The “Jews” Behind the Second Vatican Council
CONVERTS WHO CHANGED THE CHURCH
Jewish-Born Clerics Helped Push Vatican II Reforms
50 Years Ago: Vatican II changed the Vatican’s positions on key issues including the church’s teachings on Jews. Many of the intellectual forces behind the reforms were converts from Judaism
BY JOHN CONNELLY
Forward (NY Zionist newspaper) July 30, 2012
With an Afterword by Michael Hoffman
Fifty years ago this fall, Catholic bishops gathered in Rome for a council that would bring the church “up to date” by making it speak more directly to the modern world. After three years of deliberation, the bishops voted on and accepted statements that permitted the faithful to attend mass in their own languages, encouraged lay reading of scripture and entreated Catholics to think of other religions as sources of truth and grace. The council referred to the church as “people of God” and suggested a more democratic ordering of relations between bishops and the pope. It also passed a statement on non-Christian religions, known by its Latin title, Nostra Aetate (“In our times”). Part four of this declaration, a statement on the Jews, proved most controversial, several times almost failing because of the opposition of conservative bishops.
Nostra Aetate confirmed that Christ, his mother and the apostles were Jews, and that the church had its origin in the Old Testament. [Ron: Jesus Christ (Esu Immanuel) and his birth mother, Mary, were not Jewish (Judean or Indumean), she was a Galilean. Galileans were descendants of the Sumerians, having migrated from Sumer to Galilee. Archangel Gabriel was Esu Immanuel's birth-father. He was/is a distant descendant of the Sons of Heaven, Rasiel, who was the guardian angel of the secret. According to Divine Plan, Gabriel secretly inseminated Mary with his own seed, thus becoming Immanuel's birth-father. Esu Immanuel was therefore both Galilean (a descendent of the Sumerians) from his mother Mary, and the Son of a distant descendant of the Sons of Heaven, from his birth-father Gabriel. Accordingly Esu Immanuel was NOT a "Jew" nor was he 'King of the Jews'. Joseph became the spouse of Mary, adopted Esu Immanuel, and became his earthly father. Joseph of Jakob, was a distant descendant of David, who was a distant descendant of Abraham, whose lineage goes back to Adam. The great LIE that both Mary and Esu Immanuel were Jewish was and is perpetrated by Judaic leaders and propagandists to justify the lie that Christianity has Judaic roots. That lie is the basis of the Judeo-Christian myth. In truth the angry, vengeful god of the Torah and Talmud has NOTHING in common with the loving God of the New Testament. See: http://abundanthope.net/pages/Phoenix_Journals_61/ESU_IMMANUEL_THE_CHRIST_WAS_NOT_A_JEW_4237.shtml See also: Phoenix Journal #2, 'AND THEY CALLED HIS NAME, IMMANUEL --- I AM SANANDA' And: 'CHRIST WAS NOT A JEW', the author Jacob Elon Connor. And:Phoenix Journal #50, 'GOD, TOO, HAS A PLAN 2000! DIVINE PLAN, VOL. I', chapter 6, pages 82 - 83. http://fourwinds10.com/journals/pdf/J050.pdf And: Phoenix Journal #57, 'GOD, TOO, HAS A PLAN 2000! DIVINE PLAN, VOL. II', chapter 4, pages 54 - 58 and chapter 5, page 63 - 66. http://fourwinds10.com/journals/pdf/J057.pdf And: Phoenix Journal #2, 'AND THEY CALLED HIS NAME, IMMANUEL --- I AM SANANDA' http://fourwinds10.com/journals/pdf/J002.pdf THIS result of Vatican II is enough in itself to evidence that Jews greatly influenced the writing of Nostra Aetate and Vatican II.]
