? If you think all Catholics have an ax to grind and cannot therefore be trusted, how about an atheist or Hindu? Would they be neutral enough? But you seem to think that Jewish sources are the ones to be most trusted. Maybe the only ones to be trusted. Using you logic, I guess we would have to accept the Muslim claim that the Koran can only be understood in Arabic and non-Muslims are mistaken that all those nasty sayings about Jews and Christians are in it's pages.
I asked a simple question because I really would like to know if these kinds of passages are in the Talmud. Thanks for nothing.
Tim F. is perfectly within the Catholic tradition of demanding to see the exact words [ipsissima verba]. So did Thomas Aquinas, and so did the Inquisition. Who said what, when, where?
There is a good website addressed to precisely these questions about the Talmud: http:/talmud.faithweb.com.
It gives chapter and verse.
I am too lazy to check again but I do believe that the first edition of the Talmud was published in Rome.
As a modern Jewish historian pointed out, during the Middle Ages and later, the safest place for Jews was in Rome.
On the random quotes from the late Holy Father, it seems to me that much of the perplexity arises from the incoherent English translations.
Gabriel Austin
+J.M.J+
>>>As far as the ADL, I consider it an anti-Christian organization.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Yet, even if you're right, that does not affect their ability to accurately explain and defend Jewish teachings.
>>>With regards to grinding axes, are you saying there are no Catholics who can give an objective answer as to whether these alleged passages are or are not in the Talmud?
Perhaps there are, but knowledge of the Talmud is not exactly a specialty of Catholics - it's more a Jewish thing. That's rather like asking whether there are any Muslims who can objectively answer whether a certain passage occurs in the writings of St. John Chrysostom. Maybe there are, but it's not exactly their specialty.
>>>If you think all Catholics have an ax to grind
When did I ever say that *all* Catholics have an ax to grind? What I said was:
They're Jewish, so they should know what their documents say better than non-Jews - particularly those with an ax to grind against Judaism.
That clearly means that some, not all, non-Jews dislike Judaism.
>>>But you seem to think that Jewish sources are the ones to be most trusted. Maybe the only ones to be trusted.
You seem to think they can't be trusted at all. You said: "I would prefer a Catholic source" - again, Why? Just because a source is Catholic doesn't mean it's trustworthy, and just because another source is Jewish doesn't mean it's untrustworthy.
It strikes me that even a reliable Catholic source would probably have to use at least some Jewish works (commentaries and such) as primary sources. Would that disqualify the Catholic source in your view?
>>>Using you logic, I guess we would have to accept the Muslim claim that the Koran can only be understood in Arabic and non-Muslims are mistaken that all those nasty sayings about Jews and Christians are in it's pages.
Well, we know some Coptic Catholics personally, who are native Arabic-speakers and who have read the Koran in its original language. They can testify that those nasty things are definitely in there.
Gabriel: http:/talmud.faithweb.com is one of the sites my husband used for his info. It's a Jewish source, however (Gil Student's page, in fact), so I'm afraid it does not meet Tim F's requirement.
In Jesu et Maria,
FWIW, if you go to the fisheaters.com JPII random quote generator page and view the page source, you can see exactly what words make up the random quotes.
Mr Mitsui, you may never have met any in the flesh but there seem to be a few paranoid tranditionalists hanging around the blogosphere, which is where we are right now.
BenYachov,
you can find other traditional web pages that don't contain anti-Semitic crankery
Can you email me or reply to this with a few links? I like the tradition stuff but am not enthused about the crankery. As a convert, I'd love more resources to get in touch with the real tradition.
Rosemarie,
I guess I would have to ask why would you bother to ask your Coptic friends what the Koran says? Why not rely on the Council on American Islamic Relations? If you expect me to rely on Abe Foxman for an accurate explanation of the Talmud, I would think you would be perfectly satisfied to rely on Ibraham Hooper for an explanation of the Koran. Why did you feel the need to rely on your CATHOLIC friends?
