• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Pope: “Anyone who does not recognize the State of Israel is guilty of anti-Semitism”

Jun 1, 2015 8:13 am By Robert Spencer

APTOPIX Italy Pope EpiphanyPope Francis seems to have realized that his previous apparently full-throated endorsement of the “Palestinian” jihad was perhaps not entirely consistent with the Gospel message.

“‘Not recognizing Israel as Jewish is anti-Semitic, Pope says,’” by Avi Lewis, Times of Israel, May 28, 2015:

In what would constitute a stunning rhetorical volte-face, Pope Francis reportedly walked back earlier statements praising Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and dubbed some of Israel’s detractors “anti-Semitic.”

In comments made to veteran Portuguese-Israeli journalist Henrique Cymerman Thursday, Francis was quoted as saying that “anyone who does not recognize the Jewish people and the State of Israel — and their right to exist — is guilty of anti-Semitism.”

Francis was also said to have backtracked on statements he was reportedly heard making earlier this month designating the visiting Abbas “a bit an angel of peace.”

The pope recalled telling Abbas in Italian that he hopes the Palestinian chief might one day become an angel of peace in the future, according to Cymerman — although ostensibly he has not yet reached that level.

The comments were sent by the Pope in writing to Cymerman along with Argentine Rabbi Abraham Skorka, one of Francis’s close interfaith colleagues, after the duo approached him following his meeting with Abbas, Channel 2 reported.

Amid a media firestorm following the pontiff’s earlier comments, the Vatican had first clarified — saying he had not called Abbas “an angel of peace” but rather “a bit an angel of peace” — and then apologized, saying the remarks weren’t intended “to offend anyone.”…

Earlier “clarifications” were clearer, explaining that the Pope wasn’t calling Abbas an angel of peace, or a wee bit of an angel of peace, but was exhorting him to “be an angel of peace.”

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Catholic Church, Featured, Israel, Palestinian jihad Tagged With: Pope Francis


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. MACUALRAIG says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 8:18 am

    Good for him. Didn’t Dr. MLK say something like that as well?

    LONG LIVE ISRAEL!!

    • Lioness says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 11:24 am

      Amen.

  2. Prinz Eugen says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 8:46 am

    This confused pope cannot find a position and stick to it — he is trying to satisfy everybody and every moslem terrorist! What’s next? Will he come out in favor of same sex marriage and poligamy? Urge him to ponder statements BEFORE blurting them to the US, Israeli ans Christian haters!

    • Brian says

      Jun 1, 2015 at 9:26 am

      Pope Francis did not say to Abbas that he was “An angel of peace”…that was an intentional misquote by the BBC which every new organisation ran with. He said “I hope you will become an angel of peace”…that was very shrew of him…challenging Abbas…

      As for Palestine…there will eventually have to be a two-state solution…Israel has offered it many times…the big problem is the negotiation over the position of Jerusalem….

      • wildjew says

        Jun 1, 2015 at 1:49 pm

        Opinions ‘By Lally Weymouth May 29

        Lally Weymouth is a senior associate editor for The Washington Post.

        Israel’s education minister: ‘I don’t believe in giving up our land’”

        I stand with Israel’s education minister, Naftali Bennett. I believe he is on the side of the angels. Who do you stand with?

        • israeli says

          Jun 1, 2015 at 3:17 pm

          Israeli here – we offred the “palstinians” a people who cant even prononuce their own name (arabs cant say “p”) and are trying to make it become “falstinians” sont really want a country

          they want to gain land and weaken the jews – and once isis takes jordan it will get full control over the land that is given to “palstine”

          the “palstinians” are just a bounch of wrok immigrants from egypet and syria who came with jewish immigration

          they dont really want a state they are just looking for ways to weaken israel to destroy it

        • Malcolm says

          Jun 2, 2015 at 9:21 am

          Pope Francis cannot be held responsible for being misquoted (intentionally or unintentionally) by the mass media who have their own agenda.
          The medal that Pope Francis gives to various leaders depicts an angel of peace. An angel is: a “messenger of God.” There is no way that any pope is going to proclaim that politicians are messengers of God. However there is no reason why they cannot be messengers of peace.
          There is no beef with constructive criticism about what Pope Francis says, but make sure that you are informed to what he says before one makes ridicules statements that are not true.
          The Catholic Church has no army, your secular governments do. We do not arm extremist your governments do. We do not kill innocent people, extremist and your governments do.
          We are not responsible for your government’s chaotic policies that arm ISIS with thousands of Humvees and the latest anti-tank missiles from your tax base then sends jets with your tax base, to blow them up.
          “Isis captured 2,300 Humvee armoured vehicles from Iraqi forces in Mosul.’

        • voegelinian says

          Jun 2, 2015 at 2:32 pm

          “There is no way that any pope is going to proclaim that politicians are messengers of God. However there is no reason why they cannot be messengers of peace.”

          It is impossible for any Muslim to be a messenger of (genuine) peace. The sooner the benighted West learns this, the better. One indication of how far the West is from this awareness may be gleaned by how many even in the Counter-Jihad hold out hope in one way or another for Muslim reform.

        • Malcolm says

          Jun 2, 2015 at 8:40 pm

          Reuters
          Tue Jun 2, 2015 3:46pm EDT
          COLUMN-Dude, where’s my Humvee?
          To help replenish Iraq’s motor pool, the U.S. State Department last year approved a sale to Iraq of 1,000 Humvees, along with their armor upgrades, machine guns and grenade launchers. The United States previously donated 250 Mine Resistant Armored Personnel carriers (MRAPs) to Iraq, plus unaccountable amounts of material left behind when American forces departed in 2011. The United States is currently in the process of moving to Iraq 175 M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks, 55,000 rounds of main tank-gun ammunition, $600 million in howitzers and trucks, $700 million worth of Hellfire missiles and 2,000 AT-4 rockets.
          The Hellfires and AT-4s, anti-tank weapons, are presumably going to be used to help destroy the American armor in the hands of Islamic State. The United States is also conducting air strikes to destroy weapons seized by Islamic State. It’s a surreal state of affairs in which American weaponry is being sent into Iraq to destroy American weaponry previously sent into Iraq. If a new sequel to Catch-22 were to be written, this would be the plot line.
          The United States also continues to spend money on training the Iraqi military. Some 3,000 American soldiers are currently in Iraq preparing Iraqi soldiers to perhaps someday fight Islamic State; many of the Americans are conducting the training on former military bases abandoned by the United States following Gulf War 2.0. In addition, some $1.2 billion in training funds for Iraq were tucked into an omnibus spending bill that Congress passed earlier this year. This is in spite of the sad reality that from 2003 to 2011, the United States spent $25 billion training Iraqi security forces.

      • spot on says

        Jun 1, 2015 at 3:44 pm

        I can understand the Marxist BBC and MSM intentionally misquoting the Pope like they do anyone they hate. I can also understand the Pope making big mistakes with the BBC and MSM.

        The Pope is a kind loving gentleman. His problem is that his perspective of the world is from his Argentina roots where Cultural Marxism is the common theme. There they are unaware that they think like Marxists and are prone to easy deception by real Marxists who actually hate them.

        • wildjew says

          Jun 1, 2015 at 4:09 pm

          “The Pope is a kind loving gentleman. His problem is that his perspective of the world is from his Argentina roots ….”

          Here’s the thing. World leaders and men who possess great power to influence millions (I put the pope in that category) CANNOT afford to get things wrong in matters of life and death.

          We should have internalized that harsh lesson as a consequence of Britain’s foolish appeasement policies (during the nineteen thirties) that led to the second world war and the loss of better than fifty million souls. If we get this wrong we could be talking about not millions but billions.

          I don’t know how old this man is. He could be a few years older than me. When I was young I embraced a few stupid ideas, though not so much on national security. As I have grown older, as a result of reading, observation and personal experiences, I rid myself of my earlier idols (false conceptions). If this man hasn’t rid himself of his youthful delusions and false conceptions about this dangerous enemy, he should NOT be the pope. He should step down and let a qualified man replace him.

