 Future Pope Ratzinger and IDF Paratroopers Liberate Jerusalem |
Jerusalem Post provides these recorded remarks from the new Pope Benedict XVI nee Ratzinger:
“I think it is very important that Jews, even if they live all over the world, have a homeland, a point of reference, live in the land of their fathers as a people in continuity with their own history and the promise given to their forefathers.”
A short while after this, Pope John Paul II uncoincidentally stated that “the Jewish people have a right to a land of their own” รขโฌโ adding that Palestinians too have a right to their own state.
Asked…whether Israel had special meaning for Christianity, he replied, “I think yes, certainly, but without rushing to theological conclusions, because the State of Israel was created by secular thought and is in itself a secular state. However, this fact has a great religious value because this people is not simply a people like any other. They have always maintained ties with their great history and therefore find themselves in this Holy Land, the Holy Land of the history of all three monotheistic religions. This, of course, also bears a message for Christians.”
Sounds like the kind of person who has an affinity for the Jewish people and who understands the need for a Jewish state. ๐
Edit: It seems this pope, as a cardinal, was responsible for sending a letter to US Roman Catholic bishops that had an impact on Kerry’s loss in this past election to Bush.
In a June 2004 letter to US bishops enunciating principles of worthiness for communion recipients, Ratzinger specified that strong and open supporters of abortion should be denied the Catholic sacrament, for being guilty of a “grave sin.”
He specifically mentioned “the case of a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws,” a reference widely understood to mean Democratic candidate Kerry, a Catholic who has defended abortion rights.
The letter said a priest confronted with such a person seeking communion “must refuse to distribute it.”
A footnote to the letter also condemned any Catholic who votes specifically for a candidate because the candidate holds a pro-abortion position. Such a voter “would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy communion,” the letter read.
Note that Kerry was born Jewish but raised Roman Catholic by his (apparently paranoid) parents. It was reported that he is quite a devout Catholic, although that seemed to work against him here.
The Vatican Must Return the Temple Treasures
The Jews have prayed for 2,000 years to again see the Temple upon the Temple Mount. It’s past time for prayers alone: ACTION is necessary to put faith into practice!
Will the pope act like Belshazzar or Cyrus?
Will Rome learn from history and receive instruction from the Bible or harden their hearts and be destroyed like pharaoh and Babylon?
Pope John Paul II Was No Saint
The plain truth is that the pagan pope (Catholics aren’t Christian) was a Roman wolf in sheep’s clothing, a politician who spoke out of both sides of his mouth. Remember the popes are both a religious leader and head of state.
what is all this silly christian bashing by jews? dont you guys understand that many of us stand by you over the threat from pretty much every neighbour of yours.
i’ll always support israel before any arab country
the catholic church is a cult( the church of aton) is and always will be one. the pope is just a politician whose sole deire is to rule the world as international governor through jerusalem.
the catholic church has survived scandal after scandal, lascivious popes, incestuos popes, peodophilia and mass murder. the catholic church is the most blood thirstiest religion on the planet,( really consider it’ involvement in rwanda’s internal affairs leading to the most recent massacres ordered by priests exonerated and ” protected ” by these perverts) and it just waits out and attempts to revise history, amazing
I’m not sure if the Pope acknowledged Christianity’s historical record of forced conversion in the same speech; however, I think he’d admit to that record with alacrity. Certainly, his predecessor took great pains to try to repent for the Church’s misdeeds.
I read the Pope’s remarks to suggest that Islam’s history, like Christianity’s, is a mixed one with respect to coercion and violence (jihad). The Koran, in his reading, is susceptible to varying interpretations. Accordingly, Muslims (and Christians) must choose. Shall we all agree that God wishes us to appeal to reason? Or does doing God’s will mean that individual choice doesn’t matter, and His will may be imposed on others?
Have to say I’ve got the Pope’s back on this one. The quote may have been a poor choice, but the message is fairly clear– and shouldn’t be the stuff of riots or Hitler comparisons.
On the one hand, that is simply astounding stuff for someone of his visibility and stature to say publicly. On the other hand, it’s a fascinating remark about the acquisition of faith and what may or may not be appropriate in this regard.
It is also noticeable that while the Vatican is doing damage control, Ratzinger has not made any public comment moderating or explaining these remarks further.
As a Jewish person, I have to admit that considering the Church is not immune from criticism regarding forced conversions, it is clear that there has been a profound evolution of ideas within the Church over the past decades and certainly in the past centuries. Perhaps this is one key difference in the modern outlooks of Islam and Christianity.
Text of the Pope’s remarks, currently sparking ritual outrage by the usual suspects across the Muslim world (remember those Danish cartoons?):
“In the seventh conversation (‘diรยกlesis’ – controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: ‘There is no compulsion in religion.’ It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war.
“Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the ‘Book’ and the ‘infidels,’ he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: ‘Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'”
“The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. ‘God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably (‘syn logo’) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats … To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death….’
“The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practice idolatry.
“As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God’s nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?”
The first Benedictine pronouncement I’ve come across that would never, ever have been uttered by his predecessor. (Good luck on your upcoming visit to Turkey, B, and make sure to pack the bulletproof vest.)
Ha, you beat me to it. I was going to point you to the article. I didn’t think it was related to, uh, Jews, so it didn’t quite merit a post, but I actually kinda gave out an inner gasp when I read what he said. It really was startling. I guess he’s a Bush fan now. ๐
The Pope fired a rather startling shot at Islam during a homily at Mass in Germany yesterday, condemning Koranic texts which advocate violent conversion, and taking a veiled shot at Ahmadinejad. The NYT has coverage of it today.
Every pagan pope is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a lying politician who cannot be trusted.
The popes speak with forked tongues like the serpent, pretending to accept A Jewish Homeland while undermining it by aiding and abetting calls for an accursed “Palestine” that seeks to erase Jacob-Israel’s name off the map (Ps. 83:4).
Pope John Paul II Was No Saint
The Vatican Must Return the Temple Treasures!
Vatican Linked to the Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin
The bigger gulf, Middle, may lie in the attitude we take toward those with whom we have much, but not all, in common. Having read so much here re O v. C. v. R, I’m struck by the reluctance of the right side of the spectrum, so to speak, to concede any validity or show any respect toward Reform Judaism in particular. You’ll pardon me for concluding that, for some on this site, Reform and Conservative Judaism are as pernicious as J4J. As an ignorant observer, I find this incredibly perverse.
