-1
CrusaderPepe -1 points ago +1 / -2

Lolwat!? Do you schizo-Protestants read any "history" besides what is posted on obscure Geocities websites???

0
CrusaderPepe 0 points ago +2 / -2

What The Catholic Church Teaches About The Jews – Part 5 What The Catholic Church Teaches About The Jews: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four.

Christians Are Forbidden To Serve The Jews And Must Believe Christians Are Over Jews The Catholic Church had many councils regarding how to handle the Jews, in the middle ages.

Moreover, the Popes issued many papal bulls regarding how to handle the Jews, in the middle ages.

These councils and bulls dealt with topics like Jews having Christian servants.

Even though Christians cannot hate nor harm the Jews, there is still a certain order that must be maintained in Christian society.

In Christian society, Christians should not serve those who aren’t Christian, or God forbid, anti-Christian.

For instance, in the late 6th and early 7th centuries, Pope St. Gregory the Great vigorously opposed Jews owning Christian slaves.

jews Moreover, the Third Lateran Council, which convened a few centuries later, in 1179 AD, says:

Jews and Saracens are not to be allowed to have Christian servants in their houses, either under pretense of nourishing their children or for service or any other reason. Let those be excommunicated who presume to live with them. We declare that the evidence of Christians is to be accepted against Jews in every case, since Jews employ their own witnesses against Christians, and that those who prefer Jews to Christians in this matter are to lie under anathema, since Jews ought to be subject to Christians and to be supported by them on grounds of humanity alone. If any by the inspiration of God are converted to the Christian faith, they are in no way to be excluded from their possessions, since the condition of converts ought to be better than before their conversion. If this is not done, we enjoin on the princes and rulers of these places, under penalty of excommunication, the duty to restore fully to these converts the share of their inheritance and goods.

Third Lateran Council, Canon 26 Decades later, Pope Innocent III also makes it clear that, if anything, Jews should serve Christians:

Although Christian piety tolerates the Jews . . . whose own fault commits them to perpetual slavery . . . and allows them to continue with us (even though the Moors will not tolerate them), they must not be allowed to remain ungrateful to us in such a way as to repay us with contumely for favors and contempt for our familiarity. They are admitted to our familiarity only through our mercy; but they are to us dangerous as the insect in the apple, as the serpent in the breast … Since, therefore, they have already begun to gnaw like the rat, and to stink like the serpent, it is to our shame that the fire in our breast which is being eaten into by them, does not consume them … As they are reprobate slaves of the Lord, in whose death they evilly conspired (at least by the effect of the deed), let them acknowledge themselves as slaves of those whom the death of Christ has made free.

Migne, Patrologia, CCXV, 1291 jews And the same Pope Innocent III also admonished the French King Philip II to enforce the the Canon:

Although it be not displeasing to the Lord, but rather acceptable to Him, that the Jewish Dispersion should live and serve under Christian princes …they greatly offend in the sight of God’s Divine Majesty who prefer the offspring of the Crucifiers before those who are the heirs of Christ.…

…although it was decreed in the Lateran Council that Jews be not permitted to have Christian servants in their homes, either as tutors for their children or for domestic service, or for any reason whatsoever, they still persist in having Christians as servants and nurses, with whom they commit abominations of a kind which it rather becomes you to punish than us to explain. And again, although the same Council laid it down that the testimony of Christians against Jews is to be admitted, even when the former use Jewish witnesses against Christians, and decreed that in a case of this kind anyone who would prefer Jews before Christians is to be condemned as anathema, yet up to the present time things are so carried on in the kingdom of France, that the testimony of Christians against Jews is not believed, whereas Jews are admitted as witnesses against Christians. And at times, when they to whom Jews have loaned money with usury produce Christian witnesses about the facts of payment, THE DEED WHICH THE CHRISTIAN DEBTOR THROUGH NEGLIGENCE INDISCREETLY LEFT WITH THEM IS BELIEVED RATHER THAN THE WITNESSES WHOM THEY BRING FORWARD….

We warn and exhort Your Serene Majesty in the Lord (adding the remission of your sins) that you force the Jews from their presumption … and see to it that due punishment be meted out to all such blasphemers, and that an easy pardon be not given to delinquents!

Etsi non displiceat jews More than a couple decades later, Pope Gregory IX also said:

The Jews, who are admitted to our acquaintance only through our mercy, should never forget their yoke of perpetual slavery, which they bear through their own fault…. We therefore command that each and every one of you to have all the excesses of the Jews completely repressed…. In this matter calling to your aid the help of the civil power, inflicting upon Christians, who offer opposition, due ecclesiastical punishment…

Bull. Rom. Pont., III, 497. jews Two centuries later, the Council of Florence, in 1434 AD, reaffirms:

Furthermore, renewing the sacred canons, we command both diocesan bishops and secular powers to prohibit in every way Jews and other infidels from having Christians, male or female, in their households and service, or as nurses of their children; and Christians from joining with them in festivities, marriages, banquets or baths, or in much conversation, and from taking them as doctors or agents of marriages or officially appointed mediators of other contracts.

Council of Florence, Session 18 And in 1442 AD, Pope Eugene IV also said:

We decree and order that from now on, and for all time, Christians shall not eat or drink with Jews; nor admit them to feasts, nor cohabit with them, nor bathe with them. Christians shall not allow Jews to hold civil honors over Christians… nor can they have association or partnership with Christians…. Against them Christians can testify, but the testimony of Jews against Christians in no case is of any value…

Dundum Ad Nostram Audientiam jews Finally, in the late 16th century, Pope Gregory XIII also condemned Jews having Christian servants.