I guess I should have requested an authoritative Catholic source, maybe an official statement by the Magesterium. Maybe something that said the Catholic Church burned the Talmud in the Middle Ages for no good reason, or because they mistakenly thought it said nasty things about Christ and the Blessed Virgin. Did the Church burn the Talmud in the Middle Ages? Has the Church acknowledged it was wrong? I would hope that being more specific might have kept Rosemarie from doing the thing that she and her husband always seem to do. That is attack, attack, attack anyone who even poses a question, let alone make a negative comment about Judasim. You see they are the types who see anti-Semitism in anyone who does not follow the script, their script. I'm personally sick of it.
+J.M.J+
Tim, I never said that all Catholic sources are unreliable. Some very well might be reliable. I'm simply asking why you insist on only Catholic sources. It seems like you believe that all Jewish are unreliable - is that so?
And you didn't answer my question: What if the Catholic source relies on Jewish primary sources - would that disqualify the Catholic source in your view?
In Jesu et Maria,
Tim: BenYachov here.
I've dealt with too many anti-Catholic Protestant Fundamentalists & apologists to be persuaded by a Catholic who tries to adopt their own dull sophistry.
If I accept your line of reasoning & apply it equally to the Catholic Church, then I must conclude that Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid & yes, even your Radtrad hero Bob Sungenis are bald-faces liars when they claim the Council of Trent teaches salvation by God's grace alone & condemns Pelagianism & Semi-Pelagianism. I also would have to say that they are liars if they say that St. Alphonsus's GLORIES OF MARY does not teach that Mary is God & that we should worship her. The reason for this would be because these men are anti-Protestant & biased in favor of the Catholic Church & therefore cannot be relied upon to tell us what the Church REALLY teaches.
If I applied your line of thinking fairly & consistently to the Church, then I would have to find anti-Catholic sources to confirm that Keating, Madrid & Sungenis' claims about the Church are true in order to believe it. Now that's just absurd.
I'm sorry, Tim, but if we take a Socratic, rational & fair approach, then we must conclude that Jews are the ultimate authority as to what Judaism & Jewish sources mean. Much like Catholics are the ultimate authories of what Catholicism and the Church Fathers mean. That's only fair & reasonable.
Tim, I've met too many Bible-thumping Fundies, who when I read them the Council of Trent's condemnation of works salvation, say to my face, "The Council Fathers were just saying that, we know what you Catholics REALLY believe, that you are saved by your own works!" That's just absurd & to see a Catholic use the same juvenile sophistry against another religion offends me deeply.
I will answer your questions about the Talmud & the Magisterial view on it in another post. I will use that opportunity to refute additional Radtrad propaganda and misconceptions.
+J.M.J+
>>>Rosemarie from doing the thing that she and her husband always seem to do. That is attack, attack, attack anyone who even poses a question, let alone make a negative comment about Judasim.
I asked you a few questions, Tim. You could have answered them, saying, "I am just interested in anything the Magisterium has to say about this," or "No, I would not disqualify a Catholic source if it relied on Jewish primary sources." Answers like that would have quickly dispelled any question of anti-Semitism on your part.
Instead, you have mostly refused to answer (except perhaps for the Magisterium thing in your last post) and have gotten all defensive, now accusing me of "attacking" you. Why?
When one asks a question, one gives the other person an opportunity to explain himself. I've given you that opportunity and you've just flown off the handle, even misrepresenting what I said. Who is really "attacking" who?
In Jesu et Maria,
Now, Tim, as to the Talmud, the Church's Magisterium & medieval condemnations of the Talmud. Those condemnations don't mean Jack Chick. Here's why:
If you actually study Catholic theology, especially on authority & infallibility, like say for example St. Alphonsus, he & all other theologians will tell you & its universally recognized that Popes & Councils ARE NOT INFALLIBLE IN MATTERS WHICH REQUIRE HUMAN TESTIMONY.
The Pope can teach infallibly that it is immoral to lie, but he cannot teach infallibly that YOU or I are liars. In theory, he could excommunicate us for lying, but that sentence could be reversed. In a similar manner, Tim, any actual doctrinal propositions attributed to Judaism that contradict Catholicism can be infallibly & irreversibly condemned by the Church. However, the actual content & teaching cannot be judged infallibly. They are the sole provinence of human testimony; they must be read by humans & judged within the gentry they write in.
