Friday, August 05, 2011

To Each His Own Kippur: The Protest of the Synagogue of Rome


Rabbi Di Segni, the chief rabbi of Rome, accuses the Vatican of wanting to impose the cross of Jesus on the Jews as well, in the place of Yom Kippur. He is denouncing the rupture of dialogue and bringing into question his presence in Assisi. The clarifications of Cardinal Koch. The thought of Ratzinger. 
by Sandro Magister

(MICHAEL HOFFMAN'S AFTERWORD FOLLOWS THIS EXCERPT FROM MAGISTER'S REPORT)
ROME, August 5, 2011 – The controversy has gone mostly unnoticed, but has brought into grave doubt the presence of the Jews at the "Day of reflection, dialogue, and prayer for peace and justice in the world" convened by Benedict XVI for next October 27 in Assisi. The spark was an article by Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the pontifical council for Christian unity, in L'Osservatore Romano on July 7, illustrating the meaning of the Day.
Di Segni had explained the meaning of this feast before, on the front page of L'Osservatore Romano on October 8, 2008. And he had emphasized back then that Yom Kippur manifests the "irreconcilable differences between the two worlds," the world of the Jews and that of the Christians, because "a Christian, on the basis of his faith, no longer needs Kippur, just as a Jew who has Kippur does not need the salvation from sin proposed by the Christian faith...Di Segni adds – the Christian "must not propose to the Jew his own beliefs and interpretations as indications of the 'decisive way', because this truly threatens to reintroduce the theology of substitution, and the Cross becomes an obstacle."
And he continues:
"One's own difference cannot be proposed to the other as the model to follow. This crosses a boundary in Jewish-Christian relations that can be blurred, but must remain unviolated. At the least it is not a way of dialogue that could be of interest to the Jews."
Beside the reply from Rabbi Di Segni, the July 29 issue of "L'Osservatore Romano" also published Cardinal Koch's counterreply:
"We absolutely maintain that the Jews should look at the cross as we Christians do, in order to set out on the road to Assisi together. [...] So the intention is not to replace the Jewish Yom Kippur with the cross of Christ, even if Christians see in the cross 'the permanent and universal Yom Kippur.' It is here that the fundamental and very delicate point of Jewish-Christian dialogue is touched upon, or the question of how to reconcile the conviction, binding for Christians as well, that God's covenant with the people of Israel has permanent validity with the Christian faith in universal redemption in Jesus Christ, in such a way that, on the one side, the Jews should not get the impression that their religion is seen by Christians as obsolete, and on the other that Christians should not renounce any aspect of their faith. Without a doubt, this fundamental question will continue to occupy Jewish-Christian dialogue for a long time to come."
Koch was called personally by Benedict XVI to head the pontifical council for Christian unity, and to deal with the dialogue with Judaism in particular. And he is one of the cardinals of the curia most in harmony with the pope's vision.
To understand this, it is enough to open the second volume of the book "Jesus of Nazareth" to the fourth chapter, where Benedict XVI analyzes the "priestly prayer" of Jesus on the eve of his passion, which occupies chapter 17 of the Gospel of John.
"This prayer," the pope writes, "is understandable only against the background of the liturgy of the Jewish feast of expiation, Yom Kippur. The ritual of the feast with its rich theological content is realized in the prayer of Jesus, realized in the literal sense: the rite is translated into the reality that it signifies. [...] The prayer of Jesus manifests him as the high priest of the great day of expiation. His cross and his being lifted up constitute the day of expiation of the world, on which the entire history of the world, against all human sin and destruction, finds its meaning. [...] The priestly prayer of Jesus [...] is so to speak the always accessible feast of the reconciliation of God with men."
It is no coincidence that the prophet Jonah, the prophet who is read on the Jewish feast of Kippur, appears at the center of the frescoes of the Sistine Chapel, between the creation of the world and the last judgment.
In a mysterious remark, Jesus attributed to himself the "sign of Jonah" (Luke 11:29-32). And indeed, he added: "There is something greater than Jonah here."
That sign of contradiction which Jesus was for the Jews of his time still remains between Christians and Jews, and is manifested in Yom Kippur.
The Jews will celebrate the feast of expiation on October 10, a few days before the Day in Assisi. (End quote from Sandro Magister; emphasis supplied).
Judaism’s Yom Kippur is Talmudic, not Biblical
by Michael Hoffman 
In the report by Sandro Magister, we see the usual theological and Scriptural confusion sown by the modern Vatican, illustrative of the perils of the ecumenical mission itself.
The Yom Kippur of Talmudic-Pharisaic Judaism has no basis in the Bible. This is admitted by the Mishnah and by the Rambam (Rabbi Moses Maimonides). Yom Kippur as practiced by Judaism today is derived from the Talmud, not Scripture. It is a parody of rites prescribed in the Old Testament.
In this parody one discovers a rabbi-concocted ritual deceit known as Kol Nidrei (also spelled Nidre). It is because of the nature of the Kol Nidrei rite that the synagogue is jammed with Judaic persons during Yom Kippur: Kol Nidrei pledges the nullification of all contracts, vows and promises which will be made in the coming year.
The Talmudic law concerning the Kol Nidrei rite is as follows: “And he who desires that none of his vows made during the year shall be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, ‘Every vow which I make in the future shall be null.”

