Opus Dei?

[Cam42]

[quote]As a Catholic, I am far more inclined to turn to the infallible dogma of the church as reference for matters regarding salvation than I would turn to the propaganda work of a recently converted layperson.[/quote]

I am certain that Opus Dei follows every single teaching of the Catholic Church. I too follow every single teaching the Church puts forth. To insinuate something else is very unbecoming.

[quote]To the recently converted Roy Schoeman I would recommend settling down and studying church dogma and tradition a bit more carefully before launching an effort to influence Catholic thinking.[/quote]

Again, I would suggest that you actually read the book. As a Catholic thinker, he is entitled to make the statements that he makes. He is not promoting doctrine or dogma, but rather he is simply stating what he knows. This is not a theological certainty, but then again, you have not given any sources, whatsoever.

[quote]To Cam42 I would definitely recommend putting down Schoeman's book and paying heed to the ex cathedra pronouncement of pope Eugene IV:[/quote]

James, I am quite versed in Catholic Theology, thanks. I don't need to follow your promptings in order to undersatand what the Church teaches. Also, there have only been two statements made that are [i]ex cathedra.[/i] They are the Immaculate Conception (Pope Pius IX) and the Assumption (Pope Pius XII).

While there have been infallible teachings from the Church, there have only been two which were pronounced [i]ex cathedra.[/i] So, perhaps we should advise you check your credentials.

Want some infallible teachings about Judaism, James? Here ya go:

"Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, "the first to hear the Word of God." The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ", "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." (CCC 839)

And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus. (CCC 840)

That is pretty close to my previous post.

[quote]They are the "Chosen People." They are the first sons of the Father. While they do not share in the fulfillment of the Son, they do share in the life of the Father. Remember, we believe in the same God. They just don't accept the second and third parts of the Trinity. However, they anticipate them.....they still wait for the Messiah.[/quote]

I am starting to wonder if you have even read or studied anything remotely close to the Talmud or any type of Judaic studies. Your statements are incredibly uniformed and very speculative. What you are saying is easily found on anti-Jewish sites all over the web. Ain't "Google" grand? I would suggest you put some real study into the Talmud, the other teachings of Judaism and perhaps then we can start the conversation over again.

Here is a good place to start, the 1910 Catholic Enyclopdedia:

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14435b.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14435b.htm[/url]

Part of knowing Catholic Theology on a formal level, is knowing certain aspects of Jewish law. While it is not a focal point, most who study sacred Theology formally will study some aspect of this.

Now that I have gone on this rant, I will say this again, Opus Dei is a fully recognized Prelature within the Catholic Church. It has the support of the Vatican and the Church at large. I would suggest, James, that you start doing your homework before calling out those things which are accepted and supported by the Catholic Church. If the Church accepts and supports it, who are you to not?

Cam42

[Cam42]

James,

Now you are rehashing the same thing that you said earlier.....come on. Try something new.

Your posts about Rabbi Kreiman have already been addressed.

Cam42

[Socrates]

The Talmud also includes the books of the Old Testament. The Rabbi has merely said he agrees with Opus Dei's ideas about sanctification through work (which is hardly a blasphemous or anti-Christian concept). he has not said that Opus Dei teaches everything that Talmudic Judaism does.

James, until you can give a [b]particular, specific teaching held by Opus Dei[/b] which is contrary to the Catholic Faith, I will dismiss your rantings as scurrilous and scandalous nonsense.

Why would the Church endorse something blasphemous?

Edited February 9, 2005 by Socrates

[james]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 9 2005, 05:06 PM'] The Talmud also includes the books of the Old Testament... [/quote]
Socrates, you've clearly gotten yourself involved in a conversation on a topic which you have a weak grasp of.

The Talmud does not "include the books of the Old Testament."

I do take note that your poor understanding of this matter hasn't stopped you from attempting to discredit me. You may dismiss what I say all you like, although your dismissals would carry more weight if you had at least a basic understanding of the topic.

[james]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 9 2005, 05:02 PM']



Again, I would suggest that you actually read the book.  As a Catholic thinker, he is entitled to make the statements that he makes.  He is not promoting doctrine or dogma, but rather he is simply stating what he knows.  This is not a theological certainty, but then again, you have not given any sources, whatsoever.



[/quote]
I have read Schoeman's book, with great disgust, I might add, and my reading of his ideas is what my comments are based upon.