          We need great men, men of ability as leaders, men who understand the enemy more than ever today. We don’t need people who harbor delusions about the threat posed by Islam leading peoples and nations. That’s the way I see it.

        • spot on says

          Jun 1, 2015 at 4:32 pm

          Wildjew,

          You said nothing that I disagree with in any way. I am a frustrated as you. He is the wrong man in an important job.

          However he is a kindly man of 75 years of age or more that was put there by his fellow cardinals. For what reason, I don’t know. Out of ignorance, he sides with the leftists and does not realize what damage he can do to the world with his bias. Every time he makes public statements on politics, he is wrong and then has to correct after he catches flak. He will lead a tortured life while he is there.

        • wildjew says

          Jun 1, 2015 at 5:03 pm

          “Every time he makes public statements on politics, he is wrong and then has to correct after he catches flak…..”

          Spot on, thank God people are speaking out when he gets it wrong. Maybe he is listening. I hope so.

        • Annak says

          Jun 1, 2015 at 10:21 pm

          I agree with WildJew.
          This Pope blunders through, makes bloopers,like punching in the air and saying ” if anyone insults my mother, I will punch him ” ( AFTER the Charlie Hebdo murders) which was NOT the actions of a kindly gentleman in the least. very off-putting. When I saw that on tv I actually questioned his sanity !
          But shortly afterwards he says something about Christians being persecuted, but then he recognises ” Palestine”.
          And now says he supports Israel. !
          He wants to be friends with all, cannot choose a side apparently. Feels this is ” Christian”?? it is not. Being so is the opposite to Jesus and the Apostles ( apart from Paul, as he said he was ” all things to all men”)

          He has no consistency .A weak man who should have stayed in Argentina. But probably does what his handlers say unlike
          Benedict.?
          Bendict had to go to, obvious , to make way for this NWO Marxist with Islam sympathies
          Just my opinion, my two cents.

      • TruthWFree says

        Jun 2, 2015 at 9:05 am

        A two state solution is a fool’s dream. The Islamic hate of Jews is imbedded in the Quran and the teachings of the false prophet Muhammad, and they will not be satisfied until every Jew is dead. Per Muhammad…”In the end times, a rock will cry out, ‘There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'”

      • Daniel says

        Jun 3, 2015 at 12:41 am

        Read my lips: There will NEVER be a “Palestinian” state!!! There is NO solution to be had with terrorists, simply because THEY don’t WANT a solution!! Israel has bent over backwards to offer a solution since at least 1967, but the islamic terrorists in Gaza and in Judea and Samaria are NOT interested. The ONLY thing they are interested in is in destroying Israel and killing every last Jew in the world!!

    • Lia Wissing says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 6:56 am

      Pity the poor old man, Eugen. Is it not good that he has so many interpreters who can tell us exactly what he meant by what he said? They must just learn to synchronise their efforts a bit.

    • Judi says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 8:03 am

      Yes, in the UK we call it “run with the hares and ride with the hounds”. Or, when in Rome.……….

  3. Ed in North Texas says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 8:49 am

    Unfortunately the College of Cardinals has elected* a Pope who engages political issues, usually on the Left side. But the Vatican has already “recognized” the Palestinians claim they are a country. I don’t know which side will be the recognized government when the HAMAS/PLO “unity” falls apart. Doesn’t much matter, neither one of these terrorist organizations recognizes Israel’s right to exist.

    * Could it be they decided to go with the “historic” Pope, the first Jesuit? We know how electing on the “historic” basis works out.

    • wildjew says

      Jun 1, 2015 at 1:54 pm

      Hasn’t the Vatican (the popes), like most U.S. leaders, for many decades supported the murderous Palestinian cause?

  4. celtic warriarcanada says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 8:57 am

    This Pope tells everyone what they want to hear : ” he’s tell-in us this, and he’s tell in us that ! Changes it everyday,Says it doesn’t matter! ( Joe Walsh : Rocky Mountain Way )

    • mortimer says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 10:53 am

      Disagree. Lots of journalists want to misquote VIPs, and editors come up with misleading headlines to create tension, humor and drama. A lot of the mistakes made by journalists are innocent. However, Pope Francis is learning on the job…at least he’s learning. He may eventually get over his cultural Marxism.

  5. Bamaguje says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 9:10 am

    Then why does the Vatican recognize the make-believe Palestinian state which rejects Jewish Israel?

    • Don McKellar says

      Jun 1, 2015 at 10:03 am

      Because he is one confused fool of a Pope, that’s why. In deep denial of the reality of Islam and the horrors it is unleashing upon people who belong to his own church.

      • cs says

        Jun 1, 2015 at 5:25 pm

        Yes, too much ambiguity.

  6. Baucent says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 9:17 am

    Francis needs to have a little chat with Benedict about Islam and what’s happening in the middle east. Clearly the current Pope hasn’t a clue. Why he allowed Abbas gate crash the ceremony for the Arab Nuns, (who weren’t even Palestinians), and turned what was suppose to be recognition for Arab Christians into a political gift for the PLO.
    Disgraceful.

  7. samdav7 says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 9:19 am

    What the pope had said is true “Anyone who does not recognize the State of Israel is guilty of anti-Semitism”
    and also what the pope had said earlier to Abbas is true too “It’s best for you if can be an angel of peace” .. but you guys just love love love to find any excuse to project Christianity or the Lord Jesus Christ as a f***** piece of shit even when a Christian statement is in your favour .. we got used to this hate attitude and by now after all these centuries we know it’s in your blood to hate every single soul on this planet if it’s not jewish .. you can’t help it .. it’s in your blood .. But Jesus said forgive them because they don’t know what they’re doing .. and he is absolutely right !

    • wildjew says

      Jun 1, 2015 at 2:00 pm

      You wrote: “….we got used to this hate attitude and by now after all these centuries we know it’s in your blood to hate every single soul on this planet if it’s not jewish (sic) .. you can’t help it .. it’s in your blood….”

      Can you find this supremacist attitude you describe here in the writings of Moses or any of the ancient Hebrew prophets? In the example of Abraham?

  8. Brian says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 9:28 am

    Pope Francis did not say to Abbas that he was “An angel of peace”…that was an intentional misquote by the BBC which every news organisation ran with. He said “I hope you will become an angel of peace”…that was very shrew of him…challenging Abbas…

    As for Palestine…there will eventually have to be a two-state solution…Israel has offered it many times…the big problem is the negotiation over the position of Jerusalem….

    • vlparker says

      Jun 1, 2015 at 10:09 am

      The two state solution is a joke. First of all, it is not a solution at all. The Palestinians don’t want it. They want a one state solution with Palestine being the state and Israel being wiped off the face of the earth.

      • manuel paleologus says

        Jun 1, 2015 at 12:25 pm

        That’s the whole truth. Many people are so narrow minded and naïve they believe all the misleading bs these liars are saying. They want the abolition of the State of Israel. Simple.

        • mortimer says

          Jun 2, 2015 at 10:40 am

          The Mandate of Palestine was created by the League of Nations at a time when wholesale population exchanges were going on. It was considered a normal and reasonable procedure at the time. The various tribes of Arabs were resettled after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. They didn’t care if they were resettled far away from where they were living. The whole Ottoman Empire was a hodge-podge.

          The Zionists were a movement of secular Jews. The committee that declared Israeli independence did so because the UN refused to give instructions at the end of the mandate. The plan of the League of Nations had been to create a Jewish state after twenty years of mandate. This is what happened.

          West Bank Arabs were annexed by Transjordan and considered themselves complete Jordanian citizens. The Pally flag is the Jordanian flag minus one star.

      • thelmalou says

        Jun 1, 2015 at 5:05 pm

        Someone must have slipped something in his wine, to good effect.

  9. Angemon says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 9:36 am

    In comments made to veteran Portuguese-Israeli journalist Henrique Cymerman Thursday, Francis was quoted as saying that “anyone who does not recognize the Jewish people and the State of Israel — and their right to exist — is guilty of anti-Semitism.”