Meanwhile, you’re in the difficult position of knowing not to fight back in kind. You’re not going to respond by saying: ‘no, our way is better than your way, and your way lacks any validity.’ Instead, you have to fight a lonely fight for civility and tolerance. (I admire you for that, btw.)
We Christians have killed enough of one another over the centuries that we’re able at least to acknowledge that we’re all rowing in the same direction, that you don’t need to be Catholic to have eternal life, etc. etc.
There’s far more than a semanticdistinction between saying, ‘we think our way is better, but we understand you’re also Christian and wish you luck in your spiritual journey’, and ‘you’ve deviated from the true path, you place everyone else in peril of straying and damnation, and God will surely condemn and punish you for it.’
(Just don’t look for the pope to guest on the 700 Club anytime soon.)
Hmmmm…now that you put it that way…ouch!
Actually, and very strangely, Shy Guy and I are very far apart on some issues but I get him because we share the same history and cultural aspects of our heritage. I understand where he’s coming from very well and can even relate even though I strongly disagree.
The schism is along the lines of faith perhaps more than practice. I guess that does create a bigger gulf than what you’d find between an Evangelist and a Catholic.
Haha, Middle! There IS a difference! Granted, the gap between BXVI and Pat Robertson isn’t quite as wide as the abyss between, say, Middle and Shy Guy.
Tom, you mean there’s a difference?
๐
Charles, nice to have a fellow Opus Dei conspirator on board. Don’t mind Ephraim– Middle’s right. One of these days our friends here will figure out they’re better off with us than with their Evangelical pals…
Oh, and thanks for your blessings.
I think.
Charles, welcome to Jewlicious where our secret mission is to entertain Catholics.
Seriously, your comment is welcome and don’t mind Ephraim too much, he says some pretty nasty things about Jews as well. Feel free to browse around some more and join our discussions.
Wow. Just dropping in on the party a year late..
Like my fellow papist Tom up there I’ve been mucking around in Jewish sites catching up on what our older brothers in the Faith are up to (not that you would recognise me as apart of the family, Oi vai iz mir!!) and this thread caught my eye..
All I can say is great stuff. I’ve never seen a thread on il Papa devolve into an argument about fish sticks before. And I’ve read a lot of them. Freakin’ hoot. Count me a jewlovin’ fool. You guys are great.
Just a few remarks, (not that anyone will read this, or be interested, but hey):
Most Catholics of my stripe would classify this pope as orthodox, a traditionalist and an Augustinian (as opposed to a Thomist), with a strong predeliction for Eastern & Ancient tradition: Orthodoxy, and yes, Judaism. Not a conservative, or worse, a reactionary.
He was a theologian at the Vatican Council, and helped draft its documents. His critique of the liturgy, for example, is a more a correction than a “reaction.”
And on moral issues like abortion and divorce, many of you don’t seem to understand the Church – no priest would ever suggest a woman stay in an abusive relationship. Not today.
And abortion is all about a strict understanding of human life beginning at conception. Even the child of a rapist is human, and is due protection as such. I understand many might find that belief repugnant. Still, I hope you might appreciate it’s inherent moral logic.
Anyway, I think Ephraim (not sure- sorry if I’m wrong) stated he believes “Catholicism to be a crock and a plague on humanity.” Ouch.. umm.. I don’t take stuff like that personally, I’m used to it. Probably worse things are said about us goyis in private. Ah, well. I appreciate Ephraim’s initial positive comments though.
And that photoshop is great. Hope you don’t mind I’ve stolen it for my screen saver.
Shalom, Pax & Bonum, Blessings on your Heads, all that.
Ibby, thanks for comparing Jewlicious to Aljazeera!
You have many questions, and there are many answers. However, to boil it down for you: when you put two Jews in a room, you are going to end up with at least two and possibly more than two opinions which will be debated openly and with aplomb. There’s also a good chance you’ll find some food in the room.
Hi Jews. I have a question for those of you who are educated, of which there are many (I hope and assume). Do you harbor hatred for muslims? Does a Jew generally mean a person who has a love for their Creator? Or does it more often mean a person who has a love for their Ethnic background? Is Jew a political party? Or a Race? or is it the common belief of a humble and devout group. A famous man of Jewish origin is Mel Brooks. He quotes that, he feels his work is sometimes a reflection of the Jews being angry at God for their misfortunes. Clearly, this is not an religious Jew’s sentiment. Do most Jews feel that this speaks for them?
I as an educated man can not make decisions about you based on ramblings of some people on a website. I know that racism is all over and will for ever be in our face as long as we are on forums where anyone is allowed to post freely. Similarly I know that if I go to aljazeera.com, I can be sure to find many people ranting anti-israeli sentiment. One thing I can say in the favor of you is that, usually racist remarks by Israelis are limited to racism, stereotyping and generalizations. It is less often that you folks will blatantly discuss annihilation or extermination of muslims.
On the other hand, I can say for aljazeera, that most of them will stick to politics and not generalize on Jewish people or the Jewish philosophy, but rather limit their hatred to Zionists and the violent fascist side of Israel. So is it racism or just hatred of a political enemy? Is it Religious hatred?
Obviously it is not Antisemitism, Since Muslims are equally if not more semitic than Jews of today.
In any case, any God fearing Jew and any God fearing Muslim should find a great deal of common ground based on their lifestyles and their ideologies. I fail to understand how petty racism has become the people.
DAVE DUDE – One last comment on monotheism, muslims,and Shikhs.
One G_d vs. Holy Trinity (It was always a JEWISH CONCEPT!)
Example:
The other big headache folks have is a collective amnesia, allot of early Jewish and Christian works are no longer used, and some think the boogie-man will get them if they read them. Example the Book of Enoch (1), with no less than 11 fragment copies found in Qumran. This was in LARGE use at the time, and it reference the รขโฌลSon of Manรขโฌย, in the text as Jesus referred to himself. But not one Christian or Jew this side of Ethiopia knows this.
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/scr3.html
Remember Ignorance is temporary, Stupidly is foreverรขโฌยฆ
Popes, the only good one, was a Jew.
Regarding the current incarnate of the Bishop of Rome, the present lineage can be traced to the 1960รขโฌโขs when the Vatican Mafioso couldnรขโฌโขt decide on any candidate because of internal fighting. So they opted for the age ole tradition of selecting some old fart that wouldnรขโฌโขt rock the boat for a couple of years. But the mistake was underestimating the nice, happy, fat old guy, namely John XXIII. He was the one that did all the reforms and Vatican II, and flushed a good amount of Dogma. Pope John XXIII (not JP2) since Peter (Cefas) was the first to associate with Jews and spoke the biblical passage to the Rabbi in Rome. รขโฌลIt is your brother Josephรขโฌย on their first meeting.
