LivingWordUnity
Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic
I'm not sure what you mean.I never said that Anti-Semitism was rational.
Upvote
0
I'm not sure what you mean.I never said that Anti-Semitism was rational.
Christian Anti-Semites will often convince themselves that Jesus eschewed Judaism. They see his arguments the Pharisees, naively, as a repudiation of Torah. In extreme cases, they will even convince themselves that somehow he was not truly a Jew, that his divine nature wiped out his Jewishness, or that the Jews are not really Jews but Jesus is. Shakes head -- the nonsense never ends.I'm not sure what you mean.
That doesn't apply to St. John Chrysostom. He was only critical of the Jews who rejected Christ.Christian Anti-Semites will often convince themselves that Jesus eschewed Judaism. They see his arguments the Pharisees, naively, as a repudiation of Torah. In extreme cases, they will even convince themselves that somehow he was not truly a Jew, that his divine nature wiped out his Jewishness, or that the Jews are not really Jews but Jesus is. Shakes head -- the nonsense never ends.
1. It wouldn't matter even if it were true. Jew hatred is Jew hatred.That doesn't apply to St. John Chrysostom. He was only critical of the Jews who rejected Christ.
Criticism doesn't equate to hatred.1. It wouldn't matter even if it were true. Jew hatred is Jew hatred.
A lot of scholars are wrong.2. Scholars actually disagree with you.
I doubt they were like the Association of Hebrew Catholics.Part of his vitriol was reserved for those Jewish Catholics in Jerusalem who were continuing in Jewish observances.
Criticism? Have you even read the Homilies "Against the Jews"? They absolutely ridicule the Jews, saying that when we fast, we dance barefoot and drunk in the city streets. oh come on! It's just wanton derision. "They know but one thing: to fill their bellies and be drunk." Really???? More than Catholics????? Sheesh. Pot calling the kettle black.Criticism doesn't equate to hatred.
Oh, I'm so sorry for not having included a link.Open Heart,
What is your source?
That's the one I found when I googled it. The words do sound very harsh. But I'm not sure that it's reliably accurate as to what he actually said. For example, there's at least one place where I noticed it quotes Jesus as saying something that I don't think Jesus said. That's not like St. John Chrysostom to do that.Oh, I'm so sorry for not having included a link.
John Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 1
Oh, he wrote fabulous stuff. He's a saint. I'm not saying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm saying that we all have our sins, and it is obvious that he was anti-Semitic. Since I'm a Jew, this tends to spoil his good stuff for me. But I don't think that has to spoil him for everyone. I think thy should be able to sort out the bad from the good. Just tossing out the "Against the Jews" homilies is a really good place to start. And knowing what the Church actually does officially teach about the Jews tends to vaccinate a person against poor teaching wherever one runs across it.I think NewAdvent.org is reliable. And, under the Fathers tab, they have a lot of things that St. John Chrystostom wrote which I recommend people read.
This was very difficult reading for me, but I got through it. You see, Romans 11 is one of my most beloved chapters of scriptures (and probably the most studied). I felt like he butchered it. The man looks at everything Jewish through black tinted glasses. I'm not going to nit pick it every single line, but I'll go to the heart of it. He believes that Paul is basically saying nice things to Jews to sooth them on their way down to eternal damnation. I ask you, does that sound like something Paul would do? Because I always think of Paul as a very frank sort of person.Open Heart,
What do you think about this part of the commentary on Romans 11 by St. John Chrysostom?:
Ver. 27. "For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."
Not when they are circumcised, not when they sacrifice, not when they do the other deeds of the Law, but when they attain to the forgiveness of sins. If then this has been promised, but has never yet happened in their case, nor have they ever enjoyed the remission of sins by baptism, certainly it will come to pass. Hence he proceeds,
Ver. 29. "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."
And even this is not all he says to solace them, for he uses what had already come about. And what came in of consequence, that he states as chiefly intended, putting it in these words,
Ver. 28. "As concerning the Gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes."
That the Gentile then might not be puffed up, and say, "I am standing, do not tell me of what would have been, but what has been," he uses this consideration to bring him down, and says, "As concerning the Gospel, they are enemies for your sakes." For when you were called they became more captious. Nevertheless God has not even now cut short the calling of you, but He waits for all the Gentiles that are to believe to come in, and then they also shall come. Then he does them another kind favor, by saying, "As touching election, they are beloved for the fathers sakes." And what is this? For wherein they are enemies, punishment is theirs: but wherein they are beloved, the virtue of their ancestors has no influence on them, if they do not believe. Nevertheless, as I said, he ceases not to solace them with words, that he may bring them over. Wherefore by way of fresh proof for his former assertion, he says,
Ver. 30-32. "For as you in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief; even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they may also obtain mercy. For God has concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all."
He shows here that those of the Gentiles were called first. Then, as they would not come, the Jews were elected, and the same result occurred again. For when the Jews would not believe, again the Gentiles were brought over. And he does not stop here, nor does he draw the whole to a conclusion at their rejection, but at their having mercy shown them again. See how much he gives to those of the Gentiles, as much as he did to the Jews before. For when you, he would say, "in times past did not obey," being of the Gentiles, then the Jews came in. Again, when these did not obey, you have come. However, they will not perish forever. "For God has concluded them all in unbelief," that is, has convinced them, has shown them disobedient; not that they may remain in disobedience, but that He may save the one by the captiousness of the other, these by those and those by these. Now consider; you were disobedient, and they were saved. Again, they have been disobedient, and you have been saved. Yet you have not been so saved as to be put away again, as the Jews were, but so as to draw them over through jealousy while you abide.
Source
I don't see that in it. I see him saying that both the Gentiles and the Jews were chosen at one time or another and that both failed at one time or another but that God is merciful to each.This was very difficult reading for me, but I got through it. You see, Romans 11 is one of my most beloved chapters of scriptures (and probably the most studied). I felt like he butchered it. The man looks at everything Jewish through black tinted glasses. I'm not going to nit pick it every single line, but I'll go to the heart of it. He believes that Paul is basically saying nice things to Jews to sooth them on their way down to eternal damnation. I ask you, does that sound like something Paul would do? Because I always think of Paul as a very frank sort of person.
Jews are still chosen. Paul makes it perfectly clear that the gifts and callings are irrevocable. And the Church is quite clear about this as well, making reference to these same scriptures: "God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls." Nostra Aetate 4I don't see that in it. I see him saying that both the Gentiles and the Jews were chosen at one time or another and that both failed at one time or another but that God is merciful to each.
I'm not even sure what you mean by leadership authority. They are no longer the oracles of God -- that's what it means when Paul says their branches have been chopped off the root. But in every other sense, they are still God's covenant people, still beloved, still chosen, still have a purpose, and are integral in our Church's Christology and Ecclesiology. If it weren't for Israel, there would be no Catholic Church.The Jews are still God's people, but they lost their leadership authority when they rejected the Messiah.
I agree with that.I'm not even sure what you mean by leadership authority. They are no longer the oracles of God -- that's what it means when Paul says their branches have been chopped off the root. But in every other sense, they are still God's covenant people, still beloved, still chosen, still have a purpose, and are integral in our Church's Christology and Ecclesiology. If it weren't for Israel, there would be no Catholic Church.
This is what's really, really great about two rational people discussing topic. Not only do we not attack each other, but we can almost always reach a point of agreement like this. It's been a pleasure.I agree with that.