[quote name='Cam42']I am starting to wonder if you have even read or studied anything remotely close to the Talmud or any type of Judaic studies. Your statements are incredibly uniformed and very speculative. What you are saying is easily found on anti-Jewish sites all over the web. Ain't "Google" grand? I would suggest you put some real study into the Talmud, the other teachings of Judaism and perhaps then we can start the conversation over again.[/quote]

How much study of a text which contains blasphemy against Jesus Christ and His Blessed Mother, not to mention great hatred for all non-Jews, do you recommend?

I own copies of all of the available volumes of the Random House published Steinsaltz English translation of the Babylonian Talmud and that is what my comments are based on, not a web site, as you assert.

You may recommend all the alternate reading you like. The Talmud is the reference in question. No secondary reference can excuse the blasphemy which the Talmud contains.

Edited February 9, 2005 by james

[Cam42]

So James,

Since you are so versed, which Talmud are we going to discuss? Are we going to discuss the Babylonian Talmud or the Palestinian Talmud. And how much of it are we going to discuss? Since both are incomplete, I would assume that we aren't going to discuss all of it.

While there are some things written in the Talmud that are contrary to the Christian mindset, one must take in to consideration that this is not a Christian document. One must also undertake to understand the menatality of the things that were written and what is the proper context, in which to take the whole of the teaching.

What is the Talmud? The Talmud is the Jewish understanding of the Pentateuch. Since nothing can be altered or changed in the law of the Pentateuch, there needed to be a way to discuss the oral tradition of the law.

So, there became two major ways to define the whole of Judaism. The Torah and the Talmud. The Torah (and later scriptures) dealt with the written tradition, and the Talmud dealt with the oral tradition.

Do I consider it to be definitive? No, I do not. I think that there are some things that are offensive to the Christian position, but then again, it is not a Christian document, nor should it be considered as such. Is there something to be learned from the Talmud? Yes.

Pope Gregory I (590-604) spelled out Church policy toward the Jews in his decree Sicut Iudaeis Non. As might be expected, it was a synthesis of Roman law and the philosophies of St. Paul and St. Augustine. Gregory wrote, "Just as the Jews should not in their synagogues be free to do anything not permitted by law, so also in those things granted them they should have no infringement of their rights." During his pontificate, he put these words into practice, intervening to protect Jews from violence and insisting that Jewish rituals be tolerated.

Also James, I would ascribe to these words if I were you, "All should take pains, then, lest in catechetical instruction and in the preaching of God's Word they teach anything out of harmony with the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ"; as also from these words: "Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred Synod wishes to foster and recommend mutual understanding and respect". (Nostra Aetate no.4)

You are taking a position on this website of trying to teach about the Talmud. You are not following the guidelines in which those who catechize are to follow.

Also, Pope John Paul II says this, "Also significant is an ancient Jewish comment on the passage in Genesis (cf. 1: 2) which describes the Spirit moving over the primeval waters with motherly tenderness: "The Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters like a dove that hovers over her little ones without touching them" (Talmud, Hagigah 15a). The Holy Spirit descends on Jesus as the power of superabundant love. Referring precisely to Jesus' Baptism, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: "The Spirit whom Jesus possessed in fullness from his conception comes to "rest on him'. Jesus will be the source of the Spirit for all mankind" (CCC, n. 536)." (General Audience 12 April 2000)

So, what say you? Since the Holy Father quotes the Talmud, then applies it to the teaching of the Catechism, is he now in error and to be defamed? I think not.

Again James, there is good to be gained from the Talmud, St. Josemaria saw this, the Holy Father sees it. So, I ask you, who are you to say what you are saying?

[quote]I own copies of all of the available volumes of the Random House published Steinsaltz English translation of the Babylonian Talmud and that is what my comments are based on, not a web site, as you assert.[/quote]

I assert that your thinking is based upon various websites. Again, you are quoting nothing. Your assertations are simply that assertations. The whole of the Talmud may be purchased online, so I would suggest that you pick up the rest of it, it runs about $850.00.

[quote]No secondary reference can excuse the blasphemy which the Talmud contains.[/quote]

I don't think that anyone here has disagreed with the fact that the Talmud contains errors. But then again it is not a Christian document. But that does not mean that there is not something that can be gained from it. As I said above, if the Holy Father can read and quote it in a critical light, then I am coming to the very quick realization that you may be nothing more than an uninformed charlatian.

