7 April 2015

The Wall Street Journal ...

... has authoritatively spoken: Vatican II taught that God's Covenant with the Jews had not been abrogated.

On the natural assumption that the people the paper employs to write about Economics are as grossly misinformed about that subject as its employees who comment on Theology are about their subject, it is not surprising that we had an international banking collapse, and that we're going to have a lot more of the same.

10 comments:

James K Savonarola said...

After Pope Benedict abdicated Abraham H. Foxman of the ADL posted this in the The Jerusalem Post, 2-12-13:

"In his tenure as pope, Benedict pledged that he would always stand with the Jewish people against anti-Semitism. He strongly condemned Holocaust denial. He made it a point early in his papacy to visit Israel, going to Yad Vashem and the Western Wall, thus cementing the historic act of his predecessor for future generations and strengthening the relationship between Israel and the Vatican. He became the first pope to visit a synagogue in the United States. And he also visited the synagogue in Rome, institutionalizing these visits.

Pope Benedict XVI reconfirmed the official Catholic position that God’s covenant with the Jewish people at Sinai endures and is irrevocable. He said that the Catholic Church should not try and convert Jews.

There were bumps in the road during this papacy – the rewriting of the old Good Friday prayer for Jews making it more problematic for Jews, starting negotiations with the anti-Semitic group the Society of St. Pius X, and moving World War II Pope Pius XII one step closer to sainthood while the Secret Vatican Archives are still under wraps. But he listened to our concerns and tried to address them, which shows how close our two communities have become in the last half century, and how much more work we need to do together to help repair a broken world.

In his trilogy on the life of Jesus of Nazareth, Benedict re-interpreted problematic passages in the Gospels of Matthew and John that dismisses the negative images and false charges against the Jewish people which has led to millennia of persecution and death against Jews."

so if the Wall Street journal is confused they are not alone

Titus said...

If I say "I will give you $20 on Tuesday," and Tuesday comes and I give you $20, that's not an abrogation of my promise. That's discharge by performance.

Unknown said...

I believe Benedict said that the Jews should not be converted until everyone else had been converted, not that they shouldn't be converted.

Deacon Augustine said...

James K Savonarola, I would not take anything Abe Foxman says too seriously.

While BXVI might have reaffirmed that the Abrahamic covenant endures, I think it highly unlikely that he said the Sinai covenant is still in force. The NT is very clear that this covenant is now fulfilled, obsolete and redundant.

St JPII had been thought to have said the Sinai covenant was still valid, but he subsequently clarified that it was the Abrahamic covenant to which he was referring.

ChrisB said...

Having read a good deal written by Benedict/Ratzinger, and having reviewed something from him on this topic, it seems that both the ADL and the WSJ are indeed joined in confusion, per James K.

A 2005 article in "First Things" by the late Cdl. Dulles quotes Benedict/Ratzinger on the topic. Characteristic of Ratzinger, his statements on the topic showed a rich, complex and manifold treatment of the question and answer. Naturally, the ADL and WSJ are unable and/or unwilling to give the question the same careful treatment given by Ratzinger. Ratzinger on one hand noted St. Paul's Letter to the Hebrew's, showing that the sacrificial cult of the Old Covenant was superseded by the new cult of Christ. And yet Ratzinger noted that theologians have wrestled with the manifold aspects of the "old covenant" or better said "old covenants," some which are in the form of eternal grants, and others of contingent form. Again, St. Paul was cited about the eternal election of the Jews, echoing Jesus in St. John "Salvation is from the Jews."

Yes - the WSJ, ADL et al failed to communicate the thought of Ratzinger.

And per Fr. H's quip, I vividly recall, not long before the economic collapse of 2008, an article published in the WSJ on a front page section above the fold, asserting that it was now possible for everyone to become millionaires by investing in stocks.

Happy Easter to all!

ChrisB said...

Having read a good deal written by Benedict/Ratzinger, and having reviewed something from him on this topic, it seems that both the ADL and the WSJ are indeed joined in confusion, per James K.

A 2005 article in "First Things" by the late Cdl. Dulles quotes Benedict/Ratzinger on the topic. Characteristic of Ratzinger, his statements on the topic showed a rich, complex and manifold treatment of the question and answer. Naturally, the ADL and WSJ are unable and/or unwilling to give the Ratzinger the same careful treatment that Ratzinger himself gave to the question.

Ratzinger on one hand noted St. Paul's Letter to the Hebrew's, showing that the sacrificial cult of the Old Covenant was superseded by the new cult of Christ. And yet Ratzinger noted that theologians have wrestled with the manifold aspects of the "old covenant" or better said "old covenants," some which are in the form of eternal grants, and others of contingent form. Again, St. Paul was cited about the eternal election of the Jews, with echoes of Jesus in St. John: "Salvation is from the Jews."

Yes - the WSJ, ADL et al failed to communicate the thought of Ratzinger.

And per Fr. H's quip, I vividly recall, not long before the economic collapse of 2008, an article published in the WSJ on a front page section above the fold, asserting that it was now possible for everyone to become millionaires by investing in stocks.

Happy Easter to all!

ChrisB said...

Having read a good deal written by Benedict/Ratzinger, and having reviewed something from him on this topic, it seems that both the ADL and the WSJ are indeed joined in confusion, per James K.

A 2005 article in "First Things" by the late Cdl. Dulles quotes Benedict/Ratzinger on the topic. Characteristic of Ratzinger, his statements on the topic showed a rich, complex and manifold treatment of the question and answer. Naturally, the ADL and WSJ are unable and/or unwilling to give Ratzinger the same careful treatment Ratzinger gave to the question. Ratzinger on one hand noted St. Paul's Letter to the Hebrew's, showing that the sacrificial cult of the Old Covenant was superseded by the new cult of Christ. And yet Ratzinger noted that theologians have wrestled with the manifold aspects of the "old covenant" or better said "old covenants," some which are in the form of eternal grants, and others of contingent form. Again, St. Paul was cited about the eternal election of the Jews. And there are the echoes of Jesus in St. John: "Salvation is from the Jews."

Yes - the WSJ, ADL et al failed to communicate the thought of Ratzinger.

And per Fr. H's quip, I vividly recall, not long before the economic collapse of 2008, an article published in the WSJ on a front page section above the fold, asserting that it was now possible for everyone to become millionaires by investing in stocks.

Happy Easter to all!

11rhymesandreasons said...

Then Saul's conversion was not necessary?

steve jones said...

According to French economist Thomas Piketty, the best authority on 19th century economics is Jane Austen. It's not clear that the WSJ is qualified to comment on any subject.

steve jones said...

According to French economist Thomas Piketty, the best authority on 19th century economics is Jane Austen. It's not clear that the WSJ is qualified to comment on any subject.