Nostra Aetate denied that the Jews may be held collectively responsible for Jesus Christ’s death, and decried all forms of hatred, including anti-Semitism. Citing the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans, Nostra Aetate called the Jews “most beloved” by God. [Ron: Actually Esu Immanuel did NOT die on the cross nor did he intend to establish a religion, he came to teach humanity the truth, not to organise people to become members of a hierarchial religious control mechanism. In contrast, Paul of Tarsus was a Pharisee and so it is hardly surprising that he misinformed humanity about Pharisees and their followers. Paul was largely responsible for the initial distorting of Esu's teaching and creation of the so-called Christian religion.]. These words seem commonsensical today, but they staged a revolution in Catholic teaching. [Ron: WTF?! The idea that Jews are '“most beloved” by God' is a lie created by the Pharisees and peddled by neo-Pharisees today. In fact the idea is nonsensical propaganda and these words evidence the Jews' takeover of the Catholic Church at the Vatican level.].
Despite opposition from within their ranks, the bishops knew that they could not be silent on the Jews. When the document stalled in May 1965, one of them explained why they must push on: “The historical context: 6 million Jewish dead. If the council, taking place 20 years after these facts, remains silent about them, then it would inevitably evoke the reaction expressed by Hochhuth in ‘The Deputy.’” This bishop was referring to German playwright Rolf Hochhuth’s depiction of a silent and uncaring Pius XII in the face of the Holocaust. That was no longer the church these bishops wished to live in.[Ron: THIS bullshit evidences either complicity with the Jewish holohoaxers or cowardice to the point of utter stupidity, or both. The Holocaust Blood Libel on the German nation is one of the greatest frauds of all time and this Vatican capitulation to the Jews examples just how successful the Jews have been in using the Holocaust LIE to suborn non-Jewish institutions and to thereby enslave non-Jews. The official records of Jewish deaths in Auschwitz and other German labour camps during WWII give the lie to the Holocaust meme, see eg:
Official German Record of all Prisoners in Auschwitz Concentration Camp from May of 1940 through December of 1944. See: http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/Official_German_Record_of_all_Prisoners_in_Auschwi_2737.shtml
And: OFFICIAL RECORDS FROM INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS PROVE "HOLOCAUST" WAS A FRAUD. See: http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/OFFICIAL-RECORDS-FROM-INTERNATIONAL-RED-CROSS-PROVE-HOLOCAUST-WAS-A-FRAUD---Repost.shtml See also the related AH articles listed below this article.].
The problem was, they had possessed no language of their own with which to break the silence. More than most academic disciplines, theology is a complex thicket with each branch guarded by a prickly coterie of experts. Those wanting to grasp the complexities of the church’s relations to Jews had to study eschatology, soteriology, patristics, Old and New Testament, and church history through all its periods. The bishops thus found themselves relying on tiny groups of experts who had cared enough to amass the unusual intellectual qualifications for this task.
[Ron: This is bullshit. The Torah preceded the Talmud and, like it, was also racist and exclusivist. Deuteronomy – “the Second Law” – was founded upon religious intolerance, Murder and genocide in the name of religion is its distinctive tenet. Racial intolerance followed later in another “New Law”. These “laws” contradict and negative the moral (“Ten’) Commandments leaving intact only the injunctions relating to the exclusive worship (under the close supervision of the Levite priests) of the jealous and psychopathic Jehovah. All the moral commandments governing relations between people are buried beneath a great mound of "statutes and judgments" (regulations issued by rabbis under an overriding “Law” which effectively cancels them save in respect of fellow Judaists. Sooo, the moral commandments against murder, stealing, adultery, coveting, bad neighbourliness, and the like are vitiated by a mass of "statutes" expressly demanding the massacre and utter destruction of other peoples, the murder of apostates individually or in communities, the taking of concubines from among women captives, "utter destruction" of conquered peoples, leaving "nothing alive", the exclusion of "the stranger" from debt-remission and so on.
