Exclusive: Archbishop Cyril Bustros clarifies his remarks at the Vatican Synod

FREAKIN' TOOL!

Thanks, this was very helpful. I admit that previously I didn't understand the claim that secular Jews had to the Holy Land, but he's carefully spelled out political steps that were entirely secular in origin (no matter what others read into them for their own benefit). It would seem that religious claims have to be set aside in this setting by all parties, so that international law and justice can prevail.

Of course, that requires honesty and integrity on the part of all participants ...

Now I understand fully his position . . . he owes us and all non-Muslims an apology, for he equates Christianity with Islam and obfuscates for jihad.

The God Who taught "Love your enemies" is not the devil who demands "kill the pagans wherever you find them."

A Jew believing that the land of Israel belongs to Israel doesn't have to look back to Canaan; he needs only to look to the legitimate and lawful birth of modern Israel and every victory it's won against its Muslim neighbors waging jihad against itself, the only decent nation in the Middle East.

Any opinion offered on "Palestine" that neglects (or refuses) to tell the truth about jihad is not only a lie but an affront to human decency and a cover for sacralized genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery, for it facilitates Islam's "Cordoba Initiative," the "divine" mandate to war against the non-Muslim world until Muhammad's hellish ideology reigns supreme.

As a Jewish convert to Catholicism and a defender of the Jewish people's right to exist in their land, I am happy to see these clarifications. Indeed, the fact that the majority of Jews in Israel are now refugees and descendants of refugees from Arab lands makes the purely political 'case' airtight. Surely in the vast Arab domain this particular people that Muslims persecuted, killed and degraded for centuries could be allowed to live in this tiny state the size of New Hampshire? No need to bring religious claims in at all.

Can't we all just get along?

I mean, like, COEXIST, dude!

All we are saying
Is give peace a chance

I have a great idea! Let's all bury our heads in the sand!

"We hope that the two-State-solution might become a reality and not remain a dream only."

Is is cynical of me to suggest that maybe, just possibly, hoping for the best isn't necessarily a good basis for one's strategy?

Does this guy honestly see modern, tiny, democratic Israel---as a Jewish state---being more of a threat to indigenous Christians than Muslim rule has been to the indigenous Christian poplulations in Arab lands?

I disagree with Roberts' assessment about owing the prelate an apology.
I find the man's evaluation, disingenuous, and his assessment of what the Torah states
and commands is errant, bigoted as is his nonsensical empty pomposity about 'both sides needing to make compromises' for peace.

The muslims, the arabs have made none- and that is reality. And for you to give him the benefit of the doubt as to what he meant previously and now in his 'clarification' is a puzzle to me. as for his duplicity, as a christian, trying to swallow up Israel's right to exist I only need point to this gem out of his mouth:

"The citizens of the countries of the Middle East call upon the international community, particularly the United Nations, conscientiously to work to find a peaceful, just and definitive solution in the region, through the application of the Security Council's resolution and taking the necessary legal steps to put an end to the occupation of the different Arabic countries"

He seems to think Jews started coming to Israel only after WWII, ignoring their continuous presence since several thousand years B.C.

Anyone who wants to argue theology is free to visit me at http://unclecephas.blogspot.com/2010_11_01_archive.html

Here's another puzzle as to why Robert apologizes.
The prelate states quite pompously, errantly thus:
"...Now in the Israeli-Palestinian issue we are in presence of two opposed religious extremist ideologies: from one part extremist Jews who say that Palestine is the Promised Land given to them by God, and that they cannot give up any part of it to the Arabs; and from the other part extremist Muslims who say that Palestine is a Muslim land given to them by God during the Arabic conquests, and that they cannot give up a part of it to the Israelis. With these two opposed religious ideologies it is impossible to find a compromise in order to reach a lasting peace."

And he claims both are religious extremist ideologies? Let's see. The Torah and Judaism state that the nation of Israel is their ONLY possession- none other. And that is their God given charter that claims only that tiny modest land to live as a light to others and not as rulers over others... merely a light.

And Islam states that it claims all land for Allah- whom they call the god, and for whom the Whole world is their's to kill and submit ALL OTHERS.

