Friday, September 2, 2016

Papal Presumption:  The Assumption of Mary
In 1950 pope Pius XII (in Munificentissimus Deus) presumed to declare as a divinely revealed dogma, and require belief, in the Assumption of Mary,  that  the perpetual 'Virgin Mary,  was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." And equally audacious, he even claimed that such was "based upon the Sacred Writings as their ultimate foundation," and forbade any to  counter his declaration.
However, it is not simply the absence in Scripture of any record or prophesy for this alleged particular event, but also from early history, which is where it belongs, versus being a fable that developed into doctrine latter.  Instead of such needed testimony, we have the popes reasoning that "it seems impossible to think of her [Mary]... being apart from Him in body...after this earthly life. (Munificentissimus Deus)
Yet the Lord has no problem with the rest of the deceased believers for whom He died, being absent in body but present with the Lord, as Mary is  as well. And such await the Lord's return for their resurrected glorified bodies. (Mt. 24:31;   1Co. 15:52; 1Thes. 4:16,17) But the popes presumption is that of reading into Scripture and history  the reasoning of men, and is part of the hyper exaltation of the fabricated  Mary of Catholicism,  thinking of mortals "above that which is written," contra 1Co. 4:6).
Examining the evidence, let us first read what assumption supporter RC Lawrence P. Everett, C.Ss.R., S.T.D. confessed:

In the first three centuries there are absolutely no references in the authentic works of the Fathers or ecclesiastical writers to the death or bodily immortality of Mary. Nor is there any mention of a tomb of Mary in the first centuries of Christianity. The veneration of the tomb of the Blessed Virgin at Jerusalem began about the middle of the fifth century; and even here there is no agreement as to whether its locality was in the Garden of Olives or in the Valley of Josaphat. Nor is any mention made in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (431) of the fact that the Council, convened to defend the Divine Maternity of the Mother of God, is being held in the very city selected by God for her final resting place. Only after the Council did the tradition begin which placed her tomb in that city.

The earliest known (non-Apocryphal) mention concerning the end of Mary's life appears in the writings of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia,.. in his Panarion or Medicine Chest (of remedies for all heresies), written in c. 377: "Whether she died or was buried we know not."

...And with the exception of a so-called contemporary of Epiphanius, Timothy of Jerusalem, who said: "Wherefore the Virgin is immortal up to now, because He who dwelt in her took her to the regions of the Ascension,"9(After a very thorough and scholarly investigation the author concludes that Timothy is an unknown author who lived between the sixth and seventh centuries (p. 23). no early writer ever doubted the fact of her death....

In the Munificentissimus Deus Pope Pius XII quotes but three Fathers of the Church, all Orientals. St. John Damascene (d. 749)...St. Germanus of Constantinople (d. 733) ...St. Modestus of Jerusalem (d. 634)...

Apart from the Apocrypha, there is no authentic witness to the Assumption among the Fathers of either the East or the West prior to the end of the fifth century.

The first remote testimony to which Pope Pius XII turns in order to indicate the fact that our present belief in the Assumption of the Blessed Mother was likewise the belief of the Church from the earliest times is the Sacred Liturgy...

...The feast of the Assumption began in the East as did many of the older Marian feasts... However, due to the fact that neither Sacred Scripture nor early Tradition speaks explicitly of the last days of our Blessed Mother on earth and of her Assumption into heaven, the liturgy of this feast did not mention them either. Later, when the apocryphal Transitus Mariae ” in which the death and Assumption of Mary are described in detail ” became popular among the faithful, the facts of her death and Assumption were inserted into the feast... -

And William Webster documents,
...the Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ˜there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it ...' (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17).

How then did this teaching come to have such prominence in the Church that eventually led it to be declared an issue of dogma in 1950? The first Church father to affirm explicitly the assumption of Mary in the West was Gregory of Tours in 590 A.D. But the basis for his teaching was not the tradition of the Church but his acceptance of an apocryphal Gospel known as the Transitus Beatae Mariae which we first hear of at the end of the fifth century and which was spuriously attributed to Melito of Sardis. There were many versions of this literature which developed over time and which were found throughout the East and West but they all originated from one source.

[The eminent Mariologist, Juniper Carol, O.F.M.] gives the following historical summary of the Transitus literature:

An intriguing corpus of literature on the final lot of Mary is formed by the apocryphal Transitus Mariae. The genesis of these accounts is shrouded in history's mist. They apparently originated before the close of the fifth century, perhaps in Egypt, perhaps in Syria, in consequence of the stimulus given Marian devotion by the definition of the divine Maternity at Ephesus. The period of proliferation is the sixth century. At least a score of Transitus accounts are extant, in Coptic, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. Not all are prototypes, for many are simply variations on more ancient models (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 144).

The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo –Melito' (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 149).

The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary's death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150).
Also, Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, states:

The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).