Deuteronomy sets up the moral commandments [See 5,1:22] as a strawman, a misleading moral mirage that has totally bedazzled Christians who, as a result, were subliminally saddled with the overriding and totally amoral Old Testament Levitical “laws and statutes” along with the New Testament, the valid portions of which enjoin us to love neighbour as self for the love of God. In effect Deuteronomy totally nullified the moral commandments with a vicious amoral political ideology posing as a religion. That ideology centres upon the grandiose political idea of a people especially sent into the world to destroy and "possess" all other peoples and to rule the whole world. For instance the Commandments against killing, stealing, coveting etc are followed immediately by the promise that those whose hearts are ‘set on the fear of me and the keeping of my commandments’ will be given ‘great and prosperous cities not of your building, houses full of good things not furnished by you, wells you did not dig, vineyards and olives you did not plant’ (Deuteronomy 5,29; & 6,10:11). And so it goes on.
Of course, in order to “possess” all these freebies the good Judaist has to kill and dispossess those who built those items with personal ingenuity and the sweat of their brows, and so Deuteronomy and later, the rest of the Pentateuch, is full of injunctions to do just that. Judaic ‘history’ is replete with the idea of massacre and destruction which is the essential ingredient in Deuteronomy. In the absence of the Judaic god’s demands for bloodshed and destruction, Deuteronomy, the so-called Mosaic Law, is an empty shell.
This unique form of theocratic collectivism was first presented to the Judahites in Deuteronomy as "the Law" of Jehovah and as his literal word, spoken to Moses. By that date the Israelites had left Palestine well over a century prior, and any “Moses’ figure would have been dead some 800 years. The story was a Levite concoction.
And what does the Talmud say about Jesus? It names Him as one of the three great enemies of Judaism. (Balaam and Titus, who destroyed Jerusalem, are the other two.).
Judahites and those who subsequently followed their Pharisitic teachings have ALWAYS been in darkness. the Israelites rejected the narrow, exclusivist, racialism of the Levite priests some three centuries before those priests read the first book of the Torah - Deuteronomy - to the Judahite peasants in the Temple in Jerusalem in 621 BC.
The Pharisees who were Christ’s contemporaries said he was possessed with a devil, a charlatan empowered by Beelzebub, a deceiver, a blasphemer, and had an unclean spirit. Such denigration only intensifies in the Talmud. The authoritative Jewish Encyclopedia says rabbinic Judaism considers Christ a bastard: “For polemical purposes, it was necessary for the Jews to insist on the illegitimacy of Jesus as against the Davidic descent claimed by the Christian church. ( “Jesus,” Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 170)].
As I discovered while researching my recently published book , From Enemy to Brother: The Revolution in Catholic Teaching on the Jews, 1933–1965, these experts did not begin their work in the 1960s. From outposts in Austria and Switzerland, several had tried to formulate Catholic arguments against anti-Semitism under the shadow of Nazism three decades earlier. They were as unrepresentative of Catholicism as one can imagine. Not only were they, Central Europeans, brave enough to stand up to Hitler when it counted, but they mostly had not been born Catholic. The Catholics who helped bring the church to recognition of the continuing sanctity of the Jewish people were converts, many of them from Jewish families. [Ron: Historiclly Jews have always done this in order to suborn Christian churches and organisations. For instance Ignatius Loyola was a Jewish convert as was his replacement as head of the Jesuits. Is it really any wonder then, that the Jesuits' history has been as it is? Similarly, the Rothschilds paid the Jesuit-taught Jew, Adam Weishaupt to establish the Illuminati in 1776.].