Now, the christian prelate claims his group are the moderates, who are the gently souls of love who want the UN to solve the mystery and split it up, so to speak.

Christians ought to be ashamed of this assessment by him.
Pretention, gaul, and other shameless adjectives come to mind. Especially since christians thrive only in Israel and in NO OTHER MUSLIM LAND. And Israel was God's charter and the prelate can claim his god changed his mind but that's his opinion. Perhaps he the prelate can consult with the Saudi's who were just elected to the council for women's rights, for that true justice he so eagerly seeks for the jews and Israel.

Two observations here: First, Robert Spencer, a Christian, demonstrates the capacity of a Christian to apologize. When does any Muslim apologize for anything if Islam is even remotely at issue? Christianity, to its credit, allows for humility. Islam most definitely does not, just as no totalitarian ideology does.

Second, any Jewish extremists have been reined in, though not completely but still overwhelmingly, time and time again (e.g., the Stern Gang) by the Jewish population at large in Israel. By contrast, when have Arab extremists ever been reined in by Arab moderates? Moderate Jews control Israel. Moderate Muslims are killed by their fellow Muslims, Anwar Sadat and old King Abdullah are cases in point.

Hmmmm. Not a mention made of Sura 17 The Night Journey in which

Allah gives the children of Israel the land (v. 104) – that is, Jordan and Palestine, according to the Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs. There are several prominent “moderate” Muslims who have made much of this, telling Jewish groups that the Qur’an guarantees Jews the land of Israel . . .

Heavens forbid.

This synod's letter has an inaccurate account of how & why there's a state of Israel, is based on a huge misunderstanding of Islam & why Islam cannot think in the matter suggested, & is contains a recipe for the destruction of the 7 million citizens of Israel. It does not help the situation but rather muddles and, to Muslims, shows weakness. I have to also object to the presumptuousness of the Catholics in insisting on their right to determine whether we are still God's special, only, first-born son who were clearly given the land of Israel. And, though the Messiah has yet to arrive, Jews have an unalienable right to life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness in their tiny spec of a country called Israel. Insinuating Christian dogma about the end of the chosen people and assumption of all people as chosen is unhelpful to the true problem in Israel, the Muslims' century old objection to the Jewish population having their own negligibly small country among the hundreds of times larger Muslim countries because Israel is not Muslim.

Seymour Paine | November 10, 2010 3:06 PM | Reply
He seems to think Jews started coming to Israel only after WWII, ignoring their continuous presence since several thousand years B.C.

.............deep, deep, deep down, what you have here is a very ignorant antisemite.

*spit*

I just posted this in an earlier thread - the one on Netanyahu and Jerusalem - but I will post it again:

a Hugh Fitzgerald classic from the jihadwatch archives.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/11/fitzgerald-21-reasons-why-barack-obama-is-wrong-about-israel-and-the-saudi-peace-plan.html

"Barack Obama is to pursue an ambitious peace plan in the Middle East involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, according to sources close to America’s president-elect.” – from this news article – 


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5162537.ece
[that is: “Barack Obama links Israel peace plan to 1967 borders deal”- Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv and Sarah Baxter - The Sunday Times November 16, 2008].

(Click on the first link, and read what Hugh has to say - it's well worth it).

And here, from four years ago, is another posting by Mr Fitzgerald.

Hugh | August 15, 2006 11:10 AM

"the same tired Zionist propaganda...."
-- from a posting above

'
How, one wonders, is what Thomas Sowell wrote about the silliness of these ceaseless, unceasing, never to permanently lead to a permanent peace but only to more war, followed by more ceasefires, the expression of the "same tired Zionist propaganda" of which the poster fails to offer up any example?

'And what "tired Zionist propaganda" is that, anyway?

'For the last forty years, all over the world, the Arab and Muslim propaganda machine has run circles around the naive Israelis, who seem incapable of understanding the nature of the enemy they face, or are unable for reasons of realpolitik to describe accurately that enemy, or even out of fear of damaging morale (no one likes to be told that the threat to his nation is a permanent one, prompted by the immutable tenets of a belief-system with hundreds of millions of thoroughly brainwashed believers)….