If you had even bothered to read one of my earlier posts, I said that you can't treat THE GLORIES OF MARY as a theolgical treatise. Radtrads make the same mistake with the Talmud because they assume it is meant to be read like the Summa. It can't; it isn't used that way.
The Church condemned the Talmud often based on the testimony of various Jewish converts, most of whom we know now were illiterate in matters of Hebrew(Johannus Christianus was notoroius in that regard.) Condemnations of the Talmud are pastorial policies, & according to every Traditionalist I've ever read Popes are not only fallible in their pastoral policies but can even enact harmful & destructive pastoral policies(after all, that is their whole raison detra for critiquing the pastoral council Vatican II).
What's good for the goose is good for the gander: if post-V2 policies can be harmful then pre-V2 policies can also be harmful. Burning the Talmud was one of them. Sandra Miesel wrote an article on Talmud-buring that sheds even more light on the matter. But it is a novelty to claim that the Church's condemnation of the Talmud was infallible, to treat is as a doctrinal statement on the level of the Church's condemnation of birth control.
Finally, I've actually done some study on the Talmud, Tim. I've researced some of the verses that the Radtrads say teach child rape & pederasty. Their claims are bogus. There's no practical difference the way they attack the Talmud & the way James White or James McCarthy attack THE GLORIES OF MARY as an alleged treatise on Mary worship.
Anti-Semitism & anti-Catholicism use the same tactics. How could I not hate them both?
Additionally many academics are of the opinion the Talmud makes anywhere from 4 to 8 references to Jesus(all negative).
If Catholics are so morally outraged by this, I wonder how they respond to the morality of St. John Chrysostom who in his Contra Judaium sermons calls Jews our "enemies" & says that he hates them. Last time I checked, hatred was a sin, particularly hatred of our enemies("Love your enemies...").
It gets even worse. St. Ambrose openly advocated the burning of synagogues. St. Cyril of Alexandria actually burned synagogues. Then you wonder why Jews actually hate Jesus? Remember what our Lord said, By the standards we judge others shall we be judged. So you Radtrads who criticize the Talmud, remember the log in the Church's eye when you try to take the speck out of the Jews eye.
Anyway, Gil Student has argued a recent academic theory that the Yeshu Ben Pandra & Ben Stada figures mentioned in the Talmud as teaching false doctrine & practicing sorcery might not in fact be references to Jesus.
One thing that argues the plausibility of this is the Talmud often places these figures centuries before or after the actual time of Christ.
So he is not arguing anything that is completely implausible(though for some strange reason it is a dogma among Radtrads that the Talmud must mention Jesus & anathema on anyone who states otherwise based on academic study).
OTOH many Jewish Scholars have openly said Yeshu Ben Pandra who was the Son of a Adulterous hairdresser named Mirium Bat Eli is most likely a reference to Jesus, regardless of whatever errors in chronology might exist.
Radtrads being morally bankrupt will trumpet this SOLE particular flaw found in Gil's defense & then try & infer he must be making errors in regards to the rest of his defense. This is not logical. That's like saying just because Mark Shea got one quote from St Jerome wrong(he blogged on this recently) that his whole defense of the Seven Deuterocanonical books MUST be wrong. Gee that's logical. NOT!!!!!
Yeh, yeh, yeh the Talmud makes references to Jesus. I believed that when I cited Gil & didn't believe his argument. Now show me where Fisheater or CAI have conclusively proven the Talmud authorized Child Rape & Pederasty & have refuted Gil on that.
It has not been done
Rosemarie and BenYachov, you two are awesome.
I have a question: how do we as Catholics deal with the fact that someone like Cyril is a saint when he did such horrible things, especially when talking with non-Catholics? (Hypatia's death being another example). This is something I've been struggling with, and given that you (and a lot of the other people here) are so knowledgeable I was wondering if you could illuminate me.
+J.M.J+
Ryan:
Except for Blessed Mother, St. John the Baptist and possibly St. Joseph, no saint has ever been completely free of actual sin. St Cyril is no exception to this. Yes, he did some wrong things in his life, as did St. John Chrysostom, but God evidently forgave them and they ended up going to Heaven. If there is hope for them then there is hope for us. That's how I look at it. Hope that helps; God bless you.