William Webster further states,

Prior to the seventh and eighth centuries there is complete patristic silence on the doctrine of the Assumption. But gradually, through the influence of numerous forgeries which were believed to be genuine, coupled with the misguided enthusiasm of popular devotion, the doctrine gained a foothold in the Church. The Dictionary of Christian Antiquities gives the following history of the doctrine:...

1)The Liber de Transitu, though classed by Gelasius with the known productions of heretics came to be attributed by Melito, an orthodox bishop of Sardis, in the 2nd century, and by another to St. John the Apostle.

2) A letter suggesting the possibility of the Assumption was written and attributed to St. Jerome (
ad Paulam et Eustochium de Assumptione B. Virginis, Op. tom. v. p. 82, Paris, 1706).

3) A treatise to prove it not impossible was composed and attributed to St. Augustine (
Op. tom. vi. p. 1142, ed. Migne).

4) Two sermons supporting the belief were written and attributed to St. Athanasius (
Op. tom. ii. pp. 393, 416, ed., Ben. Paris, 1698).

5) An insertion was made in Eusebius's Chronicle that ˜in the year 48 Mary the Virgin was taken up into heaven, as some wrote that they had had it revealed to them.' -

The church fathers of the earliest centuries repeatedly cite Enoch and Elijah as examples of people who didn't die, were translated to Heaven, etc. (Clement of Rome, First Clement, 9; Tertullian, A Treatise On The Soul, 50; Tertullian, On The Resurrection Of The Flesh, 58; Tertullian, Against Marcion, 5:12; Methodius, From The Discourse On The Resurrection, 14), yet they never say any such thing about Mary or include her as an example. Irenaeus, for instance, writes about the power of God to deliver people from death, and he cites Enoch, Elijah, and Paul (2 Corinthians 12:2) as illustrations of people who were "assumed" and "translated", but he says nothing of Mary (Against Heresies, 5:5). A group of some of the leading Roman Catholic and Lutheran scholars in the world concluded:

"Furthermore, the notion of Mary's assumption into heaven has left no trace in the literature of the third, much less of the second century. M. Jugie, the foremost authority on this question, concluded in his monumental study: 'The patristic tradition prior to the Council of Nicaea does not furnish us with any witness about the Assumption.'" (Raymond Brown, et al., Mary In The New Testament [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978], p. 266)

 Finally from Ratzinger we see the solution to such lack of evidential warrant for making belief in an event over 17000 years after it allegedly occurred. Which is that Rome can claim to "remember" what she wants.
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative... Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg¦had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the "apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.

But...subsequent "remembering" (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously ["caught sight of?" Because there was nothing to see in the earliest period where it should have been, before a fable developed] .." (Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), pp. 58-59; emp. mine).
For history, tradition and Scripture is only what Rome says it is in any conflict, which reasoning no less than Manning resorted to:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity....Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. . — Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation, , pp. 227-228.

Monday, June 13, 2016

What Christians Can Do in the Wake of Orlando (in response to what the Left says we must do).

Time magazine was quick to employ a homosexual Christian — a contradiction in terms — to tell us "What Christians Must Do in the Wake of Orlando" (, and true to form, it was quick to blame Christians for causing "deep, lasting pain in LGBT people’s lives," even asserting that "Unless you’ve long been a vocal advocate for LGBT people, you’ve likely contributed to that suffering—intentionally or not." (In contrast "gay clubs" were described as providing "a unique place of refuge, comfort and solidarity for LGBT people.") Therefore the first unGodly demand is that Christians are to see themselves guilty of causing justified LGBT anger.

In response we should point out that while the Left portrays the like of Fred Phelps as Christians, yet in contrast those who most strongly oppose homosexual relations typically condemn the likes of Phelps, and instead support deliverance from the destructive homosexual lifestyle. For indeed, for decades the primary agent of premature death of homosexuals has been and is other homosexuals due to their practices.

Meanwhile, if anything, most others who call themselves Christians are too intimidated by the psychological tactics used by the homosexual activists (such as labeling all non-supporters injurious, irrational "homophobic" "haters") to express disapproval of homosexuality, while homosexual activists are even angry at them for not manifestly supporting their agenda.

Secondly, the Time editorialist asks that we remember that the Orlando massacre was not simply gun violence, but was fueled by homophobic hatred, like as anti-Christian animus should be stated as the cause of Christians are being murdered by ISIS. However, we may point out that the author refuses to say that both are fueled by Islamic hatred which resorts to violence. In contrast to which, Christians are to wage war after the Spirit, by prayer, preaching and outreach.

Moreover, if simply opposing a group is that of irrational, iniquitous hatred then homosexuals themselves are guilty of such, as their apparent loathing and hatred of those who oppose their consistent demands for acceptance and affirmation is abundantly manifest. And which includes their wanton unwarranted and provocative use of the term "homophobic." If homosexual activists really believed that all who oppose their agenda or even fail to support it are driven by some irrational fear of them, or that they may be homosexual themselves, then it is they who are possessed by an irrational delusion.