'And so the Lesser Jihad against Israel was disguised, for obvious reasons, as merely a matter of the "legitimate rights of the Palestiian people."

' **Neither Israel itself, nor many in the outside world, seem willing to comprehend that there is no solution, one-state or two-state or n-state, to the Jihad** {my emphasis - dda}.

'There is only the matter of remaining overwhelmingly -- and perceptibly -- more powerful, capable of wreaking great damage on those who would attack.

'No treaty with Infidel states, and Israel is such a state, can conceivably be permanently honored by a Muslim signatory.

'Pacta sunt servanda is a Western idea. In the Muslim world, treaties are not to be obeyed, but if made with Infidels, to be violated as soon as the Muslim side feels itself strong enough to press its advantage.

'The model for all time -- see Majid Khadduri [i.e. his 'War and Peace in the Law of Islam' - dda] -- is Muhammad's Treaty with the Meccans in 628 A.D, the Treaty of Hudaybiyya”.

{Majid Khadduri's book is not the easiest thing to get hold of nor, being a massive scholarly tome, to absorb; but there is also a brief and lucid discussion of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya on pp. 136-39 of Mr Spencer's 'The Truth About Muhammad'}.

It should be noted - it is time it was emphasised - that Israel's predicament is NOT unique. *All* non-Muslim states currently assailed by Jihad, from within and/or from without, are in exactly the same trouble as Israel. For example: India, the Philippines, Thailand, Russia, Serbia. All concessions they make, all territory they give up to the Muslims, will NOT bring 'peace', but rather, sooner or later, a fresh jihad onslaught from the newly-gained ground, as the Muslims pocket their gains and, viewing concessions as evidence of weakness, proceed to push their perceived advantage into fresh territory. And *all* 'agreements', 'treaties', 'accords', etc. that those non-Muslim states enter into with any Muslim entity or organisation or 'state', cannot be relied upon and should not be relied upon, for they might as well have been written on toilet paper in disappearing ink.

1400 years ago when the Muhammadens were starting to threaten Christian lands in the Eastern Mediterranean area it was the Catholic Church leadership (along with the Emperor) who made strategic grave strategic blunders which ultimately enabled the Moslems to run roughshod over the whole area. The blunders were in thinking they (the Church) could use the Muhammedans for their own factional purposes within the Church, and not worry too much about Islam, considering it to be of relatively minor importance. That was then.

Catholics had to do something since no one else seemed bothered by the invasion. But, then, I don't see why Protestants, Reformers and other "branches" of christianity should feel superior about it: whether they like it or not, it's *their* roots too and they may chose to view it any way they want: it won't go away that it's part of their story as much as it is that of the Catholic Church...

And, by the way, blunders or not, the Crusades at least gave a big break to Europe who would have been invaded sooner and probably with bigger forces than they were later with much dire consequences.

This is a much more moderate statement than the media had reported.
The statement contained a number of the usual Muslim propaganda points, but would probably not be out of place in the US State Department. I would just add that there already are two Palestinian states, one in Gaza and the other in Jordan, so it would be more appropriate here to talk about a four state solution if the PA gets another state.
The thing about this that seems odd and disappointing, is that when one considers the abysmal plight of Christians in Muslim lands, one would expect something more empathetic towards one's fellow religious minority.
In any case, the synod should have concentrated on southern Sudan where Christians are being killed and sold as slaves. Meanwhile, Israel's Christian minority is growing in numbers, quite a rare phenomenon in the Mideast.

Robert...I'm confused. For what reason do you owe him an apology?

And I agree with the poster who called the Archbishop a "tool". This guy is an Archbishop and makes the claim that "Jesus did not allow Peter to draw even a sword to fight for Him". A child could read that passage of scripture and see clearly that Jesus not only allowed Peter to "draw" a sword, but allowed him to lop off a man's ear.

A man who cannot be trusted to correctly recite scripture cannot be trusted to provide an opinion on worldly matters.