Judaic persons who attend no other services go out of their way to be present on Yom Kippur eve just to participate in Kol Nidrei. The prayer is in medieval Aramaic and a translation is seldom supplied, since the prayer's content defies moral logic: Kol Nidrei is a blanket request that God hold Judaics guiltless for vows they make and do not honor.

The reader will note that the Talmud declares that the Kol Nidrei action nullifying vows is to be taken at the beginning of the year and with regard to promises made in the future.  This distinction is critical since it contradicts what the media claim about Yom Kippur -- that it is a humble, penitential rite consisting of begging forgiveness for promises broken in the past, rather than what it is, a nullification made in advance for oaths yet to be made. This “advance stipulation” is called bitul tenai and is the basis for a Judaic being absolved in advance of breaking future promises, or to use the rabbinic lawyer’s jargon: “declaration of intent for the anticipatory invalidation of future vows.” 
  
The Vatican is aware of this, but Pope Benedict and his cardinals conspire in the pretense that Judaism’s Yom Kippur is of Biblical Israel. It is one thing to promote a lie out of ignorance; and quite a higher magnitude of transgression to promote it knowing that it is a lie.
In addition to Kol Nidrei, another notable factor that distinguishes the Talmudic Yom Kippur practiced by 21st century Judaism from the Yom Kippur of the Bible is the rabbinic-voodoo kaparot rite, which involves swinging a chicken over one’s head and transferring one’s sins to the chicken.
Observe as Pope Benedict XVI implicates Our Lord in these pagan Judaic abominations: “...the liturgy of the Jewish feast of expiation, Yom Kippur. The ritual of the feast with its rich theological content is realized in the prayer of Jesus...”
If the pope is referring to a feast derived from the Old Testament he should say so and clearly distinguish it from the contemporary rite which is a blasphemous parody. He fails to make the distinction, as does Cardinal Koch, who adds the outrageous statement: “the intention is not to replace the Jewish Yom Kippur with the cross of Christ...”
Why not? Is it not an act of hate to withhold the liberation represented by the Cross and abandon Judaics to the malignant and empty ceremonies of Kol Nidrei and Kaparot, which comprise the Talmudic Yom Kippur? Is the Vatican a partner with the rabbis in sending Judaic souls to hell?
The cardinal also states: “...the Jews should not get the impression that their religion is seen by Christians as obsolete...” 

If the religion of the ancient Pharisees institutionalized as Orthodox Judaism is not obsolete, then why did Jesus bother to incarnate on earth? Did He do so exclusively for the benefit of the gentiles and not the Jews? Impossible! Cf. Matthew 15:24.

Jesus entrusted the Keys of His Kingdom to St. Peter, which Peter used to open the Kingdom to the Jews, then the Samaritans, and lastly, to the Gentiles (Matthew 16:19; Acts 2:5 & 41; 8:14-17; 10:35). Christianity is the Old Testament religion made new in Christ Jesus. Orthodox Judaism is the recrudescence of the Pharisaic system of the first century, supplemented by innumerable Mishnaic, Talmudic and subsequent rabbinic traditions of men. It is not only obsolete, it constitutes a false system that substitutes for the worship of Yahweh, the worship of the Judaic man, as personified by the rabbi.

Cardinal Koch says, "God's covenant with the people of Israel has permanent validity..."

This is an allusion to racial Israel. The cardinal's claim can only be made by misinterpreting a few lines in Romans 11 and ignoring the declaration of Jesus Christ in John 8:39-40 and of St. John the Baptist in Matthew 3: 9-10, as well as the whole testimony of the early church.