    Look, this is a dangerous oversimplification that plays right into the leftist crowd insisting that no one is allowed to criticize Israel because any criticism of Israel, valid or otherwise, is silenced with charges of anti-semitism (even though they can’t give any example of that ever happening).

    I believe that a more cogent explanation would be something along the lines of “the Jewish people have ties with the land that is nowadays Israel dating back thousands of years, and the only people who try to deny that and delegitimize the State of Israel are anti-semites”.

    But yeah, how can Pope Francis support Abbas while saying that only anti-semites do not recognize the State of Israel?

  10. awake says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 9:51 am

    “anyone who does not recognize the Jewish people and the State of Israel — and their right to exist — is guilty of anti-Semitism.”

    Seems pretty unambiguous to me.

  11. tilda says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 9:53 am

    The Pope’s playing both sides of the fence. The Vatican wants parts of Jerusalem; news articles about it a have popped up over the years. (It’s all very worrying; I don’t trust these religious power-trippers.)

    See for example this article from 2011 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150757#.VWxhYEYnROU

  12. vlparker says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 10:06 am

    Pope Francis is a typical leftist. While his flock is being murdered in the Middle East and Africa he is playing patty-cake with the murderers. Perhaps after ISIS attacks Rome his willful ignorance about islam will disappear, but I doubt it.

  13. Lionel Andrades says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 10:58 am

    Robert Spencer needs to review his understanding of Vatican Council II and Islam and write a new book on apologetics for Catholics

    Neil Addison in a comment on the blog LMS Chairman 1 writes ‘I have a book called “Inside Islam, A Guide for Catholics” published by Ascension Press and written by Daniel Ali and Robert Spencer.

    Not perfect but one of the few books to approach the subject from a Catholic rather than an Evangelical Protestant perspective. It is available on Amazon and other outlets’.

    Joseph Shaw in that post says ‘we need a critique of Islam of our own’ he means we cannot use the apologetics of the evangelicals.

    I have not read the book by Daniel Ali and Robert Spencer.However the odds are that they interpret Vatican Council II like the Bishop of Mostar and the traditionalists.2 They use apparition theology. It is the progressivist interpretation of the Council approved by the Magisterium and the Left and it is based on an irrationality. It is the one accepted by Pope Francis.

    It is the irrationality which forms a new theology which is used to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So with an ecclesiology different from pre-1949 times the understanding of Islam and the other religions will have also changed. The old apologetics will not have meaning any more.Progressivists would simply say ‘Vatican Council II has changed all that’ when they are really referring to a theology based on an irrational premise and inference.

    If Robert Spencer does not use the irrational premise and inference which comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 then there can be no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the rigorist, Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.

    With the irrationality it is inferred in the Letter of the Holy Office that there is salvation outside the Church; there is known salvation outside the Church. The Letter issued by Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani infers further that these known cases are defacto exceptions in the present times, to all needing to be formal members of the Church for salvation.

    This is the Cushing-Marchetti interpretation of the dogma, the progressivist one.So it means all Muslims in the present times do not need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell and go to Heaven.

    This is the interpretation understood by Robert Spencer otherwise I am sure he would have quoted Vatican Council II which is in accord with the rigorist intepretation of the dogma, as it was understood over the centuries.

    Robert Spencer needs to review the dead man walking and visible theory, apparition theology, which is common among US bishops including the bishop of Worcester, Bishop Robert McManus who refused to have Spencer talk in his diocese.He needs to write another book on Catholic apologetics with reference to Islam. This would be a book in which Vatican Council II is affirmed and yet ecclesiology would not be different.-Lionel Andrades

    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/robert-spencer-needs-to-review-his.html

    • TH says

      Jun 1, 2015 at 4:11 pm

      You say: “I have not read the book by Daniel Ali and Robert Spencer.However the odds are that they interpret Vatican Council II …” and then you go on to give opinions about what you haven’t read. Get a minimum of intellectual honesty and decency and don’t criticize what you haven’t even read.

      Fr. Feeney’s position was rightly rejected and he was exocmmunicated and he was later reconciled with the Church, which means that he recognized his error. “Extra ecclesia nulla salus” has never been defined as a dogma by an Pope or Council. It was a warning made by Origen and St. Cyprian in the third century to people who were tempted to abandon the Church. There is a kernel of truth in it, but it can and sould be reformulated postively which is what Vatican II did when it declared that “the Church ithe universal sign or instrument for the salvation of all mankind.

      Your position is dispicable as you criticize Robert Spencer without having read what he wrote.

      • Lionel Andrades says

        Jun 2, 2015 at 6:07 am

        You say: “I have not read the book by Daniel Ali and Robert Spencer.However the odds are that they interpret Vatican Council II …” and then you go on to give opinions about what you haven’t read. Get a minimum of intellectual honesty and decency and don’t criticize what you haven’t even read.
        Lionel:
        Since I am presently the only one writing on this subject.The odds are that Robert Spncer is interpreting (A) being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire as an exception to (B) the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Feeneyite version.
        Robert Spencer can confirm what I am saying.
        __________________

        Fr. Feeney’s position was rightly rejected and he was exocmmunicated and he was later reconciled with the Church, which means that he recognized his error.
        Lionel:
        Fr.Leonard Feeney held the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So he was faithful to the pre-1949 Magisterium. He was not saying anything new.A does not contradict B.
        Instead cardinals Marchetti and Cushing seemed to say that A was in conflict with B. This is irrational. This would mean we can see people on earth saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire for them to be exceptions to the dogma. This is fantasy. Since these people are in Heaven. How can we personally know them or see them objectively in the present times ?
        So the Holy Office 1949 seems to have made an objective mistake.
        _____________________

        “Extra ecclesia nulla salus” has never been defined as a dogma by an Pope or Council.
        Lionel:
        It was defined three times by three different Church Councils.
        ______________________

        It was a warning made by Origen and St. Cyprian in the third century to people who were tempted to abandon the Church. There is a kernel of truth in it, but it can and sould be reformulated postively which is what Vatican II did when it declared that “the Church ithe universal sign or instrument for the salvation of all mankind.
        Lionel:
        Vatican Coiuncil II also says ‘all’ need ‘faith and baptism’ for salvation (AG 7,LG 14). Jews and Muslims do not have faith and baptism. According to Vatican Council II they will be eternally lost unless they convert into the Church.
        Most people die without ‘faith and baptism’ so Vatican Council II indicates that most people are oriented to Hell at the time of death.
        _____________________

        Your position is dispicable as you criticize Robert Spencer without having read what he wrote.
        Lionel:
        I am not criticizing Robert Spencer. I want him as a Catholic, to write another book on apologetics for Catholics. He needs to avoid the Marchetti-Cushing error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents.It is needed in these times.
        -Lionel Andrades

    • wildjew says

      Jun 1, 2015 at 4:23 pm

      You are speaking a language only a select few understand. Much of this I have to Google (for example: The Latin phrase extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means: “outside the Church there is no salvation”. The 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church explained this as “all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.”)

      I’m not sure what things like this have to do with the current conflict. This is not rocket science. One does not need to be a theologian to understand the Church’s embrace of Palestinian statehood (really embracing the jihad against Israel) is profoundly immoral in order to speak against the position taken by this pope.

      If I disagree with the Chief Rabbi in Israel on the so-called Middle East “peace process” — there was a former Chief Rabbi who took the position relinquishing land to Israel’s enemies (retreating from Jewish land) in exchange for promises of peace could be religiously defended – I am not going to argue from the Talmud.