Regards
Geoff Milke

PS..I watched your debate, you were very good. Even Kreef admitted you were right. He just couldn't bring his feelings about the subject to bear with reality.

From this Torah loyal Jew residing in Jerusalem to the Archbishop:

NUTS!

The Archbishop is spurting a mouthful of ignorant gobbledygook, received from his ignorant brain. Someone needs to spit at his feet, to show their respect.

Now Bustros, don't tell me again that only the clergy(church) can interpret Scripture - All Scripture were written by ordinary men,all Jews except Luke, God breathed through the Holy Spirit, and all written to ordinary people. Most of us can read and Bible, works of reference are freely available, especially on the net. So when Scripture, through the prophets teach that in the last days, when preachers travel around, have meeting after meeting(even with ungodly people)and proclaim: "PEACE, PEACE"!, there shall be no peace, two states or no two states. What right has the Arabs(Islam), to claim any bit of Israel, only 1/6 of 1% of all the lands "given" to and occupied by Arab and Muslim States. I'll tell you what right - OIL, and the West is saying: Salaam and licking the desert dust. So, when will they and the so called "church" finally wake up.

Dear Robert
I'm really disapointed. Why do you need to apologise?
I can't understand why a synod supposed to deal with the killing of christians in muslim lands deals with "the chosen people", "the promised land", and "the two states solution", (actually 4 states).
In all the reports about this synod, I did'nt hear anything about its real subject. Could you please report what has been said about THE REAL SUBJECT OF THE SYNOD?
Muslims can't accept a jewish state in muslim land, they say it loud and clear.
The jewish people backfire with everything he can, religious, political, geopolitical, and historical arguments.
Now arabs christians should mind their own business, which is not to be eradicated from muslims land, and leave the jewish people alone.
The only good reason they have to mention Israel is to say that this is the only place Christians can live in peace.
I'm really disappointed by your apology, I guess Pam is disappointed too.
Best regards
JB.

Mr. Bustros is teaching a replacement theology which perhaps a number of churches today are adhering to. Little wonder THE ALMIGHTY is doing a sieving job in churches. Israel's promises including the land are non revocable. The Bible says God is not man that HE will lie so if HE made a covenant with the children of Israel, HE made one and it stands.

The Bible also says the Truth shall set us free. Alot of christians think that the verse that says blessed are the peacemakers for they are the sons of God; means that make peace at all costs. NO, NO, NO; what is happening btn Israel and the Arab palestianians is a great example. The Palestinian have gone to great length to lay claims to the Holy Land of course with the help of governments that think they can fix the problems in the world and weak christian denominations but have failed because until we all accept that the Jews belong to the land of Israel as given to them by God we will not make any lasting peace, but also we have to know that the Palestinians are not interested in living side by side with the Jew but want to get rid of the Jews completely. And also they have risked having a fight with THE ALMIGHTY.

There is no where in The Bible that GOD takes away the promises and give them to another group of people. GOD did withhold the protection promises and also let the Jews be taken into captivity so they can return to HIM. Mr. Bustro needs to read Amos 9: 14 -15 which has been fullfilled and Verse 15 is very crucial.

I wonder which Bible Mr. Bustros and also the Methodist Church in the UK are reading.

So the bishop supports the "moderate" position, i.e. he's moderately anti-Israel and moderately pro-Arab, a position that does nothing whatsoever to oppose the islamic jihad against Israel (and all other non-islamic nations).
According to some, these views of the archbishop are understandable from a dhimmi position, and indeed they are, representing Christian religion under islamic "protection". So perhaps it is not fair to expect a "call to arms" against the islamic onslaught in the Mid-East from a dhimmi christian. Someone moreover, who has obviously injected himself with some potent disregard for undisputable facts of history in order to arrive at this so-called "moderate" position against Israel.
In short, I don't think that the above kind of dhimmified double-talk or attempt to play "both sides of the fence" (no pun intended) warrants any kind of apology, not in the least by Robert Spencer.

But what's with the theologically motivated rivalry and condemnations? What will claims and counterclaims of "chosen people" do for the fight against Islam, the enemy of all people? I like "free people" beter than "chosen people" anyway.
So when I'm in a foxhole I prefer not to be that "choosy" and will always stand tall with the one who's shooting in the right direction, regardless of his personal convictions.