I think you have to put the recent guys JP2, and Benedict XVI into perspective. What JP2 is to George Bush, Benedict XVI is to Dick Chaney, strong arm behind the scenes. That being said, the Catholicรขโฌโขs have their own dogma agenda
http://www.catholic-pages.com/grabbag/malachy.asp
Dave,
Your comment รขโฌลOnce there is peace in the Middle East, it is my fervent hope that we as Jews can work together with our Muslim brothers and sisters to promote monotheism throughout the worldรขโฌย. DUDE, wake up and smell the smoke from the suicide bombers!
Try reading their book and see if itรขโฌโขs the same G_d of Israel, they wish to kill the people of the Book (Jews/Christians). They are in fact queuing up in Iran today asking for suicide volunteers to help support the Iranian nuke program. But donรขโฌโขt take this example look to what happens when land is turned over, look to the destruction of Josephรขโฌโขs tomb, so much for honoring Oslo accord.
Et Al,
I found an interesting article that relates to the Islam issue in Europe. Enjoy.
Europe died in Auschwitz
The following is a translation of an article written by a Spanish journalist, Sebastian Villar Rodriguez: I was walking along Raval (Barcelona) when all of a sudden I understood that Europe died with Auschwitz. We assassinated 6 million Jews in order to end up bringing in 20 million Muslims! We burnt in Auschwitz the culture, intelligence and power to create. We burnt the people of the world, the one who is proclaimed the chosen people of God.
We must admit that Europe, by relaxing its borders and giving in under the pretext of tolerance to the values of a fallacious cultural relativism, opened itรขโฌโขs doors to 20 million Muslims, often illiterates and fanatics that we could meet, at best, in places such as Raval, the poorest of the nations and of the ghettos, and who are preparing the worst, such as the 9/11 and the Madrid bombing and who are lodged in apartment blocs provided by the social welfare.
We also have exchanged culture with fanaticism, the capacity to create with the will to destroy, the wisdom with the superstition. We have exchanged the transcendental instinct of the Jews, who even under the worst possible conditions have always looked for a better peaceful world, for the suicide bomber. We have exchanged the pride of life for the fanatic obsession of death. Our death and that of our children.
What a grave mistake that we made!!!
fuck you jews die and go to hell you will all die
Well, Tom, if Al Guardian hates him, he must have something going for him.
I hope you’re right on the appeasement thing.
Middle, the Orthodox Judaism-Catholicism analogy is a faulty one. If you’re looking for a Christian sect that’s a closer match, I suggest evangelical Protestantism. (Best of luck!) The evangelical approach to sacred scripture, from what i can tell, is far closer to the Orthodox one.
And if you have in mind relative hardass quotients– there, too, Catholics fall short, next to our literalist brethren. The Orthodox get along famously with evangelicals on Israel, etc., n’est-ce pas?
Ephraim, I don’t think that Benedict gives a rat’s ass about appeasement sentiment in Europe. The Guardian newspaper hates him, anyway. From everything I’ve been able to glean about him, Benedict sees the world through the prism of past successes, and failures, in standing up to Nazism and Communism. I don’t think he’ll waver on terrorism.
Okay, you’re a nice non-reactionary guy who got up on the wrong side of the futon today. ๐
Actually, no. I am actually a very nice guy.
Besides, I sleep on a futon.
Okay Ephraim, you didn’t get up on the wrong side of the bed. You’re always cranky and grumpy like this and you don’t have a good-natured side.
There, are we in agreement now?
I didn’t Middle. You just think that because I disagree with you.
Sure, sure, disagree all you like. But don’t pretend you didn’t get up on the wrong side of the bed again.
No, I didn’t get up on the wrong side of the bed “again”, Middle. I was objecting to you once again trying to slip in the “Orthodox Judaism is reactionary” thing.
Yes, yes, I know you think that you are right and that you have proved it. I will continue to disagree, if it’s all the same to you.
Hello Romania!
Thanks for the explanation, guys.
I have no idea where you got the part about objecting to Ratzinger speaking plainly about dialogue or getting Europe to oppose Islamic fundamentalism. In fact, the only thing I am concluding from your posts today is that you got up on the wrong side of the bed. Again.
Ephraim,
Guess I got beaten to the punch.
Well, Middle, there’s this old joke, and it’s not really worth retelling in its entirety, but it’s about the Lone Ranger and Tonto, and they’re being progressively surrounded by hostile Indians, and the Lone Ranger cries out, “Tonto, we’re surrounded by Indians!” and Tonto says, “What you mean ‘we,’ white man?”
So the punchline has become a catchphrase meaning, of course, “don’t include me in your we.”
It’s from an old joke when the Lone Ranger and Tonto are surrounded by hostile Indians, Middle. The Lone Ranger says:
“Well, I guess it’s just you and me, Tonto”. And Tonto says “What you mean ‘we’, white man?”
I see. So you object to Ratzinger speaking plainly about Jewish-Christian dialogue and trying to get Europe to wake up to the threat to the West posed by Islamic fundamentalism?
My views regarding Ratzinger are only determined by whther or not he is “good for the Jews”. Whether he is “good for the Catholics” is something for Catholics to determine. Right now, he seems to be as good a Pope as the Jews could hope for. I could care less whether he is a “reactionary”, however one wishes to define that term.
๐
Oh yeah. Muffti and the middle did predict a certain sympathy that all y’all would have with Grandmaster B. And know you are exhibiting it, as expected. High five, Middle!
Uh, Ephraim, forgive me but I have no idea what insult you intend by “white man.”
And Muffti is the other person in the “we” comment. Don’t worry about being wrong again, though, WE have come to expect it. ๐
I think the point we were trying to make is that in many ways Orthodox Judaism is reactionary and thatรขโฌโขs the similarity to Benedict and his orthodox views.
What you mean “we” white man?
That was the point you were trying to make, not anybody else. I don’t recall anybody agreeing with you.
Protecting Christian minorities in Arab countries, Tom?
Well, then they better git crackin’. Ain’t gonna be much to protect if things keep up as they are now going, at least in nascent “Palestine”, which is rapidly becoming “Christian-rein”.