Most important was Johannes Oesterreicher, born in 1904 into the home of the Jewish veterinarian Nathan and his wife, Ida, in Stadt-Liebau, a German-language community in northern Moravia. As a boy, he took part in Zionist scouting and acted as elected representative of the Jews in his high school, but then, for reasons that remain inexplicable (he later said he ”fell in love with Christ”), Oesterreicher took an interest in Christian writings (Cardinal Newman, Kierkegaard and the Gospels themselves), and under the influence of a priest later martyred by the Nazis (Max Josef Metzger) he became a Catholic and then a priest. In the early 1930s he took over the initiative of the Diocese of Vienna for converting Jews, hoping to bring family and friends into the church. In this his success was limited. Where he had an impact was in gathering other Catholic thinkers to oppose Nazi racism. [Ron: Germans had every right to be anti-Jewish. That did not necessarily equate to racism. The Jews had conspired to defeat and destroy Germany in WWI, double crossed it at the Versailles Peace Conference and pillaged it via their control of the Reich Bank in the years between 1918 and the election of the National Socialists in 1933. To cap it off, global Jewry declared war on Germany in August 1933 and tried to starve Germans with a global boycott. In those circumstances Jews in Germanby could and should have been placed in internement camps after August 1933 (but weren't until the outbreak of WWII) and an "ex-Jew" campaigning in Catholic Church circles on behalf of Jews was a covert Jew Fifth Columnist and a TRAITOR to the German nation.].
To his shock, Oesterreicher found this racism entering the work of leading Catholic thinkers, who taught that Jews were racially damaged and therefore could not receive the grace of baptism. His friends in this endeavor included fellow converts like philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand and the theologian Karl Thieme and political philosopher Waldemar Gurian. In 1937, Gurian, Oesterreicher and Thieme penned a Catholic statement on the Jews, arguing, against the racists, that Jews carried a special holiness. Though it constituted orthodox teaching, not a single bishop (let alone the Vatican) signed on.[Ron: As indicated above no genuine Christian scholar could accept such bullshit whether emanating from ex-Jews or otherwise.].
Oesterreicher escaped Austria when the Nazis entered, in 1938, and continued work from Paris, broadcasting German-language sermons into the Reich, informing Catholics that Hitler was an “unclean spirit” and the “antipode in human form,” and describing Nazi crimes committed against Jews and Poles. In the spring of 1940 he barely eluded an advance team of Gestapo agents, and via Marseille and Lisbon he made his way to New York City and ultimately Seton Hall University, where he became the leading expert on relations with Jews in America’s Catholic Church.
Oesterreicher gradually abandoned his “missionary” approach to the Jews and increasingly called his work ecumenical. [Ron: Clever elision don'tcha think?] He and like-minded Christians tried to figure out how to ground their belief in continued vocation of Jewish people in Christian scripture.
If the battle before the war was against the superficial assumptions of Nazi racism, [Ron: Oh Barf!] after the war it took aim at the deeply rooted beliefs of Christian anti-Judaism. In the former period, the converts argued that, yes, Jews can be baptized. In the second period, even if they continued to believe that Jews must be baptized to escape the curse of rejecting Christ, these thinkers began pondering the nature of the supposed curse.
If history was a series of trials sent to punish the Jews for failing to accept Christ, then what meaning did Auschwitz have? Were the Nazis instruments of God’s will, meant to make the Jews finally turn to Christ? To answer yes to this question was obscene. [Ron: What is truly obscene is the fact that there was NO Holocaust and that the HoloHoax was created by Jews and their Rothschilds' controllers. BUT the biggest obscenity was the deliberate creation of WWII by the Jews in order to genocide the German nation and restore Rothschilds' control of the German Central Bank and economy. The real holocaust was of Germans by the Jews using the Allies' genocidal bombing of German cities during WWII and the deliberate starvation and murder of 13 million Germans throughout Central Europe after WWII by the military forces commandered by those infamous Jews: Churchill, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Harry S(olomon) Truman and Stalin. See eg: GRUESOME HARVEST The Costly Attempt To Exterminate The People of Germany. - http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Gruesome+Harvest&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a].
but it was the only answer Catholic theology provided as of 1945. In the years that followed, the [Ron: JEW] converts had [Ron: ?!?] to stage a revolution in a church that claimed to be unchanging. They did so by shifting church teaching to Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapters 9–11, where the Apostle, without speaking of baptism or conversion, proclaims that the Jews remain “beloved of God” and that “all Israel will be saved.” [Ron: As mentioned above, Paul was a Pharisee and clearly the JEW converts in the Vatican are neo-Pharisees.].