People may hold sacred whatever beliefs they want, but in the fight against Islam, I believe there's only one leading principle that should unite all of us, and that's the simple and universally human desire to be free.
I really wish it weren't that simple, and to people who - for whatever doctrinal reasons - are unable or unwilling to understand this, I say that I honestly couldn't care less what your "position" is, bishop or not, dhimmi or not, religious or anti-religious.
Doctrinary divisionists might want to chat along and score some discussion points and while they're debating from their beloved "positions", each in his own little corner on the market of worldviews, some of them might remember the Latin proverb and come to their senses:

"Senatu deliberante, Saguntum periit"

I agree with @Wellington (once more ;-) )that the ability to apologize can be taken as a virtue, one that is of course totally lacking in Islam, like most virtues known to civilized man.
I'm sure that he'd also agree with me that people should never ever have to apologize for their desire to be free.

Kind regs from Amsterdam, forever city of Theo van Gogh,
Sag.

I fully support M.O.T's remarks on Bustros - He is as ignorant as the the Pharasees and has not heard our LORD. There can be no "two state solution to the Arab/Muslim/Western heads of State, pie in the sky illusions. The state of Israel, 1/6 of 1% of all lands occupied by Arab/Muslim nations - IS NOT the problem - Islam's obsession with eliminating the Jews and the "great Satan", IS THE PROBLEM. When will the world wake up - they won't - OIL is more important. Further more - It is not only the "church" and its clergy that can interpret Scripture; it was written for ordinary people, by ordinary people(all Jews except Luke)under guidance of the Holy Spirit. Anyone can read it, use freely available commentaries, to make it GOD'S WORD for the ordinary believer and understand it without the likes of Bustros. So hear people of the world: "PEACE, PEACE" is not the wonder formula for the Middle East - for when you hear this there will be no peace until Messiah comes - before whom every knee shall bow and every tongue confess: "JESUS CHRIST IS LORD". I rest my case.

Nope, the Jewish Community is not buying this. Robert, please read the following link: http://www.jidaily.com/rdU7/e

As a Christian, I continue to be disappointed in the blinders that middle-east Christians wear (of course I'm happily situated at a remove of many thousands of miles).

Ever since reading Sennott's "The Body and the Blood" I've been taken by the naive manner in which the Christian minority has made common cause with their Muslim persecutors, rather than their Jewish religious progenitors. This may be a survival of the 1960s false hope of pan-Arab nationalism, a phenomenon of temporary usefulness lasting approximately until Islam gained critical mass, and adopted a supremacist posture in that part of the world. The result - the systematic persecution and de-population of Christians from Lebanon, and the Middle East. These Christian spokesmen have learned the laws of dhimmitude well.

His Excellency adopts an un-Catholic position in denouncing the Old Testament depiction of God as "a Warrior God". Everything revealed in the OT is viewed by the Church as inspired by the Holy Spirit, and containing no error in ANY points (cf. Dei Verbum). Further, Jesus is also depicted in the Apocalypse as just such a judge and warrior.

This is the 'peace, love and good dope' ethic of the "Spirit of the 1960s", more commonly known as the "Spirit of Vatican II", i.e. diplomatic-speak at all costs.

If Israel's covenant title to the Holy Land has been abrogated, then any Christian pretentions to eternal life are on shaky ground. The covenant's perpetuation is dependent on God's faithfulness, not the religious observance of modern Israeli Jews.

My opinion: though they were not as effective as they might have been, the Crusades show the concept of Catholic Social Justice at its very best.

Have all "branches" of the Christian community adopted Quaker pacifism?