Appeasing Muslims to protect Christians living amongst them doesn’t appear to be working any longer. They had better start thinking of something else.
Oh, but wait. That means that they will have to stand with the Jews and Israel and actively resist Islamic jihad.
All joking aside, do you see much chance of this really happening? I think Benedict is making some small sounds in this direction, but he is really swimming against the appeasement tide in Europe, which is getting stronger by the minute.
Ephraim, for a long time, Vatican policy toward Islam hinged on (purportedly) protecting tiny Arab Christian minorities in Muslim states. That was John Paul’s make-nice approach.
On the other hand, politically and spiritually, Catholicism competes with Islam in places like Nigeria and Ivory Coast and Tanzania. So Benedict seems to have opted for candor. In telling Muslims in Germany that “the defense of religious freedom” is a “permanent imperative and respect for minorities is a clear sign of true civilization,” he implies repressive Muslim regimes aren’t civilized. His predecessor wouldn’t have ventured nearly that far.
Tom I do apologize for not posting about Benedict’s visit, I was away for a while and those days in particular were days where I was away from the computer. Benedict was impressive in Germany.
Benedict threw down the terrorism aguntlet to the Muslims in Europe. For that alone, I have decided I like him. And if he’s saying to both Jews and Catholics: “Were different, get used to it, but respect each other while you do” I like him even more. I can’t stand namby-pamby Kumbayah interfaith dialogue crapola. It’s time to talk tochlis and grow up.
It is like I said in the beginning: Benedict is the Pope chosen to man the walls of Vienna. Let’s see what happens.
Aron, I think you’re right. B’s “orthodox,” but that’s not to be confused with a reactionary approach to the faith.
And if he ticks off both the Opus Dei crowd and the pawn-the-artwork-in-the-Vatican Museum crowd, then yes, he’s doing a good job.
Too bad Jewlicious didn’t treat Benedict’s visit to Germany. During which he proved how German he is, with some rather blunt remarks on the subject of Islamic extremism and terrorism. This is a subject JP II felt comfortable avoiding (in favor of accentuating the positive).
In addition, Benedict remarked to his Jewish audience that a mature and respectful relationship between Judaism and Catholicism involves acknowledging differences between the faiths. Not the sort of thing feel-good JP II would’ve stressed, to a Jewish audience in a live appearance, especially.
I think I like the straight-no-chaser style, but it takes some getting used to.
I think the point we were trying to make is that in many ways Orthodox Judaism is reactionary and that’s the similarity to Benedict and his orthodox views.
Interesting discussion. However Pope benedict is neither reactionary or traditionalist. He like John Paul II are very modern and supporters of Vatican II with very positive views towards Jews and Judaism. Benedict is orthodox in his Catholic faith which is not the same as traditionalist or reactionary or conservative. Neither the extremes of left and right in the Catholic Church are happy with him which says something positive.
Another point. Jewishness through the mother goes right back to Abraham. Abraham’s son by his Hebrew wife was a Hebrew and heir to the promise. Abraham’s son by his goy maid Hagar was not a Hebrew and not heir to the Promise. Both Jacob and Esau were Hebrews but Esau’s son were not because their mothers were Canaanites. Jacob’s sons were Hebrews because their mothers were Hebrew women. Joseph’s wife Asenath was Hebrew (even though brought up as an Egyptian)because her mother was Dinah the daughter of the Patriarch Jacob- which made Ephraim and Manessah Hebrews.
what did paris hilton say about the pope? is he hot or not?
dovid
*sigh* there’s so much I don’t know about
JudaismCatholicism.For TM 168:
Vatican II did not banish Latin, it only allowed the
vernacular for parts of the Mass. Latin was to be used for the commom elements, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus etc. The US bishops are not authoriativae in their theologogy if it veers aways from Rome. The International Commission for the English Language (ICEL) have been banned from issuing new chruch texts because their translations were so bad.
Hey, Middle, is that my name or yours that’s being taken in vain at #174?
Read the article on Papa Ratzi. And, no sooner than, wanly hopeful, I gave him credit for “no gaffes” up above, he commits one this week with his comments on terrorism. The Israeli gov’t. described his omission of Israel from his list of victims as “deliberate,” but I don’t know– that may be giving the Vatican too much credit for coherence.
Are you saying I’m Catholic? Is the Pope Jewish?
Anyway, Tom, there’s an interesting article about ratzinger in the July 25 issue of the New Yorker.
T_M = themiddle = Tom Morrissey…c’mon and quit navel-gazing you fershlugginuh nebbish!
No, no, Tom, this is not a matter of belief. I was just, you know, testing…
Oh, we do, just not on our heads, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN HAWHAWHAW.
Ahem.
Man, that’s akin to Middleman’s belief that if we Catholics screw up, we’ll get struck by lightning from on high (#160). Really a pre-modern belief.
In fact, the Pope simply dispatches the Luftwaffe for a fly-over.
Michael– you mean they don’t?
Thanks for the info!
About the horns (best seen on Michelangelo’s famous statue of Moses), the reason the Catholic tradition of Moses had him with horns is because of a mix-up in translation or copying. When Moses comes down from Sinai, his face is described as shining – in translation, this came out as also meaning “horned.” Admittedly, I’m a little shaky on the exact details, but it’s true (if weird). I believe this also may have been the genesis of the formerly widespread Christian myth that Jews have horns.
Michael:
The Vulgate translation is the handiwork of St. Jerome, who undertook it c. 420 AD. (Jerome employed a Jewish scholar of Hebrew to help him translate the Torah/Old Testament.) The Council of Trent in 1570 (in which the Church sought to standardize liturgical and other practice following the Reformation) declared Jerome’s translation the authoritative Latin version. However, the Council declined to elevate it above any original rendering of Scripture, or over translations in non-Latin languages. Of course, with Latin dominant, Jerome’s translation reigned for nearly 400 years.
The Second Vatican Council (1965) gave Latin the liturgical boot, replacing it with vernacular languages. A boom in biblical translation followed. The current, US bishops-approved English translation dates from 1991.
More generally, the following (from ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’) seems applicable to translators:
“In order to discover the sacred [scriptural] authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. ‘For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.'”
Hmm, not sure about Moses’s horns, but keep in mind that all sorts of curious, non-biblical, non-Church-approved texts floated around back in the day, putting an imaginative gloss on Scripture. To pick but one (hilarious) example, Giovanni Boccaccio’s fourteenth-centur work ‘Famous Women’ purports to recount Eve’s life following the nasty business involving that apple in the garden.