Like Oesterreicher, the thinkers who did the intellectual work that prepared this revolution were overwhelmingly converts. Soon after the war, Thieme joined with concentration camp survivor Gertrud Luckner to publish the Freiburger Rundbrief in southwest Germany, where they made crucial theological breakthroughs on the path to conciliation with the Jews. In Paris, the Rev. Paul Démann, a converted Hungarian Jew, began publishing the review Cahiers Sioniens and, with the help of fellow converts Geza Vermes and Renée Bloch, refuted the anti-Judaism in Catholic school catechisms.
In 1961, Oesterreicher was summoned for work in the Vatican II committee tasked with the “Jewish question,” which became the most difficult issue to face the bishops. At one critical moment in October 1964, priests Gregory Baum and Bruno Hussar joined Oesterreicher in assembling what became the final text of the council’s decree on the Jews, voted on by the bishops a year later. Like Oesterreicher, Baum and Hussar were converts of Jewish background.
They were continuing a trend going back to the First Vatican Council in 1870, when the brothers Lémann — Jews who had become Catholics and priests — presented a draft declaration on relations between the church and Jews, stating that Jews “are always very dear to God” because of their fathers and because Christ has issued from them “according to the flesh.” [Ron: ALL LIES as indicated above.]. Without converts to Catholicism, it seems, the Catholic Church would never have “thought its way” out of the challenges of racist anti-Judaism.[Ron: BARF! BARF!].
The high percentage of Jewish converts like Oesterreicher among Catholics who were opposed to anti-Semitism makes sense: In the 1930s they were targets of Nazi racism who could not avoid the racism that had entered the church. In their opposition, they were simply holding their church to its own universalism. But by turning to long-neglected passages in St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, they also opened the mind of the church to a new appreciation of the Jewish people.[Ron: Barf! Barf! The Jews declared war on Germany in 1933 and they instigated WWII see eg: England Instigated World War Two. - WORLD WAR II The JEWS Declared War - AGAINST Germany! NOT the Other Way Around! See: http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/WORLD-WAR-II-The-JEWS-Declared-War---AGAINST-Germany-NOT-the-Other-Way-Around.shtml
England Instigated World War Two. See: http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/England-Instigated-World-War-Two.shtml
Hitler and the Banksters: The Abolition of Interest-Servitude. See: http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/Hitler-and-the-Banksters-The-Abolition-of-Interest-Servitude.shtml
Behind the Holocaust: What was Hitler’s unforgivable sin? See: http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/Behind-the-Holocaust-What-was-Hitler-s-unforgivable-sin.shtml
Hitler’s freedom from International Debt Slavery. See: http://abundanthope.net/pages/Ron_71/Hitler_s_freedom_from_International_Debt_Slavery_3039.shtml ].
What were the impulses behind their engagement after the war? In a generous review of my book in The New Republic, Peter Gordon suggests that the converts’ willingness to advocate for the other was driven by a concern for the self. They had retained a sense of themselves as Jews even in the Catholic Church. [Ron: Well that's bloody obvious isn't it? The Jews always infiltrate and suborn goyim countries and instituions.].
Gordon reminds us of Sigmund Freud’s skepticism about the possibility of love of other. [Ron: Freud was a Jew and hence his inability to love others is consistent with his Jewish ideological conditioning.]. True love, Freud believed, “was always entangled with narcissism: it is not the other whom I love but myself, or at least it is only that quality in the other which resembles me or resembles the person I once was.” Yet in Oesterreicher we see an enduring solidarity with the community that once was his, most immediately his family. In 1946 he pondered the fate of his father, who had died of pneumonia in Theresienstadt (his mother was later murdered at Auschwitz)[Ron: By whom and how?]. Contrary to the ancient Christian idea that there is no salvation outside the church, Oesterreicher did not despair for his father. Nathan Oesterreicher had been a just man, to whom the “beatitude of the peacemakers applied.” If Oesterreicher, the son, had been a true narcissist, he might have rested content in the belief that he was saved through baptism. Yet intense love and longing for his Jewish father began opening Oesterreicher’s mind to the possibility that Jews could be saved as Jews.