In Jesu et Maria,
Hi Rosemarie,
That does, and it's along the lines of what I was thinking - that being canonized a saint simply means one is in heaven, not that one was necessarily "saintly." Maybe it's another example of where the popular perception of a religious concept does not accurately reflect the real theological meaning behind the concept. The good thief is a saint. Thanks for reminding me of the special circumstances of Mary, John the Baptist, and Joseph too.
And I like that you bring the question back to us and where we stand with God - and to hope. It really makes me want to be humble.
Thanks and God bless.
By the way, given that Cyril and Chrysosotom were probably made saints because of people's testimony about their lives, does this also mean that it is just the canonization that is infallible, and not necessarily the reasons given for the canonization? Or is this wrong?
+J.M.J+
I'm not sure whether Sts. Cyril and John Chrysostom were ever formally canonized - most of the early saints weren't. The Patron Saints Index on Catholic-forum.com does not list any canonization dates for them, so they most likely weren't.
I'm not sure whether I've answered your question, Ryan. Maybe I can do a better job tomorrow, after I get some sleep. Good night and God bless.
In Jesu et Maria,
Just got back from a Knights of Columbus meeting. Planning events in the coming year and all. Could only schedule one pogrom, darn. (Just kidding Mr. and Mrs. Yachov.) I'll reply to your nasty attacks later. I have some work to do, off hours type stuff.
Oh well, I'll just make a couple of comments.
Mr. Yachov says "Now show me where Fisheater or CAI have conclusively proven the Talmud authorized Child Rape & Pederasty & have refuted Gil on that." Why would I want to do that Ben? That's not my goal and if you read my posts earlier, I don't think you can honestly (honesty never stood in the way of a good rage) say it is. I actually would like to prove it false.
Rosemarie says, "I asked you a few questions, Tim. You could have answered them, saying, "I am just interested in anything the Magisterium has to say about this," or "No, I would not disqualify a Catholic source if it relied on Jewish primary sources." Answers like that would have quickly dispelled any question of anti-Semitism on your part."
So I did need to dispel something for you? Well like I said you are one of those people who see anti-Semitism in anyone who even asks a question not in the manner of your liking. Let's see there was a link to Fisheater's piece on the Talmud, a Catholic view, or I should say a view by Catholics. There was Gil Student and Abe Foxman suggested by Ben I think. This would be a Jewish view. I asked for a Catholic view. Now, I did not say another view like Fisheater's. I just said Catholic and I get the third degree by you Rosemarie. Why? Because you are apparently the type of person that assumes the worst of people. As far as a Catholic source who relied on Jewish sources, I think this is a non-issue. I would think any authoritative opinion would take into account Jewish views. Even the Fisheater's piece quotes other Jewish sources, apparently, to back their claim. I'm not saying Fisheater's is authoritative by the way.
Anyway I may not be back later. I will say I disagree with Ryan C. Surprise! I don't think Jim and Rosemarie are awesome, I think they are very nasty and angry people. (Jim's nastier) I know they think they are justified and all but I would beg to differ. And I think they illustrated my point of attack, attack, attack all the while trying to place me as the defender of Fisheater's view on the Talmud. All because I asked for a Catholic view on the Talmud. Sheesh!
Ok. A few comments on Ben Yachov/Jim Scott IV the great theologian and logician. Then I'm going to bed.
Ben says:
“I've dealt with too many anti-Catholic Protestant Fundamentalists & apologists to be persuaded by a Catholic who tries to adopt their own dull sophistry
“If I accept your line of reasoning & apply it equally to the Catholic Church, then I must conclude that Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid & yes, even your Radtrad hero Bob Sungenis are bald-faces liars when they claim the Council of Trent teaches salvation by God's grace alone & condemns Pelagianism & Semi-Pelagianism.””
What line of reasoning would that be Ben? The one your suspicious wife who assumes the worst of people made up and attributed to me that says I think all Jewish sources are untrustworthy? Just where did I say that? If you would please put that in quotes I would appreciate it very much.
Then he says
“I'm sorry, Tim, but if we take a Socratic, rational & fair approach, then we must conclude that Jews are the ultimate authority as to what Judaism & Jewish sources mean. Much like Catholics are the ultimate authories of what Catholicism and the Church Fathers mean. That's only fair & reasonable.”