Tom, since you’re doing your Catholicism homework, I’m actually curious: are the translators of the Bible also considered to have any sort of special Divine helping hand?
Although there have been two major translations of the Torah in antiquity (the Septuagint and the Targum), the Hebrew text was always the main, most respected text, and now within Orthodox Judaism the attitude towards the Hebrew Torah approaches that of the Muslim attitude towards the Quran – that the Torah can only be truly understood in its original language.
Now, the Vulgate is a translation based on a translation (at least, as far as I know, the Vulgate was based mainly on the Septuagint), and the KJV adds another link in the translation chain. We also know that the Vulgate did stuff like inspire artists to put horns on Moses.
So I guess my question is kind of multifold – first, is the Vulgate considered to be within the Catholic Church as the authoritative version of the Bible? And second, does it as such have any greater legitimacy than modern translations in dozens of languages? And third, were the translators of the Vulgate supposedly divinely inspired?
Middle, upon further review, the official teaching is that God gave the Torah to His people “through Moses.”
This view is consistent with the more general belief that “God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. ‘To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while He employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though He acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever He wanted written, and no more.'”
This wouldn’t pass muster with evangelical Christians, nor Orthodox Jews, I assume.
Yes Tom, but that relates to the fact that Jews believe God gave the Torah at Sinai. On the other hand, Christians acknowledge that their sources are written by the disciples. So I believe there is a fundamental difference in perception and this is why you see similarity with other streams of Judaism outside Orthodox.
For example, the Catholic Church does not teach that any portions of the Bible, including passages purporting to quote Jesus, are literally true.
You know what’s interesting, Middle? Reviewing the Jewlicious posts that deal with interpretation of Scripture, e.g. the Passionate Life one, the Catholic view is sharply at variance with the Orthodox, or at least, say, chasidic, take. It’s very striking how consistently the Catholic approach mirrors the Conservative/Reform one. It’s counterintuitive, I know….
No lightning? Hmmm. Could it you’re in the wrong Church. ๐
Tom, you’re virtually Orthodox!
Middle, call it a form of outreach to the Catholic community. But yeah, I’m there every Sunday at 8. Actually, I read (the weekly passage from the Torah!) during the service, so I actually have to be awake and alert at that hour. Ugh. Also do religious ed in the parish. (Sometimes score free doughnuts.)
No lightning. He’s a big target, too.
Tom, this is a revelation, your going to Mass. I received the impression you were anything but a devout practitioner of your faith.
By the way, when Fr. Jack made the error, did lightning strike him down?
Middle, his highest-profile activity has been to reach out to the Orthodox Churches, including the Russian Orthodox Church, with which the Catholic Church has famously poor relations. In this instance, all that really stands in the way of unity is Rone’s insistence on papal primacy. (In contrast, the Western Protestant churches differ with Rome on numerous points of doctrine.)
Rumor also has it that B 16 may also lift the papal condemnation of Luther. (Better late than never. Just ask Galileo.)
As for relations with the Jews, a Catholic-Jewish meeting just concluded this week in Jerusalem, with the parties jointly affirming the right of freedom of religion.
I think it’ll be a couple of years before we know whether Benedict’s a seat-warmer or something more. Papal encyclicals (the real signature pieces of a papacy) often take that long to prepare.
For now, no bold gestures, nods to continuity, no gaffes.
And speaking of gaffes– Fr. Jack, my parish priest, got to the ritual prayer for the hierarchy last week at Mass and intoned, “for our pope, John Paul…” We’re all still adjusting to Benedict. And so, I suspect, is the Pope himself.
Tom, it has been a couple of months. Have there been any indications of how the Pope is doing? Is he pro-active or a quiet caretaker?
Ah yes, #121, I remember it as though I had written it yesterday. Darn good post. ๐
Obviously, it has little impact on me if Ratzinger loosens the rules on divorce for Catholics, but that would make him anything but a reactionary and we will have wasted this entire discussion. I have to agree that until we see what he does, it’s impossible to guess. I am just glad that he continues to show friendship to Jews, because there needs to be a great deal of work done to heal many wounds.
TM, going waaaaaay back to #121 re Vatican II: I think it’s best viewed as a process, akin in secular terms, perhaps, to the civil rights movement. There was the stuff Ratzi and Hans Kung could agree on, e.g., Mass in the vernacular, or rebuilding relations with the Jews, and the more far-reaching changes the church is struggling with now. B 16 thinks we’re all done with V II; Kung thinks we’re just beginning. Compare it to disputes over affirmative action. The implications of initial, widely-popular and needed change are, inevitably, more divisive.
And don’t assume that B 16 won’t make signficant progressive changes. Word has it that he was at work on relaxing certain strictures on divorce at the time of his election. In the immortal words of former Cards pitcher Joaquin Andujar, ‘you never know.’
Everybody expected John XIII to be a seat-warmer; it didn’t work out that way.
Take as you fit, ol pal. Of course Muffti takes you seriously. He’s a fan of yours from the ol’ McGill days. You know that right?
As for the dagger and the cutting…err…ok, you can have JS and DIgItAl if you like. ๐
You can use intuition all you like. Muffti has no doubt that it makes you more of an effective therapist in a one-on-one setting. And that would be perfectly appropriate when you have a subject right there to talk to and get to know. It’s only when you use intuition to access general truths that you take to be grounded and justified by intuition that people ought to balk at what you say. So go ahead and intuit the morosity of philosophers all you like. Mufft has been to three universities and hung out with may more philosophers than you ever will and can say that the group he’s met are all pretty happy, not to mention socially conscientious and responsible people. But there are A LOT of philosophers out there so Muffti doesn’t go around claiming that philosphers are typically happy and socially responsible, even if he has the ‘intuition’ that they are.
“Muffti supposes that one could decide what is true based on what the likes of Joe Schmo ”
Actually, Schmo was one of many, here’s a clue: DiGiTaL says:
“…but the Shtreimels words cut deep with the dagger of truth.”
I like that. Anyway, in my profession we use something called intuition. And while research/stats are nice to secure funding, nothing beats the ‘ol transference/counter transference dance when it comes to “having that gut feeling” with respect to why a person is suffering (see: “The Gift of Therapy : An Open Letter to a New Generation of Therapists and Their Patients” by Dr Irving Yalom). Actually, you’d like Yalom. He’s an existential therapist with a background in psychiatry and psychoanalysis. Very bright. Doesn’t believe in God. You’ll love it.