The lasting gift of the converts who helped rewrite Catholic teaching on the Jews was to extend their familial sense of solidarity to us, to Jews and Christians. [Ron: Oh barf, barf!] In 1964, Oesterreicher personally crafted that part of Nostra Aetate according to which the church no longer speaks of mission to the Jews, but looks forward to the day when all “peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and ‘serve him shoulder to shoulder.’” (The last phrase is taken from Zephaniah 3:9.) With this new teaching, the church gave up the attempt to turn the other into the self, and after this point Catholics involved in Christian-Jewish dialogue tend not to be converts. They live out of the new understanding that Jews and Christians are brothers. The converts crossed a border to the other while in some deep sense remaining themselves [Ron: Sooo, they remained Jews, ideologically speaking?] but by recognizing the legitimacy, indeed the blessing, of our differences, they helped bring down a wall separating Jews and Christians. [Ron: What, exactly is the blessing for non-Jews of being seen by Talmudic Jews as cattle who are to be used and abused at whim?].
[Colour fonts, some bolding, underlining and comments in square brackets added.]
John Connelly is professor of history at the University of California, Berkeley.
Afterword by Michael Hoffman
This essay by Mr. Connelly is based on a flagrant misrepresentation of the doctrine of St. Paul. Clearly Catholics will only be absolved of the charge of “anti-semitism” when they have completely abandoned the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and adhere to a false Christ and a false Gospel in the name of Christ.
There are a few lines toward the end of Romans 11 (not Romans 9 and 10), that when taken out of context can be used to support the Talmudic racial pride of persons who describe themselves as “Jews.”
Romans 11: 26-27: And so all Israel shall be saved, as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob, for this is my covenant unto them when I shall take way their sins.
This is very different from the spin Connelly has applied. Israel is going to be saved by the Messiah Jesus Christ (“the Deliverer”). Saved from what? Saved from their sins by turning away from their ungodliness. Does Prof. Connelly even once mention the sins of ancient Jews and modern Judiacs, or their ungodliness? No, he is too busy aggrandizing their racial pride. For this reason he is an enemy, not a friend, of the Judaic people. Encouraging self worship is a grave transgression of God’s grace and plan of salvation, and a sure path to destruction for any people.
Notice what Connelly has omitted. The Apostle Paul does not say that all the Jews of every age would be saved. He showed that a majority of them in his time were lost to sin. Connelly in his fabrication of a Pauline Jewish utopia dare not mention why St. Paul is hated by Orthodox rabbis. It was Paul who said that the Jews killed the Lord Jesus Christ and are contrary to all men (I Thessalonians 2:15). The basis of Nostra Aetate just went out the window in one fell swoop of St. Paul’s pen. Paul wasn’t speaking racially, but spiritually/ideologically. He himself was a Jew as were all the apostles of the earliest days of the Church. [Ron: This is not necessarily true. Esu Immanuel was not a Jew and there may have been many others who were of non-Judean and non-Indumean origins.]. But when a person converts to the Gospel of Jesus Christ he is no longer of Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam or Judaism. He is a new person and a new identity in Christ. [Ron: This is not necessarily true either.].The supposed “converts” from Judaism to Catholicism who are the subject of the preceding essay never abandoned their Judaic race pride. Connelly approves of a reviewer's statement that, "They had retained a sense of themselves as Jews even in the Catholic Church.”
Romans 11: 28-31: As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are beloved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you.