Okay then when I used this Socratic rational and fair approach in suggesting we believe Muslims who say the Koran is all love and peace, was I being sophistic ated? Or was I using the Socratic method? And why would Rosemarie believe a Coptic Catholic instead of the “ultimate authority” on the issue. Which does she believe?
Then:
“Tim, I've met too many Bible-thumping Fundies, who when I read them the Council of Trent's condemnation of works salvation, say to my face, "The Council Fathers were just saying that, we know what you Catholics REALLY believe, that you are saved by your own works!" That's just absurd & to see a Catholic use the same juvenile sophistry against another religion offends me deeply.”
Ben, I don’t think it takes much to offend you. Oh and there’s that sophistry I am supposedly using against another religion by arguing a position that I AM NOT ARGUING. Man your brain must be really really big Ben for it to think things into reality.
I repeat what I posted above. I asked for a Catholic source, not to Rosemarie’s satisfaction I’ll admit, but I did not attempt to defend Fisheater’s position. Dismissing the ADL only means I dismiss all Jewish sources IN ROSEMARIES’s MIND.
Ben in an earlier post said the following “I just have this strange Catholic desire to uphold that particularly Jewish commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"!
Ben you should try harder. Or does that Jewish commandment not apply to non-Jews?
+J.M.J+
I'm not angry at all, Tim, and as for attacks, the first thing you said to me above was:
"As far as the ADL, I consider it an anti-Christian organization. Call me what you want Rosemarie."
Why did you assume I wanted to "call" you anything? I had no such intention. I asked a simple question and you made all sorts of assumptions about me. Throughout your discussion with me in this combox, you've been the one with the pugnacious tone.
FWIW, I believe there is an element of truth to your assessment of the ADL. Granted, anti-Christianity is not part of their official position (I doubt it's in their mission statement or whatever), and some members of the organization may not be anti-Christian at all. Yet Foxman has said some things that seem to reveal a certain animus against Christianity (such as how his opposition to Mel Gibson's TPOTC spilled over into effectively calling the New Testament anti-Semitic). Since he is the head and spokesman for that organization, what you said is not too far from the truth.
If you had asked me what my personal view of the ADL is, that is what I would have told you. But no, you just assumed that I think that organization is above all criticism.
Hopefully I will get a chance to answer you more fully later; I have to go somewhere now.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie, let's go back to the start of our conversation.
Here is how you responded to my request for a Catholic source from your husband.
"I am curious why the statements of the Orthodox Rabbi and ADL aren't "enough".
What do the quotes mean? And regardless of the quotes, is it unreasonable to want more than the party line, and a questionable party at that. Even you grant that as a possibility. If the ADL does have an animus against Christianity would it be wise to rely on them as "enough" of a source to debunk the claims about anti-Christian passages in the Talmud? And going back to your most recent post, where did I "assume" you think the ADL is above all criticism. Who is assuming here?
You then say,
"If someone wanted to read a book about Catholicism, would you recommend they read an anti-Catholic book or a Catholic one? Surely the former would be unacceptable"
It looks like you are using anti-Catholic here in place of anti-Jewish to make a point. Please tell me where I requested an anti-Jewish source? I requested a Catholic source. Again, who is assuming things here?
Lastly, I don't think I was assuming too much if anythng at all, if you look at your statements which I reposted above. If you combine that with you and your husband's liberal use of the label "anti-Semitic" in the past in these comboxes, I don't think I was being overly pugnacious. Have a nice day.
+J.M.J+
Well, I didn't have to leave after all.
I suppose you may have taken my initial question as an "attack" or "loaded". I'm sorry you got that impression. I like to ask people what they believe or think rather than assuming I know; it helps avoid the embarrassment of prejudging someone wrongly.
You wrote:
>>>And going back to your most recent post, where did I "assume" you think the ADL is above all criticism. Who is assuming here?