Anyway, I feel proud and confident with how I handled the whole SG thang. And besides some pervs and nihilists, I have no doubt that others will agree with my position.
BTW…for someone who “trusts not a word of what “I” say “, you sure take me seriously Muffti. In a sense, I guess that’s a compliment.
Shtremiel, Muffti finally has an inisight into your real dialectical goals:
Muffti supposes that one could decide what is true based on what the likes of Joe Schmo (that’s what he calls himself) thinks. Muffti could care less if the whole world agreed with you to be totally honest. But way to win the popularity contest the easy way.
As for my waist and my pants, that’s again another rather strong assumptions. But Muffti could care less, once again, what you think his motives are.
Finally, as for the morosity of philosophers, Muffti recalls you saying that you took 2 (undergrad Muffti assumes) philosophy classes. This generalizing from bits of experience to large groups seems to be a pattern of yours. Is it any wonder Muffti trusts not a word of what you say without more evidence than ‘I’ve been around a bit…’?
No problemo, you…you reactionary, you.
Well, like ck says, do whatever you want.
Just include me out.
We agree completely with respect to your final paragraph. This is the basic dividing line, complete faith that what we have is all from god versus faith or less faith that addresses the torah and halacha as man made.
And yes, at that point the question of how one applies our traditions and halacha to our lives becomes another dividing line between the Orthodox Jews and the rest of us.
Well, I simply cannot agree, TM. I guess you and I define respect differently.
I can respect the fact that the Reform say they respect the halacha, if respect means “OK, the fact that you say this is what you believe is registering audibly on my eardrums and I am aware that this is what you say you mean”. I mean, OK, so they say that they respect it. But it seems like nothing more or less than lip service. When the rubber meets the road, they reject the actual application of halacha to their lives more often than they follow it.
And it is precisely because they believe it is man-made and therefore subject to being radically revised, changed, ignored, or rejected that is the crucial issue separating the Orthodox from everyone else. The Orthodox obey because they believe it is commanded of them, not suggested that they do so.
I can’t speak for Reform rabbis, but the Conservative rabbis that I worked with, and my general impression while applying to JTS was that the movement very much respects Halacha. They don’t agree with Orthodox Jews about how Halacha has evolved or the Divinity of the Oral Law, but the respect and adherence to Halacha is obvious.
No Ephraim, they respect it. I respect it too but do not follow much of it. I can’t respect Buddhism and not follow its teachings? I can’t respect fiscal conservatives but support welfare? And the Reform rabbis I know do not do anything like what you’re describing in your Tokyo anecdote.
Seriously, you disagree with their philosophy? Fine. But stop dismissing it already, it’s just not serious.
No, but they DO reject it, TM. If they respected it they would follow it. How can you say you respect something and then turn around and do the opposite?
I once met a Refom “rabbi” who was visiting Tokyo. When he wasn’t stuffing his face with shrimp and saying he could do it because he was Reform, he was taking taxis and shopping on Shabbat after services.
Sorry, but respect that ain’t.
The problem I have with the justification of porn, especially when teens are involved (and 18-19 year olds are teens, I don’t care what your town/city by-laws state), is that it normalizes something that is very unhealhty. And instead of whacking off to these kids, we should be helping them. Not by preaching, but by doing many of the things the Torah already suggests.
Western culture needs Tzinut more now than ever before.
“Wow, that chick is in need of some hugs so she can stop with the self-mutilation.”
TM gets it.
Wow, that chick is in need of some hugs so she can stop with the self-mutilation.
TM,
The posts have less to do with matzah lady, and more to do with this one:
http://suicidegirls.com/girls/fenchurch/
Oh dammit, Shtreimel, must I now go visit there again?
Fine! If I must look at that awful photo again, I’ll make this grand sacrifice. Please note that if ck was on the ball, we would have posted it first. Ck, ayecha?
Ephraim, your post 135 is very different than 105, which was my point. Nobody rejected anything wholesale and nobody rejected anything for that matter. They look at halacha as man-made and another stream of thought within the long history of Judaism and its precursor, Israelite religion. But you are right that this is a point of breakdown for us in the sense that while I come at the halacha from a point of view of respect, you treat it as god-given. Vive la difference.
“Personally, I found that picture quite, uh, cracklingly delicious”
We all agree.
“And donรขโฌโขt understand the brouhaha.”
Mob said SG wasn’t a porn site. And then he got his ass handed to him. Funny thing is, it was one of the SG girls who said: “Of course it’s a porn site” And then Mob contacted her. You gotta read the comments dude.
Anyway, the whole thing spun out of control when I turned up the heat by discussing the shadowy parts of why people might pierce their genitals and put their photos on-line. From a clinical perspective, I see huge problems with this, but I’m not surprised that Muffti and Mob don’t.
Actually that should’ve read:
“Can’t get your pants off your waist”
Regardless. Mob and you look like horny teenage fools. And I’m enjoying the analogy between the resemblance b/w R2D2, yourself and your authority to say anything that would benefit human kind. Like I said, the philosophers that I’ve know were pretty morose characters. Not the sort of folks I’d turn to for advice on relationships and community building.
“Yes, and Shtremiel has helped by being, well, the kind of guy who tells charming little anecdotes about his life and then makes wild leaps towards absolute generality.”
Seems more than a few folks agree me with me Muffti (read the comments). Moreover, it would appear that Mob and yourself can’t get your pants around your wasit fast enough to charm these ladies. It’s kinda yuchy.
TM, all of your posts about Reform only serve to point up one central thing: that the Reform reject the binding authority of the halacha.
Since that is really all I have been saying all along, and since it is obvious that you agree, but simply think this is a good thing rather than a bad thing, I see no reason to discuss this further.
Facts are facts. It is the interpretation of them that matters.
Personally, I found that picture quite, uh, cracklingly delicious and don’t understand the brouhaha. She’s 18 and a soldier, therefore old enough to think and decide for herself. Obviously she rejects the idea of tzniut, but then again, maybe she is simply reveling in her….wait for it…
…god given body.
Yes, and Shtremiel has helped by being, well, the kind of guy who tells charming little anecdotes about his life and then makes wild leaps towards absolute generality. Then he tells anyone who points out obvious flaws in his reasoning to butt out. All the while he insults a woman who as far as Muffti can tell is about a million times more reasonable than he is. Oh right, and between the anecdotes and the straight up insults, he pronounces on the value of things like porn without bothering to argue for it.