This isn't really a discussion about the Talmud anyway, it is a discussion about Opus Dei. You have tried to hi-jack the conversation as a discussion and promulgation against Judaism and our Jewish brothers. Again, you really need to read Nostra Aetate. Then perhaps you can start catechizing properly and not in this anti-Semetic rhetoric.

Cam42

[Socrates]

My mistake, James. I was confusing the Talmud with the Torah. I don't claim to be an expert on Judaism.

However, what I said about Opus Dei still stands. I have seen no evidence from you whatsoever that Opus Dei teaches anything contrary to the Church. All you can say is that a rabbi agrees with Opus Dei's teachings on sanctification through one's work. What scandal!

A rabbi also gives a speech at the March for Life, opposes abortion, and supports the Catholic pro-life effort. Does this mean the Catholic pro-life movement is also evil?

If this the best you can do in your zeal to condemn your fellow Catholics, you have no case at all. You are engaging in a sin of slander and calumny, and I ask, in the name of Christian charity, that you knock it off!

Edited February 10, 2005 by Socrates

[james]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 9 2005, 07:29 PM'] Again James, there is good to be gained from the Talmud, St. Josemaria saw this, the Holy Father sees it. So, I ask you, who are you to say what you are saying?


[/quote]

Who am I? I'm a Catholic who happens to agree with the many popes who have condemned the Talmud as a blasphemous, hateful text. If I am wrong, then what of these former popes? What of pope Leo XIII?

[quote]Although in the Index issued by Pope Pius IV, the Jewish Talmud with all its glossaries, annotations, interpretations and expositions were prohibited: but if published without the name Talmud and without its vile calumnies against the Christian religion they could be tolerated; however, Our Holy Lord Pope Clement VIII in his constitution against impious writings and Jewish books, published in Rome in the year of Our Lord 1592 … proscribed and condemned them: it was not his intention thereby to permit or tolerate them even under the above conditions; for he expressly and specifically stated and willed, that the impious Talmudic Cabalistic and other nefarious books of the Jews be entirely condemned and that they must remain always condemned and prohibited, and that his Constitution about these books must be perpetually and inviolably observed. (Pope Leo XIII, Index Expurgatorius, 1887[/quote]

The respect expressed by pope Leo XIII for the descisions of his predecessors is well worth noting.



You've sufficiently supported my point: that there is Talmudic influence in Opus Dei.

And as far as the pope's apparent approval of the Talmud, I have to disagree with his sentiment.

Edited February 10, 2005 by james

[MagiDragon]

James, think about what you are doing. You are trying to cast doubt on the character of a canonized saint. That alone should tip you off that it's time to concede this line of attack.

If you want to try to discredit Opus Dei, go right ahead and try, but don't use means that involve discrediting the entire Church. If you are loyal to Rome you must realize that destroying the character of a saint ultimately results in calling Christ a liar. You would be saying that 'what was held bound on earth' was not held 'bound in heaven.'

Peace,
Joe

[james]

[quote name='MagiDragon' date='Feb 10 2005, 01:16 AM'] If you are loyal to Rome you must realize that destroying the character of a saint ultimately results in calling Christ a liar. [/quote]
Stop being rediculous. The truth is as it is.

The Talmud is a blasphemous, hateful book and any endorsement of the Talmud from Escriba or JPII has no bearing on myself, much less Jesus Christ.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Don't pheed the phish. Not even phish phood.

[james]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Feb 10 2005, 03:11 AM'] Don't pheed the phish. Not even phish phood. [/quote]
Thanks for your charitable, scholarly contribution to the discussion, "church faithful."

[Cam42]

The funny thing is James,

You will go out of your way to attack ad hominem others on this thread saying that they have no scholarly business being here, but when I come back and start refuting your anti-Semetic rhetoric you address them and not me.

If you go back, I have written plenty that you could refute (or attempt to), but you use the same tired lines about Rabbi Kreiman and quote popes who lived hundreds of years ago.

When those popes said what they said, Leo XIII, et al., they were not speaking infallibly. They were teaching for the times. They were speaking about the truth as they knew it. But unless it were an infallible teaching, I can guarantee you that their understanding of the truth may be less full than that of today. While the Truth does not change, the understanding of that Truth most certainly does. Leo XIII is not contemporary, so don't use that argument.