Well, when you said "Dismissing the ADL only means I dismiss all Jewish sources IN ROSEMARIES’s MIND," it pretty much sounds like you think I believe that the ADL is above criticism. That somehow criticizing that organization is equivalent to criticizing all Jews. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am well aware that the ADL no more speaks for every single Jew than the Catholic League speaks for every single Catholic, and I have been critical of the ADL in the past, or at least of Foxman's apparent animus against "conservative" Christianity (I think he may be more sanguine toward liberal Christians).
>>>It looks like you are using anti-Catholic here in place of anti-Jewish to make a point. Please tell me where I requested an anti-Jewish source? I requested a Catholic source. Again, who is assuming things here?
Yet I went on to mention "neutral non-Catholic sources", because I know that not every non-Jewish source is anti-Jewish. I guess it was a clumbsy way of trying to make this point: The best source on what a religion teaches would be a member of that religion, the second-best would be a neutral source who does not belong to that religion, the worst source would be someone who opposes that religion. I basically didn't understand why you seemed to want the second-best source rather than the best source. If all you wanted was a Catholic source that would explain Talmud-burning, that's a slightly different matter.
Now, looking back over my responses to you, I have never been hostile toward you; I've just asked a few questions. Yet from your first post in response to me, with your "Call me what you want Rosemarie" and "Thanks for nothing" remarks, you have exhibited hostility toward me. I haven't "called" you anything, yet you have called me a "nasty and angry" person, and have made the following judgments about me:
"I would hope that being more specific might have kept Rosemarie from doing the thing that she and her husband always seem to do. That is attack, attack, attack anyone who even poses a question, let alone make a negative comment about Judasim. You see they are the types who see anti-Semitism in anyone who does not follow the script, their script. I'm personally sick of it."
"Well like I said you are one of those people who see anti-Semitism in anyone who even asks a question not in the manner of your liking."
"I just said Catholic and I get the third degree by you Rosemarie. Why? Because you are apparently the type of person that assumes the worst of people."
"I don't think Jim and Rosemarie are awesome, I think they are very nasty and angry people. (Jim's nastier)"
"Dismissing the ADL only means I dismiss all Jewish sources IN ROSEMARIES’s MIND."
Again I ask, who has attacked who?
>>>If the ADL does have an animus against Christianity would it be wise to rely on them as "enough" of a source to debunk the claims about anti-Christian passages in the Talmud?
The ADL is an organization dedicated to defending Jews and Judaism against those who would attack or misrepresent them. Questions of interpretation of the Talmud fall into that category. Abe Foxman's personal feelings toward Christianity do not in any way prevent that organization from explaining what the Talmud means. I mean, there's more to the ADL than just Foxman; I doubt he is a Talmud expert at all, so whoever defends the Talmud in that organization should not be prejudged based on Foxman's views.
>>>As far as a Catholic source who relied on Jewish sources, I think this is a non-issue. I would think any authoritative opinion would take into account Jewish views.
Thank you for answering the question. I don't understand why it took so long.
Apart from my husband, I know of no other Catholic group or individual that specifically tries to explain how Jews really understand the Talmud. Like I said above, it's not a Catholic "specialty"; we tend to defend our own beliefs rather than those of others. Maybe my husband knows of some other sources, though.
However, I still think that Jewish source are basically reliable. They know their own language and religious history, how things were interpreted in the past, and they have as much a right to defend themselves against unjust attacks as Catholics do. So I wouldn't dismiss them too readily.
>>>Okay then when I used this Socratic rational and fair approach in suggesting we believe Muslims who say the Koran is all love and peace, was I being sophistic ated? Or was I using the Socratic method? And why would Rosemarie believe a Coptic Catholic instead of the "ultimate authority" on the issue. Which does she believe?
Anyone who is fluent in Arabic and reads the Koran can tell you what it says. If you want to know what it means, well, good luck. Islam has no pope or magisterium to infallibly rule on the meaning of "difficult" passages in its scriptures. All it has are competing mullahs who interpret the Koran each according to his own fancy. If one says that jihad is an inner struggle then his followers believe that. If another says that the "Kill the pagans" texts apply quite literally for today, then his followers believe that.
In short, there is no "ultimate authority" on Islam and the Koran. Islam is whatever its followers want it to be, and the Koran means whatever Muslims want it to mean. So it is with any natural religion.