But don’t listen to me. It’s just Muffti being Muffti. Check for yourself at jewschool. You’ll see a cute chick with strategicall placed matzah as a reward…
Being german and having a catholic father and a jewish mother I’m just wondering about all your concerns. benedict xvi is actually john paul iii. ratzinger is not at all more conservative than john paul (by the way i’d like to hear about all of john pauls reforms i read about in some previous artitcle). there are not going to be any changes. neither towards the jews nor towards any other religion or the catholics themselves. does anybody actually think that an african or latin american pope would be any different or even be more interested in allowing abortion or condoms? they are all very conservative. hey, it’s the catholic church…
Soft Porn vs. Art
“Shtreimel, you donรขโฌโขt know what youรขโฌโขre missing”
I’m busy over at Jewschool. Hell, I’m pushing the comments on the soft-porn vs. art discussion to almost 70. Mob should thank me. GM’s helped by being, well, Muffti.
Shtreimel, you don’t know what you’re missing. ๐
Seriously now, all I did was cut and paste information about Reform Judaism. Since so many of you believe it’s anathema to the Jewish people, why not take a moment to read and evaluate whether your views are accurate?
PS ck, you know that I keep having to look at the pic on this post and it remains absolutely hilarious. Instant classic.
“dude, itรขโฌโขs a blog, not an essay contest. Brevity, my friend, and more people will actually read what you write”
Bingo. And at times I commit this very sin. Actually, the ONLY long posts I take the time to read are by a dude named “J” on Jewschool. He’s worth it.
TM, just tell CK he doesn’t have to eat shrimpy fish sticks to avoid being a reactionary. Muffti thinks he’ll quit.
๐
Yeah! Fuck brevity!
Whatever, Laya. Fuck brevity. TM, your lack of brevity is refreshing to be honest and it’s good the way you take the time to flesh out arguments and provide data. If anyone should drop something, it’s CK with his goddamned fish sticks!
Just kidding CK. Keep up your anti-shrimp encrusted fish sticks. Clearly that’s the importantest issue of the day ๐
*sigh*
Okay, let’s address the fishsticks. Which post did I miss or not respond to earlier in the discussion?
TM mon ami – why you so literal? And why do u continue to ignore the fish sticks? And yes, I read with great interest and enjoyment everything you write.
Wait a minnit, ck. When you pray, do you not say “mechayei hametim?” Now who is the Jew for Jesus?
Ephraim,
The point of those posts, other than to finally put on this site something tangible so we can stop making incorrect generalities about Reform, is to show that Reform didn’t just wake up one morning and “reject Jewish tradition” or that it rejects halacha. It does neither.
You are right to state that Reform views halacha as man-made, and therefore another strand in the development of Judaism. However, where you perceive rejection and hostility, you may wish to consider that there is the respect due another aspect of our Judaic culture, traditions and history.
Your point about Ruth accepting halacha has forced you to type a lot but is still lost on me. Nowhere does she say this. She simply says “Your God is my God.” Boom! Ta da! Whoohoo! She’s an Israelite. She is accepted as one by Naomi and as one by Boaz, right?
So she’s taking on the customs of the Israelites. This is before Judaism existed, right? This is Israelite religion, a precursor to Judaism (and Christianity for that matter). Judaism is what happens in the first century of the Common Era and is, in part, directly related to the destruction of the Temple. Right? Halacha is finally put on parchment 300 years later, right? So Ruth is not taking on “halacha” but is saying that she will join the family of Naomi and live by their customs. That’s it, Ephraim. That is all we see in the story.
My point was that in today’s Orthodox conversion process, she would be rejected much like any devout Conservative convert would be rejected. She would be forced to undergo training and a lifestyle change, much as the Ethiopian Jews were forced to “convert” when they arrived in Israel with their arguably purer form of Judaic practice than any Hasid could claim.
As for the elders at the gate…you may wish to research Near Eastern societies a bit because they all have elders. To this day, you will find that in many cultures around the world, elders are accorded status within the community. So Boaz, who had already accepted Ruth as one of his people, went to the elders to receive approval to bring her into the tribe or larger family to which he belonged. Did she have to come and prove that she knew her traditions? Nope. Did she have to practice as an Orthodox Jew for a year or two? Nope. Was there a serious questioning of her committment for their customs? Nope. Boaz came and asked and the elders said yes.
For all we know, Boaz may have been a wealthy man who wanted Ruth for a wife. After mouths started yapping about his unconventional wife, he decided to put a stop to it. So he went to the elders, gave them some bakshish and got them to say yes. Then he commissioned a scribe to put the story on parchment so that it would receive another mark of quality and so that she would be remembered as an Israelite in the future and his children would be part of the clan. How is this story I’ve just made up any different than any story you tell me about a beit din? At least mine is based upon the facts while you have to invent facts.
ck, this is the problem with not using emoticons, perhaps my sarcasm is not always clear. I was not serious about the two of you watching me like a hawk. As far as I know, you don’t even read what I write any more. Much to your relief. [insert emoticon of your choice here]
Laya, #109, it’s like shooting ducks in a pond. Why don’t you – and I say this in the nicest way possible – put a smile on your face and try to enjoy. Really, I can be fun. I promise.
Yisrael, I don’t agree with your comment #93 because it presupposes certain actions and only certain actions as reactionary. So if you have Vatican II and then 30 years later the American Catholic Church begins to show some openness to, say, birth control or divorce, and then a Pope says that he adheres to Vatican II but rejects any movement towars birth control or divorce, then he is not being reactionary? In my opinion, he is.
Likewise for our 3 musketeers. It is not that they believe Jews should be held to higher standards than Orthodox that makes them reactionary, it is that they reject other streams of Judaism that offer different interpretations, not to mention that it appears they also reject changes in Modern Orthodoxy such as the whole premarital sex issue.
It is by adhering to a stringent interpretation of a dogma/ideal/practice when parts of your people have taken on newer customs that seem to replace your stringent interpretation, that you become reactionary. How prevalent was birth control in 1964? Was Roe v. Wade an issue in 1964? And yet, because of those two developments, Catholic Americans suddenly had different options. Divorce was also not as prevalent back then and was not a serious societal issue. It became one. By addressing the issue in a manner that rejects any change whatsoever, Ratzinger proves himself a reactionary.
Hmmm…
Jews For Jesus dot Org
What? You refuse to believe in Jesus cuz yer Jewish? REACTIONARY!