How has the Church from its inception, publicly interpreted this passage, until the revolution of the 20th century? “Beloved” — this signifies that God still looks up on them with interest and intends to do them good. Nothing here implies that God approves of their conduct or their disobedience. What is the mercy of God toward them? That Israelites alive some time in the future will be converted to Christ.
Connelly the Jew-hater tries to give “the Jews” security in their sins, as all diabolically inclined ecumenicists do. He is encouraging them to continue in their disobedience and refusal of Christ. Why not, since they are saved by their race. Authentic Christians know from the words of Jesus Christ and John the Baptist that this cannot be true, and that this is a new and false Gospel.
Connelly doesn’t even take all of Paul in context, much less Jesus and John the Baptist. In Romans 2: 5-7 and 8-10, St. Paul declares: “In the rigid obstinancy of your heart you are laying up for yourself a store of retribution for the day of retribution, when God’s just judgment will be revealed and he will pay every man for what he has done...Those who are governed by selfish ambition, who refuse obedience to the truth and take the wrong for their guide, there will be the fury of retribution. There will be grinding misery for every human being who is an evil-doer, for the Jew first and for the Greek also.
Romans 2:11: For God has no favorites. Romans 3:9: Are Jews any better off? No, not at all!
Throughout his essay, Prof. Connelly encourages Judaics in their racial self-worship and attempts to make gentiles guilty for not encouraging this destructive pride. Is this of Christ? Connelly writes: “Jews carried a special holiness...Jews are always very dear to God...because Christ has issued from them according to the flesh...intense love and longing for his Jewish father began opening Oesterreicher's mind to the possibility that Jews could be saved as Jews.”
In other words, they don’t need Jesus Christ to be saved. We ask Mr. Connelly if it is true that race is the basis of their salvation and not the Messiah of Israel, why was Jesus' first mission of conversion “to the lost sheep of the House of Israel”? Was He mistaken and confused? (These are negative characteristics attributed to Him by the Babylonian Talmud). Or did Jesus know what He was talking about when He said to the Jews who bragged of being Abraham’s progeny: “If you were Abraham’s children you would do the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who who has told you the truth that I heard from God” ((John 8: 39-40).
St. Paul is not God. We don’t filter the words of Jesus Christ through the apostle Paul. Paul’s words must be understood in conformity to the light of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, who told the Jewish braggarts who were boasting of their racial status that they were Abraham’s children only if they did the works of Abraham. By this Jesus was referring to the faith of Abraham. These Jews had no faith in Jesus and hence they were not Abraham’s children.
They were indeed Abraham’s children according to the flesh. By rejecting their Messiah and committing their accursed oral traditions of Babylon and Egypt to writing after the crucifixion of Israel’s Messiah, they created a “Synagogue of Satan”consisting of the religion of carnal, counterfeit Israel, as was foretold in Rev. 2:9 and 3:9.
The Pharisees also bragged to John the Baptist concerning their presumed status as The Holy People. This race pride is the very hallmark of the Pharisee, then as now. The Pharisees told St. John, “We have Abraham for Our Father.” If John the Baptist had been a Second Vatican Council modernist, he would have replied, “I know that. Your racial status absolves you of your sins and of any obligation to believe on Jesus Christ to be saved.”
Unfortunately for con-artists like Professor John Connelly of the University of California at Berkeley, St. John replied, “Do not presume to say to yourselves ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children from Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the tree. Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” (Matthew 3: 9-10).
Jesus said the children of Abraham are defined as those who do the works of Abraham. St. John the Baptist stated that the children of Abraham are identified as those who bear good fruit. For this reason St. Peter declared that it was the Christians of whatever nationality who "are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation.” No racial qualification applied, but people like Connelly and a host of other illusionists are trying to inject racism back into the Church in the double-crossing name of combating racism: "Oesterreicher and Thieme penned a Catholic statement on the Jews, arguing, against the racists, that Jews carried a special holiness.”
