Are those of the Talmudic religion

[dspen2005]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Apr 16 2006, 11:11 AM']I believe the modern people of the Talmudic/ modern Jewish religion are guilty of Deicide. Do you?
[right][snapback]949030[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I suggest that you realize that you are outside the church's teaching

[son_of_angels]

I generally think that only those directly involved in the conspiracy to kill Jesus could be properly said to be "guilty" of Deicide.

However, all Jews have been affected, in one way or another, by that singular act of disobedience. First, they have, being once the people of the Covenant, now been reduced by the New Covenant, since the vast majority of them stand in opposition to it. Second, they were deprived of their temple, and therefore their religion, without the new Temple because they could not see the ultimate Christian conquest of Rome. Having been left, therefore, without an earthly Temple of the Law, they follow a perversion of the law, which makes the law's requirements as nothing, whilst not accepting our Lord's Law, and therefore making God's grace nothing. Third, they have been a calumniated people, held sometimes in contempt, sometimes in respect, by the People of God, and from that People to even the infidels. Either way, they have not chosen, or received as a grace, the manner of their treatment, but rather shrunk into corners to endure the unendurable. Lord, have mercy!

Nonethless, this "Theology of Contempt" is not for those who could ever possibly accuse the Jewish race in such a way as to seek their punishment or eradication. Remember the curse the Lord laid on Cain, that it included the command that none should molest him. Remember the example of the Good Samaritan, and let us offer them, and all, Christ's charity.

[Resurrexi]

I'm not accusing the Jewish race. I'm accusing the post-Temple Jewish religion.

[Era Might]

[quote]True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, [b]what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today[/b]. Although the Church is the new people of God, [b]the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God[/b], as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.

--Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, "Nostra Aetate"[/quote]

The Church has already rejected any proposition that the Jewish people are guilty for the sins of their forefathers.

This topic is Catholic vs. Catholic doctrinal debate. IMHO the thread should be closed before it descends into its inevitable anti-Jewish diatribe. That's my opinion anyway.

Edited April 16, 2006 by Era Might

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

quote another council than Vatican II. its far from Convincing.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 16 2006, 05:09 PM']quote another council than Vatican II. its far from Convincing.
[right][snapback]949275[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That's your problem when you accept the teaching of the Church because it's "convincing" and not because it is the teaching of the Church.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Apr 16 2006, 03:12 PM']That's your problem when you accept the teaching of the Church because it's "convincing" and not because it is the teaching of the Church.
[right][snapback]949279[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


how would a council called 40 years prove the church has "The Church has already rejected any proposition that the Jewish people are guilty for the sins of their forefathers,"?

especially when the council defined NO dogma.

[Era Might]

EENS,

I'm not gonna argue with you. I suggest you go pray the litany of humility and spend a few months reading the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

Have a good Easter.

Edited April 16, 2006 by Era Might

[Guest JeffCR07]

Talmudic Judaism as a religion could not possibly be guilty of the crucifixion of Christ. The Talmud is a collection of the Mishna, the Tosefta, and the Gemara: none of which existed at the time of Christ. The Mishna, the earliest of the three, was created during the Tannaitic Period from 135-200 AD.

People have it in their heads that there was one set "Judaism" during the Second Temple Period, and that it was modern Rabbinic Judaism. This is flat out wrong. Judaism existed in the form of multiple sects, no single one of which could be considered "maintstream" by todays standards.

Were the individual Jews who crucified Jesus guilty? Yes. Is every sinner also guilty? Yes. Is Talmudic Judaism guilty? No, and to assert such is not only illogical, but also reflects poorly on the intellectual character of Catholics.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[qfnol31]

StThomasMore, You haven't given me any proof that I should believe they're guilty of Deicide. You have to give an argument 'cause I'm skeptical about anything told to me following Vatic an II from any side.

Speaking of which...anyone else here ever want to commit geocide?

[dspen2005]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 16 2006, 03:15 PM']how would a council called 40 years prove the church has "The Church has already rejected any proposition that the Jewish people are guilty for the sins of their forefathers,"?

especially when the council defined NO dogma.
[right][snapback]949285[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

have you ever actually READ the VII documents, or are you simply relying upon the 'interpretations' of the documents. it seems to me that this is the case for you... you claim to be a faithful Catholic, but you aren't doing much to prove that point.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 16 2006, 03:15 PM']how would a council called 40 years [ago?] prove the church has "The Church has already rejected any proposition that the Jewish people are guilty for the sins of their forefathers,"?

especially when the council defined NO dogma.
[right][snapback]949285[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Just because it didn't define dogma doesn't mean that there wasn't anything infallible. I don't have to define dogma to say the Church has never given an official opinion on Limbus Infantium...It seems the Church can do the same...The Magisterium hopefully knows Her better than we and can better say such things.

Also, just because of tons of abuses following and maybe confusing language, I don't think you could say that it was innaccurate in its assessment. As I just said, the Magisterium probably has a better idea of what was actually taught.

Finally, the Church could not have called blame down upon the Jews in the way it seems to be here because that's not a part of the Church's duty to decide. The Church cannot judge such culpability as it has been decided.

[Snarf]

I just find it interesting that nobody has yet pointed out that "deicide" is an intrinsic impossibility. Remember what Christ told Pilate, "You would have no power over me were it not given you from above"? The human authorities, whether you levy the blame foremost on the Sanhedrin or the Romans, had only the power to undergo a human execution. However, it was at all times Christ's option to save Himself from any fate, yet He chose not to out of love for human kind. Nobody is capable of "killing" God. You can nail Him to a tree and watch Him die, but He will have all the power in the world to undo this at all times.

[Resurrexi]

I can see why snarf has the "I dont rep..." sign under his name

[avemaria40]

We're all guilty. It was everyone's sins that put Our Lord on the Cross.