      • Lionel Andrades says

        Jun 2, 2015 at 6:18 am

        You are speaking a language only a select few understand.
        Lionel:
        In general people use liberal theology, apparition theology to interpret Vatican Council II and Church documents. They do this innocently.
        ___________________

        Much of this I have to Google (for example: The Latin phrase extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means: “outside the Church there is no salvation”. The 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church explained this as “all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.”)
        Lionel:
        The Catholic magisterium is apparition theology.. They use an irrational premise and inference which originated in the Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani’s Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949.
        They presume that the dead now saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are personally known and seen in the present times.This is irrational.
        Then they infer that these cases are objective exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma, the Feeneyite version. So they conclude that there is salvation outside the Church and all do not need to convert,since there are known exceptions. This is all irrational and the stuff of fantasy theology.How can apparitions be exceptions to the dogma ? Yet this is the understanding of the magisterium in the Catholic Church after 1949.
        An injustice was done to Fr.Leonard Feeney by the Holy Office 1949 (CDF) and by the Jesuits in the USA.
        _______________________

        I’m not sure what things like this have to do with the current conflict.
        Lionel:
        I write this with reference to the comment on anti-Semitism.
        Would Vatican Council without the Marchetti-Cushing error, be anti Semitic for Pope Francis and Robert Spencer, a Catholic ?
        ______________________

  14. jewdog says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 11:07 am

    Originally, the Pope had used the subjunctive case of the verb to be, which expresses doubt or possibility, about Abbas being an angel of peace, but that linguistic subtlety was lost in translation. And yes, Islamic terrorists hate Jews, but in fairness, they also kill a lot of Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and even Muslims, so there is some ecumenical spirit there.
    I think it’s time Francis started reading some of Robert’s books. Even Ayman al-Zawahiri has them on his bookshelves.

    • wildjew says

      Jun 1, 2015 at 2:02 pm

      Good idea.

  15. el-cid says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 12:18 pm

    Do we expect ‘infallibility’ from the Pope?

    Those of us who knew him in Buenos Aires know he is a deep friend to the Jewish People. There has never been a man likes this as pope.

    Is the Vatican a dictatorship? I seriously doubt it. Let’s see if we can separate the antisemitic view of the Vatican bureaucracy and the intentional misquotes of the antisemitic media (BBC), from this truly wonderful man.

    • wildjew says

      Jun 1, 2015 at 2:06 pm

      How do we really know if a man is a deep friend of the Jewish people? How would Jesus answer that question? Many consider Barack Obama a deep friend of the Jewish people. His defenders say he is dispensing some “tough love” to Israel.

      • el-cid says

        Jun 1, 2015 at 4:02 pm

        Well, Wildjew, not sure I get your intent–do you mean that Jesus, a Jew, received “tough love” from the Romans?

        Sometimes, I think people like Obama think that all Jews want to be sacrificed to save other people (like the “Palestinian” Arabs) because of Jesus’ example. Aren’t those nearly his words? (see the article).

        When Jesus said “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do”, he meant that the Romans thought that “tough love” served some greater purpose–that the Romans thought sacrificing a Jew would improve the world. Jesus had the brilliance to see that the Romans were less free than he–the Romans were trapped in their false ideology.

        That is the fundamental confusion which is antisemitism. the Crucifixion was just another lynching of a Jew. Nothing holy about that. The shame. And the other Jews gawking–we know those people too. They voted for Obama.

        • wildjew says

          Jun 1, 2015 at 4:31 pm

          My point is this. When you say this pope is a deep friend to the Jewish People, I do not know how you can say it in light of the position (the turn) he has taken against Israel. That is why I used the example of Barack Obama. Obama is very hostile to Israel (palpably so) and yet he and his supporters try to make the case he is a good friend.

          Former President Bush was called “Israel’s best friend ever,” but you would not know it from his and his administration’s anti-Israel behavior. I lost faith and confidence in President Bush only days after the 9/11/2001 attacks, when like Pope Francis, he made the establishment of a Palestinian state in Israel’s heartland a “formal goal of U.S. policy” at the behest of his and his father’s Saudi friends. That is not the behavior of a friend. It was a huge betrayal as is the recent announcement that the Vatican recognizes a state called “Palestine.”

      • somehistory says

        Jun 1, 2015 at 4:36 pm

        When Jesus was speaking to His disciples, He gave a prophecy and said that a person would be judged and given either everlasting life or destruction…based on how each person treated His brothers.
        He said those who would receive the reward of life would have given water to His brothers who were thirsty, food to His brothers who were hungry, visited His brothers who were in prison and given clothes to the naked, and helped/visited, the sick among His brothers. (Matthew 25:)
        The ones who did not do it even to the “least” of His brothers, would go into destruction.

        So, Jesus Himself says for all who wish to know how He expects us to treat others.

  16. wildjew says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 2:16 pm

    Mr. Spencer, this is my view for what it is worth. I believe like many Christians, Catholics and Protestants (as the years progress) you are going to find it increasingly difficult to reconcile your faith and your convictions with that of the leadership in your church. The same will hold true for Americans in general. Americans will find it increasingly difficult to reconcile their faith (if they are religiously-minded or morally-minded) with the actions of our government. Peoples world-wide will be facing difficult choices as the years progress.

    • Wellington says

      Jun 1, 2015 at 5:08 pm

      I second your assessment here, wildjew. Christian leadership in today’s world is, to say the least, wanting. One only needs to look at the present Pope who continues to take one step forward and two steps backward. Recently, Franklin Graham, whom I have considered to be a reasonable and informed human being, proved disappointing too when hedging on the cartoon contest down in Garland, Texas.

      Some of this less than satisfactory leadership by Christians is due to the mostly unconscious imbibing of modern liberal tenets, which are riddled with pc/mc and other nonsense, but I have to say that some of it is also rooted in the turn-the-other cheek element that can definitely be found in Christianity, which, for all its positives, has in its theological blueprint a prescription for almost suicidal pacifism that Christian theologians over the centuries have tried to negate with not quite convincing arguments about “just war” and “muscular Christians.” To put it more specific like, I have a hard time thinking that Jesus, who counseled again and again to love your enemies and to turn the other cheek, would have nonetheless given the green light to terminating monsters like Hitler and bin Laden (or Mohammed for that matter). Yes, I find it deuce difficult to conclude that Jesus could ever say something like, “Love your enemies but it’s OK to knock off Adolf.”

      • wildjew says

        Jun 1, 2015 at 6:56 pm

        Wellington, it’s long been my view Jesus will address and rectify those difficult sayings attributed to him. Thanks.

      • Kepha says

        Jun 1, 2015 at 7:19 pm

        @wildjew and Wellington:

        One reason why Evangelicalism grew during the 1970’s-1980’s was that a lot of people exited liberal churches.

        Back in the 1970’s, I saw a film in which a middle-aged man tells a “hip” clergyman, “I see there are no atheists in foxholes: they’ve all gone into the ministry.” It was a point of view with which many people in the pews, who are at least somewhat orthodox or would like to be if they knew what orthodoxy is, have been feeling for some time. I freely admit to the following:

        1. Much as I admit I’ve called for respect for Muslims, I’d feel my church defiled if it were used for Islamic prayers.

        2. I cannot in good conscience receive the Lord’s Supper from a female minister, and if there’s a woman in the pulpit, I growl, “If I want a woman preaching to me, I’ll wait for the next time Mrs. Kepha is angry!”

        3. I retain the belief that homosexuality is both an abomination and a corrupt fruit of idolatry.

        4. I believe firmly that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and God Incarnate, and that the assembled bishops at Nicaea got it right about the person of Jesus Christ.

        5. I think Hillary Clinton has to change for the sake of her own immortal soul rather than religious communities change their beliefs.

        As for Wellington’s having a hard time accepting that “turn the other cheek” means submit to a mass-murdering madman, I only point him to the Old Testament (including Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) remaining an important part of the biblical canon during the centuries A.D. and to Augustine’s “just war” theory. Generally, I accept Jesus’ “turn the other cheek” doctrine as a prohibition on private vengeance–something I admit I’d be sore tempted to if someone did something unspeakable to my granddaughter (or even to my grown sons, daughter-in-law, or wife)..

        As for Israel, I hold that the Israel of God is gathered about the Messiah, not in a strip of Middle Eastern land, and includes all persons who, out of apprehension of their misery and danger as sinners, repent of their sins and receive and rest on Jesus the Messiah and him alone for salvation–regardless of ethnicity. I won’t throw bricks at the Jews, for the Messiah himself is one, and they started the Christian Church (and are still welcome in it). But I am pro-modern Israel because it’s a fundamentally decent country in an area that is full of political obscenity; not because I think its re-establishment means we’re in the End of Days.