Do you see the diabolic double-mind being pushed on Catholics, and by extension, all people? We’re not holy, as St. Peter declared, but those who reject Jesus Christ are specially holy and confirming this exalted, Christless racial status is a means of being “against the racists.”
Zionist and Talmudic racists are not an issue. Why doesn't Prof. Connelly refer to the racists among the rabbis who declare that a thousand Arabs are not worth one Jewish finger nail? Or that Jewish blood is worth more than gentile blood? Or that Arab babies can be murdered as a form of preventive warfare, and Palestinians should be exterminated?
And what of the people today who imagine they are the genetic descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and in fact are not? Are these Christ-denying gentiles saved by claiming to be Jews? Are descendants of the Khazars who say they are Jews saved by — what? Race? Which race? This is the type of ambiguity, confusion and uncertainty sown by any race-based theology of salvation.
Connelly is so ignorant of the beliefs of key 20th century rabbis that he writes, "If history was a series of trials sent to punish the Jews for failing to accept Christ, then what meaning did Auschwitz have? Were the Nazis instruments of God's will, meant to make the Jews finally turn to Christ? To answer yes to this question was obscene...” [Ron: the Holocaust did NOT happen! Sooo, what possible "meaning" is Auschwitz supposed to have?].
Well, Prof. Connelly, you just condemned as “obscene" Shas Grand Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, as well as Grand Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the late messiah of Chabad-Lubavitch, both of whom taught that Hitler was God’s avenging angel on masses of “Jews” who had abandoned the study of the Talmud. (Cf. Judaism’s Strange Gods [2011 edition], pp. 37-39).
In spite of his ignorance, Connelly accuses the Church of being ignorant of the basics of the New Testament, having taught in public for 1900 years contrary to the Second Vatican Council: "In the years that followed, the converts had to stage a revolution in a church that claimed to be unchanging. They did so by shifting church teaching to Paul's letter to the Romans, chapters 9–11.”
Connelly wants us to believe that until Judaic converts to Catholicism got to work in the late 19th and 20th centuries, all of the early Church Fathers, Councils, popes, theologians and saints were ignorant of the true meaning of Paul’s letter to the Romans! This kind of absurd hyperbole robs Connelly of any chance of being taken seriously by anyone conversant with historic Christianity.
Another diabolic dimension to Connelly’s subtle Jew-hate consists in him putting the onus for the revolution almost entirely on the backs of Judaic converts, repeatedly apportioning to them alone the falsification of the Gospel. Here’s a bulletin for you, professor: the modernist movement at work inside the bowels of the Church was led and directed by gentiles throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. The men most responsible for the revolution were four popes: Roncalli (John XXIII), Montini (Paul VI), Wojtyla (John Paul II) and Ratzinger (Benedict XVI); gentiles everyone, along with a legion of their cardinals, bishops and periti; again almost exclusively gentiles.
Is it not somewhat strange that Connelly seek to stigmatize Judaic converts generally as subversive of tradition, without offering any countering examples of loyal Catholic Judaics? He makes no mention in his essay in Forward newspaper of the fact that the Catholic Church was well-served by many illustrious Judaic converts who left their ethnic identity behind them when they took up Christ’s Cross. St. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross (in whose writings one will find not an iota of Talmudic mentality), were descended of such Judaic converts. In the 1950s, Catholic convert David Gordon, father of author Mary Gordon, carried a heavy wooden cross through Harvard Square at noon in repentance for his sins in his past life as a Judaic. Gordon, and thousands of other unsung converts like him, were loyal sons of the Church, untainted by any revolution. Many converted under the unreconstructed papacy of the much maligned Pope Pius XII.
Berkeley Professor of History John Connelly fairly gloats at the idea that, thanks to the revolution inside the highest levels of Catholicism, “the church no longer speaks of mission to the Jews.” With friends like him, Judaic people don’t need any enemies.
[Colour fonts, underlining, comments in square brackets and some bolding,added.]
SOME RELATED AH ARTICLES:
For Further information See: