Question On 4th Lateran Council

[PhuturePriest]

So I'm debating with a person who says at the 4th Lateran Council it was declared that Jews are "Christ Killers", and they used it to segregate Jews. Can someone knowledgeable on the subject give me some help on this? Is this actually true? If so, what am I to respond with?

[Fidei Defensor]

Sadly, there were canons enacted that required Muslims and Jews to wear different dress to distinguish them from Christians.
 

68. Jews appearing in public

A difference of dress distinguishes Jews or Saracens from Christians in some provinces, but in others a certain confusion has developed so that they are indistinguishable. Whence it sometimes happens that by mistake Christians join with Jewish or Saracen women, and Jews or Saracens with Christian women. In order that the offence of such a damnable mixing may not spread further, under the excuse of a mistake of this kind, we decree that such persons of either sex, in every Christian province and at all times, are to be distinguished in public from other people by the character of their dress — seeing moreover that this was enjoined upon them by Moses himself, as we read. They shall not appear in public at all on the days of lamentation and on passion Sunday; because some of them on such days, as we have heard, do not blush to parade in very ornate dress and are not afraid to mock Christians who are presenting a memorial of the most sacred passion and are displaying signs of grief. What we most strictly forbid however, is that they dare in any way to break out in derision of the Redeemer. We order secular princes to restrain with condign punishment those who do so presume, lest they dare to blaspheme in any way him who was crucified for us, since we ought not to ignore insults against him who blotted out our wrongdoings.

 

 

[Perigrina]

The Church's treatment of Jews has both good and bad in it. If your opponent is trying to portray the Church as always bad, then he is exaggerating.  Search on "sicut judaeis" to get an overview of various teachings over the centuries.  This Wikipedia article gives an overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicut_Judaeis

 

One can make case that the Jews started it, since they persecuted us in the earliest years of the Church, but this is not a compelling argument. Don't expect much from it.

[MIKolbe]

So I'm debating with a person who says at the 4th Lateran Council it was declared that Jews are "Christ Killers", and they used it to segregate Jews. Can someone knowledgeable on the subject give me some help on this? Is this actually true? If so, what am I to respond with?

 

Here's the text of Latern IV.

 

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/lateran4.htm

 

ask him to find it...

[Credo in Deum]

 Is this actually true? If so, what am I to respond with?

 

 1.)Yes, technically the Jews are Christ killers -as we all are since He died for our sins and because of them.  2.) The Church claims infallibility in doctrine and not impeccability in it's members.  All of us can improve in the "love of neighbor" department.

[Guest]

That s u c k s...

Edited June 30, 2014 by Guest

[Guest]

But I s u c k too so who am I to judge...

[Luigi]

I know this much. The first ghetto was an island (named Ghetto) in the environs of Venice. At some point - 12th century? well before that? - all Jews in the Veneto (all the territory under the political control of Venice) were required to move onto that island. All this had been done by the time Shakespeare wrote "The Merchant of Venice." So at least by that time, in that place, Jews were physically segregated from Christians. I suspect that the segregation was a largely political move, but I'd be very surprised if the politicians didn't use some sort of religious reasoning to justify the segregation.

 

Jews were also excluded from the guilds, they couldn't hold public office, and lots of other discriminatory practices were in place. 

 

As the Renaissance got up and running, scholars who were introduced to ancient texts began to take an interest in Hebrew, and therefore Judaism and Jews. Hebrew quotations begin to appear in art works, for instance. But the scholars couldn't lift any of the discriminatory restrictions on their own. 

 

Of the four Gospels, John's is the one that emphasizes "the Jews did this to Jesus, the Jews did that to Jesus." Read the passion account, especially. This is where the concept of 'Jews as Christ killers' comes from. But it never made sense to me to hold the killing of Jesus against the Jews, because Jesus' death was required in the plan of salvation; that being the case, the Jews were instruments of God's will in the plan of salvation. But Church leaders of the past didn't always look at it that way, I guess. 

[Guest]

Yea if the Jews didn't crucify Christ how would of God's plan got accomplished ? This is where I try not to start thinking to hard about this stuff becuase if I do it starts to sew seeds of confusion and doubt.

[Credo in Deum]

Yea if the Jews didn't crucify Christ how would of God's plan got accomplished ? This is where I try not to start thinking to hard about this stuff becuase if I do it starts to sew seeds of confusion and doubt.