        Indeed, it is the Christian community that is the weathervane and “sign of the times”. If it is infected with a leadership that does all the running it can to remain a respectful five paces behind its cultured despisers and bows to every new idol of the secular city, then it has lost its savor and deserves to be cast out and trodden underfoot (Matthew 5:13)-although I pray that repentance and revival would come, or that there is some saving remnant present, before the Lord’s warning comes to pass!

        • Wellington says

          Jun 1, 2015 at 7:52 pm

          With respect, Kepha, the fact that you felt compelled to direct me to the Old Testament only tends to prove the veracity of what I formerly averred, precisely because what is said in the New Testament does not, to put it mildly, many times comport with what is often asserted in the Old Testament.

          Even were I devout Christian, I would still have trouble with many of Jesus’ pronouncements, including his “the meek shall inherit the earth,” be baptized and believe or else (Mark 16:16), his consistent turn-the-other-cheek “approach,” and the “love thy enemies” stuff.

          Really Kepha, while I think Jesus an infinitely superior character to Mohammed, and can only wish that every Muslim would wake up tomorrow a devout Christian (how much better off the world would be, no, and imagine the opposite), Jesus’ directives do present numerous problems, some of them rooted in naivety, and I would assert that any state entirely conducting itself upon Jesus’ principles would be a state that simply could not last very long. In fact, I challenge you or anyone to name me a single political entity that completely adhered to Jesus’ instructions and which survived.

          Just as the character of Mohammed is way too rooted in the base element of mankind, I submit that the character of Jesus is often times rooted in the unrealistic fairy-tale element of mankind, though I want to assert again that between Jesus and Mohammed, it’s a no-brainer. Jesus would win every time.

          Hope you and family are doing well.

        • wildjew says

          Jun 1, 2015 at 7:53 pm

          Kepha, thanks for your kind thoughts.

          You wrote: ‘As for Israel, I hold that the Israel of God is gathered about the Messiah, not in a strip of Middle Eastern land…’

          Can you understand how some or many of us do think God cares about that tiny strip of land in addition to his anointed (messiah)?

          Those who read things like this: “You shall therefore keep every commandment which I am commanding you today, so that you may be strong and go in and possess the land into which you are about to cross to possess it; so that you may prolong your days on the land which the LORD swore to your fathers to give to them and to their descendants, a land flowing with milk and honey. For the land, into which you are entering to possess it, is not like the land of Egypt …. But the land into which you are about to cross to possess it, a land of hills and valleys, drinks water from the rain of heaven, a land for which the LORD your God cares; the eyes of the LORD your God are always on it, from the beginning even to the end of the year….”

          I believe God’s eyes are always on this tiny piece of land; that He cares about this land. I believe God gave this land by covenant to the sons of Jacob, not to the sons of Ishmael. Why shouldn’t we believe it?

        • Linde Barrera says

          Jun 2, 2015 at 4:24 pm

          To Kepha- I enjoy reading your well written, heartfelt posts, even if I do not always agree with every line you express. And I was wondering if you would tell me what makes you not appreciate female ministers. Just wondering if it is doctrinal or cultural, or a different thing. Also, I am a straight lady and I don’t understand how people can be homosexual, but in my opinion, homosexuals may be that way because their brain is not wired the way a heterosexual’s brain is. I also have spoken to 2 gay females, and they each told me independent of each other, and not knowing each other, that they didn’t have a choice when they realized they were gay.

        • Champ says

          Jun 2, 2015 at 4:39 pm

          Kepha & Others …

          You may find this information from “Got Questions” regarding “turning the other cheek” interesting and informative:

          Question: “What did Jesus mean when He instructed us to turn the other cheek?”

          Excerpt:

          To “turn the other cheek,” does not imply pacifism, nor does it mean we place ourselves or others in mortal danger. Like the principle of the eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth in Matthew 5:38, turning the other cheek refers to personal retaliation, not criminal offenses or acts of military aggression. Clearly, Jesus did not mean to negate all God’s laws and injunctions protecting us against violent crime or invading armies. Rather, Jesus is speaking here of the principle of non-retaliation to affronts against our own dignity, as well as lawsuits to gain one’s personal assets (v. 40), infringements on one’s liberty (v. 41), and violations of property rights (v. 42). He was calling for a full surrender of all personal rights.

          More here:

          http://www.gotquestions.org/turn-other-cheek.html

        • voegelinian says

          Jun 2, 2015 at 9:38 pm

          ” Jesus’ directives do present numerous problems, some of them rooted in naivety, and I would assert that any state entirely conducting itself upon Jesus’ principles would be a state that simply could not last very long”

          Christians were able to organize and grow polities and armies just fine for a good millennium and a half without any Pacifism problems hindering them from defending their societies from the incessant waves of Mohammedan attacks over the centuries. Given this monumental fact, the only way to explain the pro-Muslim stance of the majority of Christians in our time would be one of two ways:

          1) claim that the Christians from the 4th century clear through to the 17th century were not “true Chrisitans” and so they were not practicing that “turn-the-other-cheek” Pacifism that would have disabled them from defending against Muslims;

          or (if those Christians from the 4th century clear through to the 17th century were in fact real Christians),

          2) argue that the post-modern Kumbaya / PC MC outlook of the majority of Western Christians stems from PC MC, not from Christianity.

          It seems a drastic step to conclude 1, and makes more sense to conclude 2. Why Christians have succumbed so broadly to PC MC in our time then would need explaining; but they wouldn’t be unique in this regard. Nearly every damn body in the West has succumbed to PC MC and now loves the Big Brother of multicultural “diversity”.

        • sinantara says

          Jun 3, 2015 at 5:47 am

          A classical dilemma. The Seleucids at one point in the guerrilla against the Macabees to attack them at Sabath. In the beginning the Jews said, what can we do? And allowed themselves to be captured. So the religious council ruled that God would recognize an exeptional situation and overlook resistance. Jesus himself said, to the Pharisees who will not pull his calf out of a well at Sabath? But Jesus lived in a situation where the Romans where in total control and zealot terror could not dent it so he told Simon the sheath his sword and told the Romans my kingdom is not of this earth. However, the Sanhedrin and the Romans considered him to be sufficiently dangerous for execution because every revolutionary movement even sipiritual ones bear within it the seeds of revolt. The best answer I saw in a Dutch Bommel cartoon where a villain hit a gorilla. The gorilla offered his other cheek which was smacked too. The gorilla cried But i have only two cheeks! and clobbered the villain. What Christians should ask themselves, how many cheeks do we have to offer? Also, readi Sartres “The Devil and God” about Gotz moral dillema

      • mortimer says

        Jun 2, 2015 at 11:03 am

        Christian leaders want to encourage charity and charitable-ness. Most of them aren’t politicians or lawyers per se. They haven’t done enough thinking about the issue of free speech to have a valid opinion.

        Hopefully, a lawyer or human rights advocate will explain to Franklin Graham why his views weaken freedom of expression.

        Most of our leaders don’t see why ‘testing the limits’ of laws is important to improve society. Protesters serve the common good by testing the law.

        Such leaders as Graham must assume that testing the limits is a mere sophomoric prank, rather than a responsible and mature action!

      • Wellington says

        Jun 2, 2015 at 8:09 pm

        So, Champ, Jesus would have been perfectly OK with the US or the UK knocking off Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Goebbels et al.? Is that your take, because I don’t see that in the NT.

        At no point does Jesus distinguish between justified state killing and personal killing, the “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” line notwithstanding. More specifically, suppose a man’s wife was brutally raped and killed by someone and the husband located this barbarian and killed him, do you really want to stand behind the contention that Jesus would have been against this act of personal revenge and would assign this man to Hell (assuming the husband refused to repent of this act) but if the rapist and murderer, instead of being killed by the husband, had been apprehended by law enforcement authorities, properly tried, found guilty and then executed, that Jesus would have then been OK with this and no Hell in store for anyone?”