You idea of justifiable anger is based off an erroneous notion that popes are automatically definitive. They are not. They are only so when speaking [i]ex cathedra[/i] or teaching through the Magisterium (ordinary or extraordinary).

Popes, like saints can be wrong. Heck, my scholarly hero, St. Thomas Aquinas, is wrong, by today's standards on two issues that in his day were perfectly acceptable; slavery and usury. But, when one reads those entries, one must realize at what point in history he was writing.

That is also true of the Talmud. It is an ancient document. It dates back to the first century and it is incomplete. The understanding of that document shared in a contemporary light shows that there are different interpretations of the oral law.

You may own a copy of part of the Talmud, but I know that you have never really studied it. I can also surmise pretty accurately that you lied earlier in this thread when you said,

[quote] I, personally, am interested in the truth, no matter where it may be.[/quote]

I don't see that at all. What I see is a person on a witch-hunt. This is based solely on what you have written. You are not looking to see anyone's point of view, you are looking to discredit Opus Dei and the Jewish faith. Openly, I might add, which is again, CONTRADICTORY to Roman Catholic teaching.

[quote]You've sufficiently supported my point: that there is Talmudic influence in Opus Dei.[/quote]

No, I have not. I have supported Opus Dei. I have supported St. Josemaria Escriva. I have not supported the Talmud as a viable Christian document. I have not made any reference whatsoever to the linking of the two. The only person who has done that, is you. That's correct, you are the only one linking Opus Dei and the Talmud.

I have said that Rabbi Kreiman cooperates with the idea of the Work. So what? I have asked you that before and you simply quote the Opus Dei website.

[quote]Who am I?[/quote]

Well, let us see. I would assert James that you are an uniformed man, what was it you said about Roy Schoeman.

Let's see if this fits with a couple of minor changes.

[quote]I have read [i]James' posts[/i], with great disgust, I might add, and my reading of his ideas is what my comments are based upon.[/quote]

Yep...sums it up. You don't have any REAL knowledge, all you do is speculate, read a book, maybe, and surf the web. With that information, you are spreading dissemination about a saint and a recognized Prelature within the Roman Catholic Church.

I can continue to quote you and I can continue to give this a scholarly go, but if I am to do that, then you need to follow your own advice (and that of others) and try and keep up. At this point, I am getting bored with you, because you do not address anything of substance that I have offered. You through platitudes and one liners back or you quote a website that I support. That won't help. You need to back your stuff up.

BTW, you can't use the Talmud any longer, because I have already said that it contains errors. I know where they are and I will agree with you on them. You need to come with hard proof that Opus Dei ACTUALLY follows these precepts. If you cannot, thanks for the discussion.

So, lay off Socrates, Raphael, et al. Why don't you discuss this with me? I have already openly on this thread told anyone who will listen that I am a supernumerary with the Work. But you probably missed that....hence you have not made any snide remarks about that.

Bring it.

Cam42

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='james' date='Feb 10 2005, 02:59 AM'] Stop being rediculous. The truth is as it is.

The Talmud is a blasphemous, hateful book and any endorsement of the Talmud from Escriba or JPII has no bearing on myself, much less Jesus Christ. [/quote]
First off, it's "ridiculous" and "Escriva." sorry, that's just been annoying me.

Secondly, if there was something ridiculous in my statement, ridicule my statement, not me. Unless you have a rational response to my statement, i'll assume that you must concede the point. (Note: even saying that you have to do more research on a subject is a rational response . . . but i'm not sure you could research anything to say that you're justified in saying that Jesus *didn't* give binding authority to The Church.)

Thirdly, Cam42 deserves a response. I have added nothing significant to this debate, and therefore i am bowing out.

Peace,
Joe

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='james' date='Feb 10 2005, 04:59 AM'] Stop being rediculous. The truth is as it is.

The Talmud is a blasphemous, hateful book and any endorsement of the Talmud from Escriba or JPII has no bearing on myself, much less Jesus Christ. [/quote]
But not every line in the Talmud is blasphemous or hateful. I know this since I read most of it in college with my jewish roomie.
Are you capable of distinguishing the good from the bad or are you simply repeating what you have read somewhere?

Edited February 10, 2005 by cmotherofpirl