 

There isn't really a point to asking that question since all of humanity is responsible for Christ's death on the Cross. We've all scourged Him, we've all spit on Him, we've all mocked Him, we've all crowned Him with Thorns, we've all nailed Him to the cross, and we've all pierced His Sacred Heart with the lance.  All we need to do to know how God's plan would have been accomplished without the Jews, is grab a hammer and stand in front of a mirror.  

[Perigrina]

The common people were often violent against Jews but the Popes tried to protect them. Here are excerpts from the papal bull Sicut Judaeis:

 

"[The Jews] ought to suffer no prejudice. We, out of the meekness of Christian piety, and in keeping in the footprints or Our predecessors of happy memory, the Roman Pontiffs Calixtus, Eugene, Alexander, Clement, admit their petition, and We grant them the buckler of Our protection. For We make the law that no Christian compel them, unwilling or refusing, by violence to come to baptism. But, if any one of them should spontaneously, and for the sake of the faith, fly to the Christians, once his choice has become evident, let him be made a Christian without any calumny. Indeed, he is not considered to possess the true faith of Christianity who is not recognized to have come to Christian baptism, not spontaneously, but unwillingly. Too, no Christian ought to presume...to injure their persons, or with violence to take their property, or to change the good customs which they have had until now in whatever region they inhabit. Besides, in the celebration of their own festivities, no one ought disturb them in any way, with clubs or stones, nor ought any one try to require from them or to extort from them services they do not owe, except for those they have been accustomed from times past to perform. ...We decree... that no one ought to dare mutilate or diminish a Jewish cemetery, nor, in order to get money, to exhume bodies once they have been buried. If anyone, however, shall attempt, the tenor of this decree once known, to go against it...let him be punished by the vengeance of excommunication, unless he correct his presumption by making equivalent satisfaction.  

 

 

Segregation was not necessarily a bad thing.  Sometimes Jews were segregated to make it easier to protect them from mob violence.   One needs to carefully sift through the information.  A lot of sources have their own agendas when discussing these topics.     

Edited June 30, 2014 by Perigrina

[Guest]

Then why was there the issue with the Jews? Or is it a mistake of the Church and we just admit that ?

Edited June 30, 2014 by Guest

[Credo in Deum]

 

Segregation was not necessarily a bad thing.  Sometimes Jews were segregated to make it easier to protect them from mob violence.   One needs to carefully sift through the information.  A lot of sources have their own agendas when discussing these topics.     

 

Yes, I agree.  In our modern times we are conditioned to look at segregation as a negative thing, when it can be employed as a useful practice to procure positive results.   In prison certain prisoners are segregated to avoid violence, riots, and possible deaths. In this setting segregation is a good thing.  Now, I'm not trying to justify persecution nor am I saying that others didn't abuse such practices.  I'm just suggesting that given the time period and tensions, we should have an open mind on the subject and not approach past decrees or decision with 2014 outlooks.   Plus it's not like segregation isn't practiced in our modern world.  Nowadays we just put a spin on it to look like flattery.  For example, Black History Month.  Not only does the United States only give one month out of the year to celebrate the achievements of African Americans, but it gives the shortest month out of the year to do so.

 

 

I 

[Guest]

Yea past is the past. We've come along way which is great.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Guest

[HisChildForever]

Sorry to be annoying, but...

 

Yes, I agree.  In our modern times we are conditioned to look at segregation as a negative thing, when it can be employed as a useful practice to procure positive results.   In prison certain prisoners are segregated to avoid violence, riots, and possible deaths. In this setting segregation is a good thing.  Now, I'm not trying to justify persecution nor am I saying that others didn't abuse such practices.  I'm just suggesting that given the time period and tensions, we should have an open mind on the subject and not approach past decrees or decision with 2014 outlooks.   Plus it's not like segregation isn't practiced in our modern world.  Nowadays we just put a spin on it to look like flattery.  For example, Black History Month.  Not only does the United States only give one month out of the year to celebrate the achievements of African Americans, but it gives the shortest month out of the year to do so.

 

 

I 

 

The founder of Black History Month actually began with a week in February to celebrate the achievements of African-Americans and their culture. It was the week of Abe Lincoln and Frederick Douglass's birthdays. In the mid 1970s it was turned into Black History Month by a university and then declared official by the government. You'd have to Google for more details. So in other words it was created and expanded by African-Americans...they chose the month, not a bunch of whites trying to screw them over with the shortest month lol.

 

Oh and solitary confinement is one of the worst things you can do to a prisoner, but that's a whole 'nother topic...