Moreover, if a Judaic is going to stake his hope of eternal salvation on his racial status, with encouragement from the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, he had better be certain that he is indeed a direct descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. How exactly this is genetically determined is a mystery. We find a warning about the claim to being a Jew in the Biblical definition of who it is that constitutes the Synagogue of Satan: "those who say they are Jews and are not" (Rev. 3:9).

The modern Vatican theology of John Paul II and Benedict XVI,  "God's covenant with the people of Israel has permanent validity..." gives a false sense of spiritual security to those who are, or who imagine they are, Israelites descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. No man, whether Jew or gentile, has any hope of salvation without belief in Jesus Christ. If there is any type of salvation whatsoever in being a Jew who is genetically descended of Abraham, then Jesus Christ's evangelism to the Jews was an act of futility and superfluity (Matthew 5:20).
Rabbi Di Segni is not mealy-mouthed like the pope and his cardinals. He candidly states: “the Christian must not propose to the Jew his own beliefs and interpretations as indications of the 'decisive way,' because this truly threatens to reintroduce the theology of substitution...”
The Vatican doesn’t issue any “must nots” to the rabbi, but the rabbi issues them to the Church. He is telling the Roman Catholic hierarchy that if they want his prestigious presence at the October 27 Assisi jamboree, they had better not preach the Gospel to the Judaic people. Specifically, they must not preach Christ as the “decisive way,” or revive the ancient Christian replacement theology (“theology of substitution”) which holds that Jews are no longer in covenant with God through racial status, but only through saving faith in Jesus Christ. We are indebted to the rabbi for demonstrating the betrayal of the Gospel upon which modern papal ecumenicism is based. 

Michael Hoffman is at work on the second edition of his book, Judaism Discovered. Donations in support of its publication are gratefully accepted.

To receive Michael Hoffman's columns by e-mail ("The Hoffman Wire") at no cost or obligtion, send an e-mail to hoffman@revisionisthistory.org with the words "Subscribe Hoffman Wire" in the subject header. You will then receive an e-mail inviting you to join. You must reply to the invitation in order to join. 
For further research
Revisionist History Newsletter no. 47: "The New Catholic 'Shoah' Theology: Alibi for the Revolutionary Overthrow of the Gospel of Jesus Christ," by Michael Hoffman
"Spiritual Israel or Carnal Israel" - 83 minute discussion with Michael Hoffman on audio CD

***
TWITTER: http://twitter.com/#!/HoffmanMichaelA   


E-mail: hoffman@revisionisthistory.org   


Donate: http://tinyurl.com/4hwh7dz   


Michael Hoffman is the founder of The Hoffman Center for the Study of Anti-Goyimism. 
On the Contrary is a public service of Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA. 


Copyright ©2011


***

17 comments:

JEANNON said...

Thank you, Mr. Hoffman for this enlightening article.

This is crucial issue.

We Catholics, I think, have a problem with our current Pope, and certainly with Cardinal Koch.

We must have clarification of these issues from the Pope and the magisterium. And yet all we get is more diabolical "dialogue" with the Judaics. This dialogue has been the downfall of the Church and it must stop. It really is the Hegelian dialectic by which "change" is effected in Satan's way.

To think that there will be another pagan gathering at Asissi is destructive of souls. It must not happen.

The only "chosen people" are those who belong to Jesus Christ - heart, soul, body, mind and spirit.

God bless you in the Name of Jesus Christ Who is Truth

Major Solution said...

Jesus said
"I am the way , the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father accept thru me." There is a decisive way and the hierarchy of the "Catholic" Church are manifest heritics for claiming contrary to Jesus. I am a Catholic but I do not accept these demons, including the one claiming to be Pope. How can anyone hold an office over the faithful when they clearly don't belong due to lack of faith? The chair of Peter is empty.

Preterist1951 said...

I noticed in this column that you referred to the Judaics as a "race" of people.

I do not believe one can find anywhere in the Bible where God created different races of men.

I believe the Judaics, in their long history of attacking Christianity (their 1st major victim after AD70 being the Roman Church), have foisted upon the world a false doctrine- and that is "race" within mankind.

The Judaics are not a certain "race" of man. They are merely a people who adhere to the unBiblical religion Judaism- right?