Thus, in the Catholic State it is the case that Christians cannot serve the Jews, and that Jewish testimony isn’t to be held in high esteem.

The Jews, if allowed to stay, must be second class citizens.

Stay tuned for Part 6 of this series, where we will show how the Church teaches that usury is forbidden, and this is especially directed towards the Jews.

In conclusion, I will leave you with this quote from Our Lord:

-1
CrusaderPepe -1 points ago +1 / -2

Fraternal rebuke doesn't mean one has jurisdiction over another... We can all rebuke and admonish our superiors if they commit public sin.

The gates of Hell never prevailed because the Pope never changed Catholic teaching. The Pope has to OFFICIALLY change Catholic teaching in Faith or Morals for the Gates of Hell to prevail. This didn't happen with Popes Honorius, Vigilius, John XXII, nor the post Vat II Popes. They may say heretical things, but no heresy has been officially and formally promulgated.

0
CrusaderPepe 0 points ago +2 / -2

Thanks man! I have much more on the way!

Don't be disappointed! This article is the "calm before the storm." The first few articles started by hitting hard, this one calmed things down, but the next few will just be as hard or harder than the first ones!

Sicut Judaeis is the governing principle that we cannot hurt or hate the Jews. On the other hand, the Jews cannot hurt us and must be dealt with a heavy hand. The next series of articles will go over what this "heavy hand" looks like.

God bless!

-2
CrusaderPepe -2 points ago +1 / -3

Papal infallibility was an idea that cam from the Early Church. The Church defines something as a Dogma wayyyyy after people already believe it.

Just because Pope Honorius was a heretic doesn't make Papal Infallibility wrong. When he supported monothelitism he wasn't defining this false doctrine as something that Christians have always believed. He merely lent his support to Patriarch Sergius, who was also in error.

Popes make errors. Sometimes they even say heretical things. The Dogma of Papal Infallibility never says they don't. It just says that when the Pope settles a matter in a Church, using the authority given to St. Peter, that the Holy Spirit guarantees that the Pope is inerrant when doing so. This is NOT a common thing.

0
CrusaderPepe 0 points ago +1 / -1

It's supposed to come from this passage:

"Let Dan be a snake in the way, a serpent in the path, that biteth the horse's heels that his rider may fall backward." -Genesis 49:17

It's not Dogma, but it is a consistent belief amongst Saints that this refers to the Antichrist, who will be born of the tribe of Dan.

Look at these to get you started:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-antichrist

-1
CrusaderPepe -1 points ago +1 / -2

You just don't understand the dogma of papal infallibility. Yeah, we have had horrible popes. Yeah, we have even had popes that taught heresy. Papal infallibility only applies in very specific situations. Actually, the situation it applies to the most is when the Pope, acting as first amongst equals, is settling disputes in the Church once and for all. Look at the dogma of the Immaculate Conception - Christians, even Saints, were on both sides of that issue and debated it for centuries. A Pope finally settled it, once in for all. With synodal issues, if you have 2 camps, the Pope can settle that. Patriarch Barthomew isn't first amongst equals, so he doesn't have the power to do this. This is why the Eastern Orthodox needs to come back in communion with Rome.

-1
CrusaderPepe -1 points ago +1 / -2

There were small groups that broke off before then, but they were very small and rather insignificant, to be honest. Read the article I sent you.

-1
CrusaderPepe -1 points ago +1 / -2
  1. Understood. I don't know much about the "American Orthodox Church" to be frank. But I do know enough about Church ecclesiology and history to know that I am not really interested in taking a "deep dive" into Eastern Heterodoxy. I've already written them off. But, I guess if it means anything, I will concede that apparently there is now an American ethnic church.
  2. Check out the Catholic Encyclopedia article on schisms: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm
-1
CrusaderPepe -1 points ago +1 / -2

Except many Eastern bishops ran to Rome for help when they argued with each other...

And you say the Pope is "important" but you reject being in communion with him... Non-sequitur.

-1
CrusaderPepe -1 points ago +1 / -2
  1. I have no idea. I honestly don't care about the Eastern Heterodox.
  2. There have been wayyyy more schisms than that if you study the history of Christendom. My point is that the Eastern Heterodox church is not as great of an alternative to Catholicism as they try to make you believe. I honestly lost a lot of respect for them after a lot of them attacked me online because of my super-orthodox Christian views...
-2
CrusaderPepe -2 points ago +1 / -3

Eastern Heterodoxy is in constant schism, has constant excommunications, and has weird morally relativistic standards like 3 divorces is fine and contraception is okay, amongst other things. Not to mention, I am born of Western European blood, and all the Eastern Churches are separated based upon ethnicity. So what am I? Greek? Russian? Something else? It's all a huge clustermuck... No thanks! We may have heretics in the Catholic Church hierarchy, but at least the official teachings are what Christians have believed since the First Century!

2
CrusaderPepe 2 points ago +3 / -1

There is more evidence of a historical Jesus then there even was of historical figures like Alexander the Great. Even skeptical atheist researchers, like Bart Ehrman, acknowledge the historical existence of Jesus.

1
CrusaderPepe 1 point ago +2 / -1

They actually do believe that the Messiah will be a worldly leader - a Caesar Augustus type world emperor - and Catholic teaching is that this "messiah" will actually be the Antichrist. He will be the "King of the Jews" and proclaim himself the second Christ, but will focus on leading all peoples into worldly things. Things will get so bad that the Jews will collectively realize they made a BIG MISTAKE and then, as a group, convert into Christianity right before the Second Coming of Christ.

3
CrusaderPepe 3 points ago +4 / -1

Yes, they do. They are cursed in that they love worldly things instead of God, and will pay for this in Hell.

view more: ‹ Prev