His Excellency really hits the nail on the head with this:
"With these two opposed religious ideologies it is impossible to find a compromise in order to reach a lasting peace."
So why doesn't the Church emphasize the need for people from both sides to come to Christ? Surely that is the most obvious way forward for a church in the middle of such a battle of opposites. Why go for a political solution when you know the underlying problem is not political at all, but religious? A mere political solution will never be enough to hold the peace is such a clash of fixed beliefs and ancient traditions.
But the Bishop tends to skew the Christian message when advising the Jews not to consider themselves the chosen people any more:
"As for the idea of the chosen people, it is clear, according to Christian theology and especially to St. Paul, that after Christ there is no longer one particular chosen people! With Christ and in Him all men and women of all countries are called to become children of God and unite in one body, the Body of Christ."
Actually St Paul gives the Jews every reason to believe their 'election' will never be removed from them, and neither their Land, for he writes: "the(ir) gifts and the(ir) call are irrevocable" (Rom 11.29). As everyone knows, the gift of the Land was among the most prominant of the gifts the Jews received with their 'election'. So here St. Paul is not only endorsing the Jews' persisting 'chosenness', but also their continuing claim to live in the Holy Land.
http://www.jpost.com/home/article.aspx?id=194232.

It seems to be many are caught in some misplaced terms.
(Those possessed of stainless steel egoes, sufficient arrogance and educated beyond civility are, of course, excused.)

At first reading of Melkite Archbishop(and neighbor), before cited on JW, I was quite irritated.
With the qualifying expansion of his expression, I regret my first reaction. Though, I don't stand in the public forum as Robert does, I feel it enough to say I regret my reaction, not apologize for it.
It is human enough for all of us, (Yes, Robert, You too.) to fall into a wash of errors. And it is quite human to agknowledge a regret.
Note, it was the Archbishop who took the steps to clarify his earlier statements that set the teeth of many of us.
The issue at hand is one of an existential threat to the Judeo-Graeco-Christian way of life. And, though no great qualifier to many of us, Bustros may be as much a noble of old Lebanon - read politician - and thus an apologist for the compromise he finds his country - now an Iranian satrapy.
All the theological tracts written, interpreted by varying exegists bar-room or reading room, and strained through egos and dependent status seekers; barely counter the spirit of patriots.
Sure, I could apologize for my own comments regarding a traditional patriarch who is also Eparch, and whose life is drawn by polarization.
But, I won't. I'll "regret" what I expressed. And, I'll recall that the Archbishop and Robert Spencer were not such small people as to seek to publicly and selflessly remedy a tension.

There is some very abstract and blissful rhetoric in this very noble-sounding summation. The Bible says in the last days people will be saying "peace," "peace," but there is no peace. Is there peace without Jesus? In Islam is there respect for the sovereignty of any land once conquered for Islam but taken back? Is dialogue the answer when it is forbidden by Islam and suicide for non-Muslims under Islam? Is the faith of Abraham (in trusting God) in any way similar to the unquestioning submission to Muhammad's Quran and example? If Jesus said he was the way, the truth, and the life, and Islam claims to be superior to any other religion and reject's Jesus' way, are they both correct? When Islam demands the destruction/debilitating of all other religions, and we need our heritage to fully understand our faith, is it just and fair to let our heritage be destroyed by aggressive supremacists? When one brother bullies, subdues, and steals from his brother does letting him do it bring peace to a family?

It just recalled me a Jewish friend who has been living in morocco since his great great grandparents and must leave this country to another country for being a Jewish. Father Boutros..what makes you to justify if this case happened to your family. I think you have nothing to do about Israel and Jew. Just mind your business! Where the hell all of Christian Arab now? Are they live in peace in middle east?

Father Boutros..I am Indonesian and living in Indonesia and I do understand how people (non Muslim) feel living here. I know some of them are good people cause they don't really care about what their religion says. And I still don't get why most of them hates Israel and Christian to the blood.

Thank you, Sayidna Bustros!

While I disagree with any pacifism that would render the Crusades inherently unjust (there were surely abuses), I applaud your successfully navigating the dangerous extremes of pro-Zionism on the one hand, and pro-Islamism on the other. We in the West need to be shown that the thorny Middle Eastern questions are not a facile matter of siding with one false religion or another.

Sayidna, you also gently and charitably debunked the theological basis for the Zionist claim on the Holy Land. People should consider your words on this seriously, for they were well chosen.

The only long-term solution to this problem is the unity that you point out we are all called to in the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church.