There has been a deliberate misinterpretation of the word "generation". In particular, "generation" found in
Matthew 24:34- Verily I say unto you, This generation*shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. (KJV)

*generation The definition of "generation" in Strong's Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek is:
genea -- pronounced: ghen-eh-ah'
from (a presumed derivative of) 1085; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons): KJV -- age, generation, nation, time.
See Greek No. 1085

Throughout the entire Bible, "generation" means exactly that- the generation of people at that particular time in history.

I believe it is a serious error to refer to the Judaics, or any other people, as a certain "race" within mankind.

I do not believe that Noah and his family had different "races" of people within them.

I believe that this issue of "race" has been a cruel attack on what the Holy Bible says and that this attack, which is manyfold- not just the issue of "race", has been perpetrated by the Judaics for the sole purpose of destroying the true message of Christianity.

Michael Hoffman said...

Dear Preterist

Where did I refer to Judaics as a race?

I referred to the ancient race of Israel (12 tribes).

Sincerely,
Michael Hoffman

Preterist1951 said...

Dear Mr. Hoffman,

By stating "the ancient race of Israel", it sounds like you are acknowledging that the ancient Istraelites were a distinct race of humans.

I know that today the Judaics think that they are a separate race. Do they not think that they are the "master race" and that the rest of us are but mere Goyim? Dogs?

I've come to learn/believe that they are the major perpetrators regarding the race issue.

I believe they are the ones behind bringing upon this world the false doctrine of race within mankind.

They don't acknowledge the Torah. And yet where in the Torah do we find any mention of the Israelites being a separate race of humans?

I think they've pulled a fast one on all of us. They have even managed to have modern science teaching us their theory of evolution and that there are different races of man.

Luke said...

The point Roman Catholicism fails to understand is all the promises of God are in Jesus Christ,2Co 1:20. Christian Zionism and the Roman leadership, as your site has shown not too long in the past, are bowing to the pressure of the Zionist Lobby not only politically but also in religious matters. The notion that the present day nation of Israel is God's chosen people, I think, is the strong delusion mentioned by Apostle Paul in 2Th 2:11.

Martin73 said...

Dear Michael Hoffman,

I have a lot of trouble with people in my (evangelical) surroundings being firmly convinced that that "replacement theology" is a thing to be repudiated. They make it appear that by this concept some specifically gentile (Christian) church usurped the endowments and promises bestowed by God on Israel and the "remainder of the Jews" who accept their Messiah. This should have brought about some persistent "triumphalism" of the Church, by which means, according to this line, Gentiles have added to the hardships Judaics ("Jews") face in finding to "their" Messiah.

Of course, by applying clearly defined concepts, in accord with Biblical teaching, as you do especially with regard to the terms "Jew", "Israel", "covenant", the whole confusion would have neatly been avoided from the outset. But as things are, I guess, you can easily imagine the difficulty evangelicals feel in getting around the lure of the false interpretations of key phrases like "God's gifts and his call are irrevocable" (Rom 11:28) or "Did God reject his people? By no means." (Rom 11:1)

So I'd like to ask you: Is there some investigation you did on the historic development of this concept of "replacement theology", apart from the neat description you gave in this article:

...
Jews are no longer in covenant with God through racial status, but only through saving faith in Jesus Christ.

... ?

Was this tenet expressly taught in the old church (and when? was it formally abandoned or just subverted?) along these lines or others? Was it claimed that apart from the (indisputable, though not uncontroverted, alas, by some) replacement of an old covenant by a new one, "Israel" itself was replaced by some other people (in a false conclusion from Matthew 21:43) as God's elected, or did the church keep true to the overall New Testament interpretation that "Israel" kind of "adopted" the believing Gentiles while disowning its faithless members, who, under the guidance of the Pharisees, as a nation developed into something different from the tribe Judah of Israel?

Or, on the other hand, does this whole concept even happen to be a post-hoc invention? An unauthentic overstatement, by which the revilers of God's decision to "tease" the Jews by the Gentiles' inclusion (Rom 10:19) try to make the traditional view appear untenable?

Michael Hoffman said...

Dear Martin 73

The doctrine that the Christians are the elect, chosen people of God and not anyone else by virtue of race is a teaching as old as the Church itself. Please see Charles Provan’s book, “The Church is Israel Now."

Martin73 said...

Mr. Hoffman,

thanks for your book advice.

But may I press you: This capture "replacement theology", or "substitution". Was it actually applied by traditional theology, or is it on the whole an afterward labelling?