In Jesu et Maria,
Tim your just spoiling for a fight aren't you?
Rosemarie is the most unoffensive of people yet IT WAS YOU SIR who FIRST got all pugnacious & snapped at her when she merely asked you a simple unoffensive question. Naturally in our past experience it is USUALLY the anti-Semtic radtrads whose first response to a challenge to their flakery is too have a meltdown and
you sir are the one who responded to a simple question with a meltdown. So forgive us if intial bad behavior on your part maybe made us more than a little suspicious.
If you want a civilized conversation Rosemarie will oblige you & even I will on a good day. If you want something else.....then forget it. Not interested. The choice is yours.
Well we could go back and forth forever but I think that would be a waste of time. I will say I am aware that Islam has no pope. Judaism doesn't either. The reason I brought the Islam issue up again was because your husband snidely ridiculed me for using it early as an example of trusting the "authoratative" source. I brought it back up to ask him after he basically used the same logic on Judaism and Catholicism whether it was indeed Sophistry or Socratic. But I really don't care anymore. I asked for a Catholic source and after all these words all I have is the ADL to rely on. Ok. Let's drop it.
I'll repost this and leave it at that.
Ben in an earlier post said the following “I just have this strange Catholic desire to uphold that particularly Jewish commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"!
Clarification. The reason I put Ben/Jim's quote up there again was that I assumed (oops) that he was implying or accusing me of being a radtrad again like he does elsewhere. After reading it more carefully and getting through the nastiness, I see technically he did not come out and say that. He only offered a lame excuse as to why he did it earlier. So I did not need to remind him of the commandment. Anyway I just wanted to clarify that.
+J.M.J+
>>>I will say I am aware that Islam has no pope. Judaism doesn't either.
True, but Judaism's authority structure is a bit different than that of Islam. There was not quite as much chaos among the rabbis in the past as there is today among the mullahs. So the rabbinic authorities of old could offer more authoritative interpretations of Talmud passages than the modern divided mullahs can of the writings of Mohammed. Comparing the Talmud to the Koran is a bit of an "apples and oranges" exercise, anyway.
In Jesu et Maria,
"Comparing the Talmud to the Koran is a bit of an "apples and oranges" exercise, anyway". No disagreement here. Sorry you assumed I was doing that. I think the issue was about relying on the authority of members of the group that wrote the text and their informing others as to whether a passage exists and if it does what is it's meaning. Your husband used the example of Judaism and Catholicism earlier regarding authority. As far as the first part of your post, you speak as if you are an expert. But I won't be asking for any sources from any group to verfy what you said, don't worry.
Umm...could someone please address my last question? :-P
+J.M.J+
Sorry about that, Ryan.
The question of papal infallibility in canonization is a bit complicated. A good treatment of the topic is in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Beatification and Canonization
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
02364b.htm
Scroll down to the section titled "Papal Infallibility and Canonization"
I think that the reasons given for the canonization would not be infallible, since they are the result of intense scrutiny of the person's life by the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints. The canonization itself, however, is an act of the Holy Father, so that would have to be the infallible aspect.
In Jesu et Maria,
Thanks Rosemarie!
That's interesting that the canonization formula doesn't refer back to heroic virtue. That and the author's dicussion of that fact seem to answer my question about St. Cyril too!
>Ben in an earlier post said the following “I just have this strange Catholic desire to uphold that particularly Jewish commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"!
I reply: I hate deeply yeh unapologetically hate it when "Catholics" (like the people over at fisheaters & CAI for example)distort & misrepresent the holy texts of other religions. Why? Because it's been done to Catholics with avengence SO WE SHOULD & MUST know better.
I have a zero tolerance policy toward this type of lying. Honest mistakes can & must be excused but fanatics who hold fast to their asinine & self evidently false & clearly refuted misrepresentations will get nothing but rigor from me.
>I asked for a Catholic source and after all these words all I have is the ADL to rely on.
I reply: The Catholic Encylopedia talks about the Talmud & nowhere does it claim the Talmud teaches child rape. Indeed you will ONLY find that charge on KKK, Neo-Nazi & of course Radtrad websites.
That alone should set off an alarm in people's heads.
Commenting by HaloScan