        And if so, then I would contend that Jesus was too much into the formal application of the law to the exclusion of what any man would do under the scenario I outlined. Do you really want to argue that Jesus would have exculpated state authorities for the execution of said barbarian but would assign the husband to Hell for acting on his own? I submit, Champ, that this is where even Christian ethics, though far superior to Islamic ones, break down. Big time.

        • Champ says

          Jun 2, 2015 at 10:16 pm

          Whoa, Wellington …don’t jump to conclusions I am not asserting, here. You’ve made some grand jumps in how I see things, and no, I would advocate that a husband take matters into his own hands — or that he would be assigned to “hell” if he did.

          For starters, your comment demonstrates what little you DON’T KNOW as to why Jesus would allow someone to go to hell. Here’s some information that might help clear up your confusion:

          Question: “Who will go to hell?”

          Answer: http://www.gotquestions.org/who-will-go-to-hell.html

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Secondly, as far as Jesus approving of the killing of those you mentioned in your first paragraph, I would stand on the side of following the law regarding killing said individuals. Anything outside of the law — whether it’s taking the life of Hitler, et al, or a husband finding his wife’s murderer and taking revenge for her death — the same rule would apply: do what’s lawful and permissible for individuals and/or governments during time’s of war or defending our borders.

          Maybe reread my contribution from “Got Questions”, take a deep breath, and then rethink what you’re leveling at me. Thank you.

        • Champ says

          Jun 2, 2015 at 10:18 pm

          Correction: and no, I would “not” advocate that a husband take matters into his own hands …

        • Linde Barrera says

          Jun 2, 2015 at 10:30 pm

          To Wellington- Your questions to Champ about Jesus were very thought provoking. I would like to put in my 2 cents worth on the first one about Jesus and the killing of Hitler, etc. I cannot speak for Jesus, I can only interpret his directives and actions. I believe that Jesus would not condemn a Christian for killing Hitler and those others because Jesus wanted people to live in Him, and if Hitler had his way, no one would be alive except those who pledged allegiance to, and worshipped Hitler. Also Jesus said “Render unto Caesar…” meaning that lawful governments deserve respect, but not necessarily loyalty. As to the other questions you pise, I honestly do not know. Lastly, when Jesus said “Turn the other cheek” I think he meant “Look away” if someone insults you and don’t take their bait to argue and fight. For whatever it is worth, those are my thoughts!

        • Wellington says

          Jun 3, 2015 at 5:33 pm

          Thanks for your reply, Champ. I went to the article your link provided and I must tell you that it confirmed one of the reasons why I am not a Christian. The passages in John, and the one in Thessalonians about not being saved unless you know Jesus and accept what he asserted leaves me wondering about, let’s say, a medieval Japanese peasant who, while a good man and a fine husband and father, simply had no way of knowing anything about Christianity. Is such a person then condemned? Can’t go to Heaven? Perhaps will go to Hell? Hardly seems fair, does it? And if such a person could still go to Heaven, so many passages in the New Testament are ambiguous about this and I should think that when talking about eternal salvation an omniscient God would disallow ambiguity.

          Don’t forget, my friend, I am on the same side with you against what Islam intends for us all. I actually look upon Christianity as an enlightened religion, but being not religious at all myself, and quite the skeptic, I long ago knew that I was a stranger in a strange land with any religious folk. Take care, my friend.

        • Linde Barrera says

          Jun 3, 2015 at 8:30 pm

          To Wellington- I want to put my 2 cents in and give you an answer about the Japanese peasant who was a good husband and dad, but never heard of Jesus. I have been a lifelong Protestant. I asked the same type of question that you posed to my Catholic friend and to my Lutheran pastor. (This was many years ago, as I am Congregational now, and there were no Lutheran churches where I moved.) Both said that the person who never heard of Jesus Christ would be judged by God under the system in which that person lived. My Congregational pastor said that Jesus Christ was sent to be the Sin-Bearer for all, and that act would suggest God will give universal salvation for all. But that statement is an inference, as I never read that in the Bible.

        • Wellington says

          Jun 3, 2015 at 9:51 pm

          Thank you, LInde, for your response. I would add, however, what I already asserted to Champ, to wit, why would an omniscient God, who according to Christians inspired the writers of the New Testament, let anything like eternal salvation remain in any way ambiguous, so that one had to suppose or guess what a particular passage in the NT about salvation meant? And I hope you know that there are many Christians who would assert that UNLESS one accepts Jesus Christ as God and Redeemer, no salvation is possible, not even for those who lived centuries before Jesus and therefore had no possibility of knowing about him.

          And what about someone, let’s say a very impressive person, who had heard about Jesus, even raised a Christian, but who rejected his divinity, not out of any base motive but because of reasonable skepticism? For instance, Thomas Jefferson, baptized as a boy and who thought Jesus a great ethical teacher but who completely rejected the idea that Jesus was divine and who referred to the Christian Trinity as “theological nonsense.” So, is Jefferson in Hell?

          And then there is the contention by Christians that it is never to late to accept Jesus whatever your prior failings and that you can still be saved. So, imagine this scenario: Fidel Castro, a serial killer on a national scale, makes a good faith, truly sincere conversion to Christianity on his death bed and repents of all his sins. So, he goes to Heaven and Jefferson goes to Hell.? See the problem?

        • Wellington says

          Jun 3, 2015 at 9:53 pm

          “Too late” and not the erroneous “to late.”

    • Bill says

      Jun 1, 2015 at 5:24 pm

      Wildjew: You are correct. I would leave a Church immediately if the Pastor or the Church abandoned Israel which includes endorsing Palestinianism (as Pope Francis does-he endorses Palestinianism and so does the Vatican and the Roman Church along with a growing number of Protestant mainline Churches.

      • wildjew says

        Jun 1, 2015 at 7:03 pm

        Bill, I cannot refute with your stance. Some would argue it is better to stay for the time being and fight for your principles from within. So long as you are speaking out, condemning the leaders of your church or your political party, you are doing the best you can do. I would agree, there comes a point where the battle becomes futile or lost. Then you must leave. At this juncture, I think I would counsel condemnation / rebuke (as Mr. Spencer has been doing) to abandonment, although I could be wrong about that.

    • Lionel Andrades says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 8:40 am

      WildJew:
      you are going to find it increasingly difficult to reconcile your faith and your convictions with that of the leadership in your church

      Lionel:
      Every one needs to be a card carrying member of the Catholic Church is the teaching of Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) unless one assumes that the dead-saved are personally visible and known in June 2015 to be exceptions to this traditional Catholic teaching.

      This will be in conflict with the leftist political values and also that of the Vatican, the leadership in the Church. This has not been refuted yet by Robert Spencer . So I can still assume that he is using the same irrationality in interpretating Vatican Council II as Pope Francis and the leadership in the Catholic Church.

      Without the irrationality, pre-Vatican Council II and post Vatican Council II teachings on Islam, for example, have not changed.He could write a book on this.

      Presently Catholics quote the popes and saints on Islam. They do not quote Vatican Council II, even though they can.The same with Judaism and other religions.

      Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) still promotes an ecumenism of return, as in pre-Vatican Council II times.

      Avoid apparition theology, Marchetti’s false inference, and Vatican Council II is traditional.
      -Lionel Andrades

      Questions and Answers : Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. It has an exclusivist ecclesiology
      http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/questions-and-answers-vatican-council.html

      Michael Voris does not say every one needs to be a card carrying member of the Church for For him there are exceptions
      http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/michael-voris-does-not-say-every-one.html salvation.

      VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS
      http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/vatican-council-ii-says.html

      According to the Catholic Church Islam/Islamism is not a path to salvation
      http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/according-to-catholic-church.html

      Questions and Answers : Did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make a factual mistake ?
      http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/questions-and-answers-did-letter-of.html

      Questions and Answers : Evangelizing with Vatican Council II
      http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/questions-and-answers-evangelising-with.html
      ________________

  17. miriamrove says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 2:21 pm

    About time!!! M

  18. duh_swami says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 3:49 pm

    Using the term, ‘angel of peace’, and Abu Mazen (Abbas) in the same sentence is an insult to the angel of peace…I wonder if the Pope thinks before hr speaks?…

  19. Michael says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 4:13 pm

    This pope is naive, unpredictable and he has a destabilizing influence on the Roman Catholic Church. And I fear the worst is yet to come. By calling him naive, I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt. If he isn’t naive, he’s sinister.

    If would help somewhat if he would talk and write less.

  20. Champ says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 4:47 pm

    I don’t trust this pope at all and I’m not the least bit impressed by his phony-bologne *support* of Israel. As far as I’m concerned, he and obama are like 2-peas-in-a-pod: they are both lying snakes!

    • Wellington says

      Jun 1, 2015 at 5:56 pm

      I mostly agree with you, Champ, though I would add, for specificity’s sake, that I don’t trust the present Pope’s judgment while, with Obama, I trust neither his judgment nor his intentions. There’s a technical difference, but the effect is the same. As Ann Coulter has noted, liberals are either fools or traitors and when it comes to matters of national security the difference is irrelevant.

  21. Sam says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 6:44 pm

    Do people respect to this idiot? How can a POPE be so clueless? No respect for this guy from me. None.

  22. abad says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 7:10 pm

    That baby goat on his shoulders is adorable but I do hope he doesn’t plan on allowing any Muslims to get hold of it and abuse it.

    • Kepha says

      Jun 1, 2015 at 7:21 pm

      That little goat looks as if it would make a nice roast and provide a good Morocco hide for bookbinding!

      • abad says

        Jun 1, 2015 at 7:24 pm

        Don’t know if I could eat goat! Having petted them at petting zoos before – they are cute. I like lamb chops though.

  23. Matthieu Baudin says

    Jun 1, 2015 at 9:13 pm

    It’s wrong to use the anti Semitic line so as to squirm out of earlier ‘foot in the mouth’ comments and errors of judgement of his own making. The Pope would have been on more solid ground to say that it was ‘reasonable’ or ‘necessary’ for all countries to normalise relations with the State Of Israel as part of the quest for peace in the middle east.

    • wildjew says

      Jun 1, 2015 at 9:30 pm

      How could he? The Vatican did not establish formal diplomatic relations with (recognize) Israel until 1993!

  24. Uncle Vladdi says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 4:56 am

    Didn’t the Vat-Can just “recognize” the fake state of Fakestine the other day?!

    And now they’re pretending to notice that anti-Israel = anti-semitism?!

    The Dope must have looked in a mirror.

  25. Lionel Andrades says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 5:09 am

    Would Vatican Council II be anti-Semitic for Pope Francis and Robert Spencer if Marchetti’s model is not used ?

    Pope Francis says if he does not recognise the state of Israel it would be anti-Semitic.Would it also be anti-Semitic if he affimed the Bible, Tradition and pre-1949 Magisterium and said all Jews and Muslims are oriented to Hell according to Vatican Council II ? According to the pre-1949 Magisterium there was no conflict between (A) being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and (B) the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Feeneyite version.
    So if A does not contradict B, if they are not in conflict, then there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Tradition and the pre-1949 Magisterium.Then it would mean that Vatican Council II says all Jews and Muslims need ‘faith and baptism'(Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14) to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.Would this be anti-Semitic?
    Presently, the contemporary magisterium interprets a Vatican Council II in which A is in conflict with B.So A is a break with Tradition and the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So Vatican Council II is interpreted as changing Church teachings on other religions and ecumenism.This is the 1949 Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani model.
    If the Marchetti model is not used A does not contradict B , they both exist, A refers to theoretical cases, hypothetical for us and known only to God.B refers to defacto cases in the present times, who need visible- for- us Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.So theoretical A and objective B do not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.This is the traditional approach to this issue.
    If the traditional model is used, and not Marchetti’s, then A is recognised as not being objective, explicit and visible in the flesh.It does not exist in our reality.What does not resist in our reality cannot be an exception to all needing to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell.It cannot be an exception to anything.
    The Marchetti model which Pope Francis and the Jesuits use is irrational.It assumes that A refers to cases which are explicit and objective for us.So they become exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church today, with ‘faith and baptism'(AG 7,LG 14).
    If Robert Spencer held this rational view would it be considered anti-Semitic ? Would it be anti-Semitic for the pope?
    The Jewish Left media and political and social institutions are using Marchetti’s model in the interpretation of Vatican Council II in which A conflicts with B.
    For me Vatican Council II is in agreement with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which Pope Pius XII called an ‘infallible teaching’ in the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, which supported Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
    -Lionel Andrades

    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/would-vatican-council-ii-be-anti.html

  26. Lionel Andrades says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 8:50 am

    Without the irrationality, pre-Vatican Council II and post Vatican Council II teachings on Islam have not changed
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/without-irrationality-pre-vatican.html

    • mortimer says

      Jun 2, 2015 at 10:44 am

      Maybe Pope Frances is trying to counter the accusation that he is shallow and non-intellectual.

  27. Thomas says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 5:07 pm

    I do not recognize the State of Israel, and you so-called pope will not be recognized in Heaven.

  28. Kepha says

    Jun 2, 2015 at 9:48 pm

    @Wellington, Champ, Wildjew, Linde Barrera, and others:

    I appreciate your comments and questions. I also accept the sincerity of those who, while not Christian, find Jesus Christ far more attractive than Muhammad (you’re in the same boat with certain ex- and soon-to-be-ex-Muslims, among others).

    Re issues about “the Meek shall inherit the earth”:

    The prophets enjoin humility before God. Humility around other humans is also a virtue. Who likes to be around an overbearing and proud person (has anyone else noted this in Muhammad Ibn Abdallah Ibn al-Muttalib ibn Hashem)? What other possible posture for the creature is there when confronted with his Creator? I do not think this injunction to humility means we must be doormats; but I do accept that we should not seek private vengeance, since God has instituted governments (including the power of the sword) to protect human life and defend justice. Further, God himself rules all things, and may call the unknowing Assyrian or Persian out of the East as his instrument of vengeance.

    Wildjew, I understand well the Jewish attachment to ‘Eretz Yisroel; and note that a Zionist reading of the Bible has its plausibilities. I simply accept that God gave to the Messiah the ends of the earth as well as the land between the Jordan and the Med; and peoples unknown to Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Peter and John. Further, in the Puritan tradition I follow, there is an undercurrent that reads Romans 11 as saying that the time will come when the Gospel will have gone full circle and ultimately draw he mass of ethnic Israel. If I am critical of Rabbinical and Karaite Judaism for not recognizing the Messiah, I am also aware that my wife and I descend in large part from people who bowed down to wood and stone, and that the best of Christians may also fall short of what God would have them be and do.

    If I am for proselytizing the Jews (along with the Chinese, and the heathen Anglo-Saxon and whoever), think of it this way: I bought a field from my Jewish neighbor for a nominal sum, since he felt it useless. However, every time my garden tools sank into the soil, up came a handful of extremely valuable gems, which have made me immensely rich. It is only fair that I offer a share to the previous owner.

    I further recognize that in light of a chain of anti-Semitic activity from the anti-Dreyfusards through the Holocaust, plus the disabilities under which the Jews of the Dar-ul-Islam lived, something like Zionism probably had to be. If I believe that men like Ignaz Goldziher and Gustave Weill were fools for thinking that their Islamic fellow anti-Trinitarians would welcome them with open arms (and Goldziher’s taking the response of Muslims who thought him a convert as characteristic of Islam’s attitude towards the Jews per se was utterly inexcusable), I can also see why Theodor Herzl responded to the Dreyfus case as he did (although I have a more instinctual sympathy with what Buber hoped for; even if it probably could not have come to pass).

    I also deeply respect the Israeli solicitude for minority rights and practice of the politics of consent and compact when contrasted with the blatant persecution and tyranny practiced in Islamic lands.

    Linde–re my opposition to women’s ordination, Paul wrote against it, and I feel I disregard Paul to my soul’s peril.