I think the question goes beyond mere semantics, as the opponents accuse the proponents (of "replacement theology") to allege some kind of arbitrary or (collectively) condemnatory shift of God's grace from one set of mankind to another. Am I right in suggesting against this view that both in truth, as well as in the traditional understanding, Christianity is at least as much a truer continuation of ancient Israel than the Judaic community, as we (Christians) are their spiritual heirs or successors?

Martin73 said...

Does anyone of the others know an answer. JEANNON or 'Major Solution', you who talked so well about true Catholicism, or 'Preterist1951': Can you give me an answer?

I see perfectly that my question may appear pernickety. As of course, nobody had reason to give a specific name to a theology to which no alternative was even thinkable, until the dawn of an age absurd enough to concoct one. But I did mean it another way. I mean:

Did the church do anything (apart from choosing a Latin environment) to substantiate the modernist charge that Christendom means essentially Gentile Christianity? Despite the obvious fact that all the Apostles were Jews, a lot of “Jewish way of thinking” and probably quite some Jewish “blood” as well. (after all, who should Jewish believers have intermarried with in an age of the dissolution of their national homestead? The followers of Pharisees?)

Jason said...

Martin73,
I'm no theologian, but I'd direct you to read John Nelson Darby's wiki page.

I don't think there was any such thing as "replacement theology" until after JND fell off of his horse. As Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the OT, Christianity is the continuation of the old Israelite religion made new in Him.

I theorize that the term "replacement theology" was an effort by those fundamental dispensationalists to name their opposition, and to do so in a negative light; all the better to bind their adherents who generally have no concept of church history prior to Martin Luther.

W.LindsayWheeler said...

You'll love this Dr. Hoffman.

US military officer candidates are getting training at Auschwitz:

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/05/7266998-at-auschwitz-future-us-military-leaders-learn-what-not-to-do

To be indoctrinated. What a pleasure.

No need to post this in this thread. Just for your information and use.

Preterist1951 said...

Martin73,

From what I understand "replacement theology" hinges on whether or not all N.T. prophecies have been fulfilled or not.

Some of us believe that all the prophecies have been fulfilled.

Matthew 5:17  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19  Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20  For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 16:28  Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matthew 19:28  And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Matthew 5:17-20 From B.W.Johnson's N.T. Commentary: "Till all be fulfilled."- "Till," says Dr. Schaff, "implies that after the great events of Christ's life, and the establishment of his kingdom, the old dispensation, as a dispensation of the letter and yoke of bondage, as a system of types and shadows, will pass away, and has passed away (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14; Heb. 8:13); while the spirit and substance of the law, that is, love to God and man, will last forever."

I believe that the Kingdom of Heaven(God), the New Jerusalem, has been established. Futurist Christians don't. I believe the Judaics have purposely and deceptively denied its establishment over the centuries and have negatively influenced the Christian Church with their doctrine of non-fulfillment. The same holds true for the new heaven and the new earth.

Matthew 16:28; 19:28; Jesus told THEM that some of THEM back THEN would still be alive when He would return to judge the 12 Tribes of Israel (and not the entire globe that Futurist Christians have been "taught" to believe).

His return (in AD70 when not one stone of the temple in Jerusalem was left standing upon another)established the Kingdom which subsequently caused the passing away of the old Covenant and the old heaven and the old earth and therefore caused the establishment of the new covenant and the new heaven and the new earth.

Then we have

Galatians 6:16  And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Paul was not speaking of the present day Israel we have today. The "Israel of God" are those of faith in Jesus, the Christians.

The Apostles were Jews but became Christians- men of faith like Abraham. God made a covenant with Abrham because of his faith and not the law. The law wasn't around when God promised the seed of Abraham the inheritance. Only those who have faith will inherit God's Kingdom.

Martin73 said...

Jason & Preterist, thanks for answering.

Jason, this was the statement, I somewhat itched to hear. I tend very heartily to agree with you. Hope we'll be proved right.


Preterist, I feel a bit queasy about your take, as I happen to be not actively believing that all NT prophecies (e.g. those concerning an “Anti-Christ” or those in the Apocalypse which are concerned with the final victory) are fulfilled. Nor can I see your point about a “return of the Lord” in 70 A.D, though I will remember your hint about the twelve tribes of Israel being judged, not the whole world.