๐
TM wrote:
We affirm that Torah is the foundation of Jewish life.
We cherish the truths revealed in Torah, G-dรขโฌโขs ongoing revelation to our people and the record of our peopleรขโฌโขs ongoing relationship with G-d.
Uh… so how do we explain reform’s “kosher” shrimp encrusted fish sticks?
Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.
Why do we keep avoiding the fish sticks issue? Thanks to godhatesshrimp.com
dude, it’s a blog, not an essay contest. Brevity, my friend, and more people will actually read what you write.
Here is the program of study for Reform rabbis.
Question 18.4.17:
Fallacy: Reform Jews do not observe Shabbat
Gates of the Seasons, the American Reform Movement’s guide to the Jewish Year, views Shabbat as a unique Jewish contribution to civilization, and a central activity to surviving the forces of assimilation and corruption. As such, it calls out the following mitzvot for Reform Jews:
A-1
The Mitzvah of Shabbat Observance
It is a mitzvah for every Jew, single or married, young or old, to observe Shabbat. The unique status of Shabbat is demonstrated by its being the only one of the holy days to be mentioned in the Ten Commandments. … Shabbat observance involves both positive and negative mitzvot, i.e., doing and refraining from doing.
A-2
The Mitzvah of Joy
IT is a mitzvah to take delight in Shabbat observance, as Isaiah said, “You shall call Shabbat a deligh”. Oneg implies celebration and relaxation, sharing time with loved ones, enjoying the beauty of nature, eating a leisurely meal made special with conviviality and song, visiting with friends and relatives, taking a leisurely stroll, reading, and listening to music.
A-3
The Mitzvah of Sanctification
It is a mitzvah to hallow Shabbat by setting it apart from the other days of the week. … Shabbat must be distinguished from the other days of the week so that those who observe it may be transformed by its holiness.
A-4
The Mitzvah of Rest
It is a mitzvah to rest on Shabbat. However, Shabbat rest (menuchah) implies much more than refraining from work. The concept of Shabbat rest includes both physical relaxation and tranquility of mind and spirit. On Shabbat, one deliverately turns away from weekday pressures and activities.
A-5
The Mitzvah of refraining from work
It is a mitzvah to refrain from work on Shabbat…Abstinence from work is a major expression of Shabbat observance; however, it is no simple matter to define work today. Certain activities that some do to earn a living, others do for relaxation or to express their creativity. Clearly, though, one should avoid one’s normal occupation or profession on Shabbat whenever possible and engage only in those types of activities that enhance the joy, rest, and holiness of the day.
See Gates of the Seasons for additional details. Note support for Shabbat is also in the 1999 Statement of Principles (http://www.ccarnet.org/platforms/principles.html), which says:
We bring Torah into the world when we seek to sanctify the times and places of our lives through regular home and congregational observance. Shabbat calls us to bring the highest moral values to our daily labor and to culminate the workweek with (kedushah), holiness, (menuchah), rest and (oneg), joy.
Fallacy: Reform Jews (RJs) choose practice based solely on convenience
The 1976 Centenary Statement (http://www.ccarnet.org/platforms/centenary.html), adopted in 1976 stated:
“Judaism emphasizes action rather than creed as the primary expression of a religious life, the means by which we strive to achieve universal justice and peace. Reform Judaism shares this emphasis on duty and obligation. Our founders stressed that the Jew’s ethical responsibilities, personal and social, are enjoined by G-d. The past century has taught us that the claims made upon us may begin with our ethical obligations but they extend to many other aspects of Jewish living, including: creating a Jewish home centered on family devotion; life-long study; private prayer and public worship; daily religious observance; keeping the Sabbath and the holy days; celebrating the major events of life; involvement with the synagogue and community; and other activities which promote the survival of the Jewish people and enhance its existence. Within each area of Jewish observance Reform Jews are called upon to confront the claims of Jewish tradition, however, differently perceived, and to exercise their individual autonomy, choosing and creating on the basis of commitment and knowledge.”
The 1999 Statement of Principles (http://www.ccarnet.org/platforms/principles.html) says:
We are committed to the ongoing study of the whole array of (mitzvot) and to the fulfillment of those that address us as individuals and as a community [Emph. added by editor]. Some of these (mitzvot), sacred obligations, have long been observed by Reform Jews; others, both ancient and modern, demand renewed attention as the result of the unique context of our own times.
From same source:
Reform’s Position On…The authority of Talmud?
[Based on material in Contemporary American Reform Responsa by Rabbi Walter Jacob, publ. by CCAR]:
Reform Judaism views the rabbinic past as a historical development. The “Oral Law” is not seen as divinely given at Sinai, but rather as a reflection of Judaism’s historic development and encounter with G-d in each succeeding generation. In this, Reform follows Zunz, Geiger, Frankel, Graetz, and others in viewing G-d working through human agents. Reform believes that each generation has produced capable and religiously inspired teachers (this means that Reform rejects the often expressed view that assigns greater holiness to those who lived in the past). Some individuals of our generation may equal or exceed those of the past.
Historical and sociological studies of the rabbinic literature during the last two centuries have illuminated it. Reform Judaism view this vast literature as the product of human reaction to varying needs motivated by religious thought and the divine impulse. Reform Judaism feels no necessity to justify each segment of the literature in terms of every other portion as done through hidushim and pilpul. Reform sees the differences among Talmudic and later authorities as reflections of particular points of view, different understandings of the divine mandate, as well as the needs of specific groups within their Jewish communities.
When Reform Judaism analyzes each period of history, it discovers different strands in the halakhah. These appear both in the decisions and underlying philosophy. Traditional Judaism has chosen a single path and rejected the others, but we recall the existence of the other paths and the fact that they were suggested and followed by loyal Jews in the past. Reform Judaism feels that diversity has always been the hallmark of our literature and our people. Thus, when Reform finds itself facing new situations, it turns both to the mainstream of rabbinic thought as well as its divergent paths for halakhic guidance. In Reform’s view, the halakhah is a vast repository whose old debates are often relevant to new situations.
Sometimes the solutions of Reform Judaism may parallel those of past generations. On other occasions, Reform diverges from them. Through this effort, Reform Judaism seeks solutions for generations living in lands distant and distinct from those of the ancient Near East or medieval Europe.
Reform Judaism recognizes that not every question can be resolved by reviewing the rabbinic literature; in some instances, totally new legislation is appropriate. That may be buttressed by rabbinic precedent.