    Wellington–Re “be baptized, or else…”

    Yes, I accept the traditional ending of the Gospel of Mark as legit. But this does not preclude my seeing the words given in it as a rough summary–perhaps presupposing the existence of other writings, especially the First Epistle of Peter; possibly John as well (another discussion).

    There’s a large New Testament context in which that is written. I believe it a grave sin to ignore or despise baptism, but salvation is not inseparably tied to it; and my baptism with water is a paltry thing compared to Jesus’ baptism in his own blood to atone for our sins (yours and mine; not his). Luke 23 shows us the repentant thief crucified alongside of Christ who was told that that very day he would be in Paradise with Jesus. There is no record of that thief ever having been baptized with water.

    Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace in which Christ’s community lives. It and the Lord’s Supper are the stick; but the popsicle is Jesus working righteousness while he lived among us, his atoning work on the cross, and his victorious resurrection on the third day. Divorced from Christ, baptism’s no more than the pouring of water.

    This brings us again to meekness. If our salvation is not our own doing, but a gracious work of the Father in electing us, the Son in performing the covenant, and the Holy Spirit in turning our stony hearts to hearts of flesh, how can I boast? God was in Christ reconciling us to himself; not offering us medals for saving ourselves.

    As for the Old Testament, I wrote three hundred erudite pages (not yet published) about how the exegesis of Deuteronomy 17 and I Sam 8 led to our North Atlantic ediface of government by consent of the government, political compact, and the political supremacy of law. For this, a department of political science allowed me to stick “Ph.D.” after my real name. Along with this, I went into the right of resistance and justified rebellion theory (mostly from the Calvinist standpoint; not from that off Covarruvias, Soto, Mariana, or other Salamancans). Maybe we will one day have to make like John Knox, the Scots Covenanters or Netherlands Sea Beggars. Maybe we will be called on to water the trees of liberty and responsible government with the blood of tyrants. But, as one heir of that tradition in a rather different context very wisely wrote, we should not seek to be an instrument of God’s vengeance (it was Samuel Sewall, in his anti-slavery tract _The Selling of Joseph_, ca. 1700). This is how we of the Reformed persuasion are very different from Muslims, for whom predation against the Harbi is a religious duty.

    A last word to Wellington: I firmly believe that Jesus Christ knew exactly what he was doing when he claimed to be the Messiah promised in the Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa; and then went on to call the apostles as his appointed witnesses. I do not know what kind of Christian education you received–especially since I am aware that there are many traditions which prefer to stress “the newness of the New Testament”. However, the tradition I embrace prefers to see important continuities between the Old and New Testaments rather than a radical break. Hence, I cannot despise Joshua, Caleb, and David. I only pray that should God once again grant political power to believers, he would also give us the wisdom to do justice and protect peace for all under the state’s aegis, believer or not.

    • Wellington says

      Jun 3, 2015 at 12:19 am

      Thanks to you, Kepha, and to others like Champ for the give and take on this thread. I would note first of all the complete absence of threats or meanness that is so characteristic of Muslims when you disagree with them. It bespeaks of one of the many differences between Christianity and Judaism on the one hand and Islam on the other. I would like, in any case, to assert certain points here.

      First, just as Mohamed is not above criticism, so must it be the case with Jesus or any other religious founder or major religious figure. While the character of Jesus, as I have noted many times here at JW, is almost infinitely preferable to that of Mohammed (and why Muslims can’t see this I can’t explain), he is, I submit, still subject to criticism. I would begin by noting in this regard what Will Durant observed, to wit, that Jesus could forgive anything but unbelief. This, I would argue, is not to Jesus’ credit. No one should be threatened with eternal punishment for not believing absolutely extraordinary, truly out of the ordinary, assertions. Reason demands skepticism and yet skepticism, especially the complete David Hume kind, is something which the Jesus of the NT is prepared to condemn even to the extent of assuring the skeptic that punishment for all time and beyond time awaits him. Everything that makes me up tells me this is wrong, even if some existent God decrees otherwise. I also find the never ending emphasis by Jesus upon the necessity of faith to be, how shall I put it, off the mark. I think it quite arguable to live an ethical and fulfilled life without religious faith. I know many who have done so, including myself, and I don’t take it kindly that I and others who live their life this way are gong to be punished for not believing certain religious doctrines, for instance that Jesus was God personally present on earth for some third of a century who came to earth to redeem man by dying on the cross. This I consider to be a complete fiction and yet, per Jesus, I’m in big trouble for not believing this. Shame on any God who would demand such a thing.

      Second, not only is exactly what the Messiah meant in the Jewish religion unclear, but it is also, I submit, unclear that Jesus himself claimed to be the Messiah. As to the former matter, it seems there were two entirely different views of the Messiah in Jewish lore. The first view envisioned an earthly, territorial deliverer, a new David who would smite earthly enemies galore and reestablish a powerful Jewish kingdom. The second view envisioned an “end-of-the-worlder” who would appear in the last stages of man’s life on earth. To the extent that Jesus subscribed to either of these views, it is obvious that it was not the first one. But, and this goes to what I already alluded to above, and that is that minus one passage in Mark, 14:62, Jesus never clearly asserts that he is the Messiah. He often answers vaguely to the query about him being so or asserts that it is others who say he is. As many scholars have maintained (e.g., the ancient historian, Michael Grant) Mark 14:62 appears to be a later addition that is not in accord with all the other statements Jesus made about any possible Messiahship. Moreover, as yet other astute observers have opined, much that is in the Gospels was quite possibly put in there long after Jesus’ death to make it look like he was what conventional Christians think he was rather than who he really was. As an example of this, I would reference Thomas Jefferson’s “Jefferson Bible,” a direct translation of the Koine Greek of the New Testament by Jefferson (whose ancient Greek was excellent) which kept in Jesus’s ethical pronouncements but left out any verses that attributed divinity to Jesus, which Jefferson thought were later accretions that did not belong with the ethical precepts of Jesus.

      Third, in order to be religious, not only must one have faith, but I would assert that it is imperative that one think there is also a spiritual dimension. I think such a dimension is a fiction, or rather, to be more specific, that what people call the spiritual world is really only aspects of an extremely complicated material world, the likes of which we may never know in its entirety (though people like Stephen Hawking are of the opinion that we will eventually “grasp” it all). One thing is for certain and that is that a universe (or is it a multiverse?) which has both matter and spirit is more complicated than one which has “only” matter. Using Occam razor reasoning I have long opted for the “only” matter universe.

      Fourth, while non-religious I am not anti-religious except for Islam, which is truly an awful and repressive belief system. Indeed, while I think it was almost inevitable that mankind would get a major faith which was rotten to the core, which it did with Islam, I think it was also almost inevitable that mankind would get a major faith (or even two) that would work wonderfully well with democratic tenets. Judaism and Christianity do just this. Their extraordinary emphasis on the dignity and worth of the individual magnificently go hand-in-hand with, a la Churchill, the best that man’s worst system of government with the exception of all the other forms or government possesses in its political blueprint. So, while I am not a Christian or Jew, I see Christians and Jews as allies here on earth. There is virtually nothing I can think of that would make the world a better place than if Muslims tomorrow all woke up committed Christians or Jews. As for other religions, none but Islam pose a threat to liberty and some are actually quite subtle, for instance Buddhism and Hinduism, but the emphasis on man’s humanity by Christianity and Judaism win my greatest esteem for the reasons I already mentioned.

      Just as Luther at Worms in 1521 reportedly said, “Here I stand, I can do no other,” so it is with me, Kepha. May you and your family be doing as well as possible. Take care, my Christian friend (you too, Champ, wildjew, et al.).

    • Linde Barrera says

      Jun 3, 2015 at 12:49 am

      To Kepha- Thank you for your outstanding post. I can see why you got that PhD! Congratulations.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • janicevanguilder on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Boycott Turkey on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • Yogi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe
  • Hoi Polloi on Why so many Muslims can’t wait for Biden to get inaugurated
  • Hoi Polloi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.