I guess I can agree with you, though, on the general characterization of the 1st century events as an accomplished Messianic reformation of the religion of God's Israel, whereby this community changed its outward appearance from a national to a (purely) spiritual one. The dispensationalists, on the other hand, arbitrarily and, as I think, starkly erroneously, introduce the idea of God having suffered an (immutably elected) nation of Israel's refusal to accept his "offer" of a (worldly) kingdom of God, whereupon God is said to have improvised some interim chapter of 'Heilsgeschichte', the history of salvation, (with the community of Christian believers as some kind of mysterious other people of God) until, after some rapture of Christians to the heavens, history with God acting with and upon carnal Israel is supposed to resume for a brief finale and the (partial) fulfillment under the Millennium.

“Replacement” is a fantasy which those who follow the interim idea (and thus the notion that God humoured ungodliness to temporarily derail His intentions for ushering in the kingdom of God) see in the traditional claim of the Church being God's Israel.

It is un-Biblical, as St. Paul says in no uncertain terms in the epistle to the Romans that we ARE PRESENTLY engrafted into the “olive tree” which represents spiritual Israel. And we will only be torn out again if we commit a similar sin as did those Jews who followed the Pharisees or the other ungodly factions of that time. Jews who reject Christ are the natural branches which are torn out. They are not said to form a separate tree (as some claim the Judaic community to be) that would some day be replanted in God's vineyard with the old olive tree to be somehow reunited with that renewed original tree, - as would be a fair Pauline teaching to prop up a Christian Zionist position. In fact, there is no indication within the Bible that God would preserve a national identity for Jews, regardless of their faith or unbelief in Jesus, outside of the olive tree, but on the contrary, even the wild branches are at some places also called "Jews" (or stock of Abraham) in the spiritual sense. Thus the olive tree, as the community of Christians, “Greeks and Jews”, is nothing else but the 'ecclesia', the 'bride of the lamb'.

Are we essentially in accord with one another?

Preterist1951 said...

Martin73,

I'll make this short because I do not want to take advantage of Michael Hoffman's good nature...

But some of us believe the "Anti-Christ" you apparently believe is yet to come (or is due to arrive shortly) was in actuality NERO CAESAR.

When you say "Anti-Christ", you are referring to the "beast from the sea" and his "image" of Rev 13 aren't you?

Because when one wrote "Nero Caesar" out in Hebrew (I believe) it added up to the "Six hundred threescore and six"- 666- the "number of the beast"!!!

That's just one of many reasons why I believe "my take" :^)

Miko said...

KSR NRN (in Hebrew - no vowels, which is Kaesar Neron - Latin for Caesar Nero or Nero Caesar) equals 666 in Hebrew Gematria. St. Irenaeus, 180 A.D., mentioned Nero as a type of the final Antichrist, which the church in his time still expected in the future. St. Hippolytus, about forty years later, completed his exegesis on the Book of Daniel, showing it as a type of the Antichrist yet to come. Good base for this, as Our Lord Jesus Christ said to beware and flee the Abomination that desolates, in Matthew 24 - a quote from Daniel. Obviously Titus, in 70 A.D. was one fulfillment of that. The consensus of the Church Fathers, still expected that in the future. Diocletian's persecution (late 3rd - early 4th century) fulfilled everything in St. Hippolytus's exegesis, except the return of Enoch and Elijah and the Second Coming of Christ.

St. Augustine (d. 430 A.D.) cautioned that while the future held the final fulfillment and the Antichrist would come yet in the future, we should be careful in trying to assign what exactly will happen prior to Our Lord Jesus Christ's return.

It is very interesting to me that the early Church Fathers saw the persecuting Emperors and the Gnostics as more types of the Antichrist than they saw the Jews as such.

I see the Jews as victims of gentile princes' games with usury and victims of their own Talmudic Rabbis use of them.

I think it very worth while that Mr. Hoffman makes an appeal to truly understanding the Talmud and the surrounding context of it as a prime wrong hurtful to gentile and Jew alike.

Ursus Arctos said...

With all due respect to the Supreme Pontiff, his decision to celebrate the syncretism and indifferentism symbolized by Assisi is a colossal blunder.

The Catholic Church is the one true Church; the one and only faith that is salvific. Indeed, extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside of the Church there is no salvation) is an infallible teaching of the Church. We should therefore cease playing patty cake with other religions. After all, they are all false. As for the Old Testament and Judaism -- fulfilled and superseded by the coming of Christ and the establishment of His Church.

All this nonsense is the result of Vatican II, which has brought woe and wreck and ruin to the Church. The Church must be returned to the fullness of tradition, without compromise or dilution, which -- Deo gratias! -- is in process.