Yet here it should be asked what reaction should be expected if another consensual practice, perhaps taking part in the Lord's Supper, resulted in a greatly increased incidence of infectious diseases and premature death — even well over 600,000 Americans alone — primarily due to male with male sexual relations?

Of course, homosexual relations are wrong even apart from the deleterious physical effects, and its consequences, as with all sin, extended beyond this life and into eternity Thus the Christian response should be, "how can I love by neighbor as myself if I do not warn them of, and help deliver them from, impenitently practicing that which will likely send them to an early grave and certainly an eternal Hell?

However, the author lastly says that we are not to express disagreement with same-sex marriage as part of our condemnation of murdered LGBT persons, but that instead we are only to say God loves lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people unconditionally and be committed to making the church the sanctuary it always should have been for them.

Thus once again the homosexual author insists upon only affirmation of homosexuals, with "an openness to learn and grow," while decrying the intolerance of others.

The overall message behind this demonic seduction is that Christians are the ones who are guilty of causing LGBT people to suffer due to their opposition to the homosexual agenda, or even by failing to provide long term support of it, and thus in restitution they must cease from the former and engage in the latter. Failure to do so means one can be condemned with the "homophobic hater" who took it upon himself to slay 50 homosexuals. Which event we can expect will be officially made an annual day of observance.

What then should the Christian Response be in the Wake of Orlando? That of condemning the lawless murder of people by a fundamental Islamist, yet emphasizing that we seek the deliverance of all souls, and who are all called to repentance and faith in the risen Lord Jesus Christ to save them by His sinless shed blood. Including LGBT people, as homosexual relations are wrong, and are also actually the cause of the most premature deaths to homosexuals overall.

A final word is that any reproof often is met with the assertion that love and forgiveness and "love thy enemy" is contrary to opposing those who impenitently practice sin, and even promote it. And note that the reason the issue of homosexuality attracts so much attention by evangelical types is because it is heavily promoted. If heroin use was also promoted likewise as healthy and normative and on the same scope then it would also attract holy lightening.

And Scripture states:

He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him: But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them. (Proverbs 24:24-25)

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Ephesians 5:11)

And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee. (Acts 24:25)

Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. (Acts 7:53-54)

What is censured is impenitent, self-righteous hypocritical judging and censorious spirit:

And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? (Romans 2:3)

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?...Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1,2,5)

Those who invoke Mt. 7:1 to disallow the censure of others are actually being hypocritical, as they are engaging in the very thing they condemn.

I myself would be wrong if i were intent of finding fault with others, and was looking down at others as if i "arrived," as i certainly know i sin in heart and in deed, though i do not want to and am repentant, and I oppose condemning those who are repentant. But that does not mean i cannot condemn something as wrong, as long as I would condemn it if i myself were impenitently engaging in such, and esp. promoting it.

And it is one thing to strive and struggle to live according to God's standards, and another thing to misconstrue the word of God to accommodate your own standards.

Moreover, Scripture also teaches that some sins are worse than others, as can be the degree of guilt of the transgressor.

Therefore not all sins are capital offenses. A thief must make restitution for his theft, and a consensual fornication btwn a unmarried male and female couple required marriage, while a murderer or adulterer must pay with his life,

Another example:

And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; (Genesis 18:20)

The "very great" dominant sin here was not something like failing to build a fence around their flat roofs, (cf. Dt. 22:8) but was manifestly that of the "vile" thing that the men in the parallel account of Judges 19 sought to engage in, that of sexually knowing the strangers, in addition to the accompanying "pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness," and neglect of the needy. (Ezekiel 16:49)

Likewise it is not mere childish strifes that the Lord strongly condemned in His critiques of the churches, (Rv. 2,3) but things such as fornication and idolatry.

Moreover, there are sins of the flesh that a person of otherwise relative good character can struggle with, while the worse sins are those that flow from a evil character in heart:

A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. (Proverbs 6:17-19)

In addition to the above, the degree of guilt is determined relative to the light and grace one has. The son of a good preacher who engages in premeditated murder is more accountable than one who is raised in a gang.

But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. (Luke 12:48)

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Matthew 10:14-15)

Thus the most accountable souls are actually Christians who terminally fall away"

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:26-29)

Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. (Hebrews 10:38-39)

More reproof of prohomosexual polemics can be seen here , by the grace of God.

Friday, May 27, 2016

Just came across this, and the assertion that "based on the overwhelming evidence from Scripture...we can be assured that the Saints in heaven can hear our prayers and are praying for us" is absurd, while it offers no support for praying to created beings in Heaven.

[] "Jesus is telling us that those in heaven are alive" simply does not translate into believers (there is no Scriptural distinction btwn believers and "saints") having the power and privilege of constantly hearing prayers from earth, mental or oral, which only God is shown to possess, to His glory.

[]"Jesus talks to Moses and Elijah, who are very aware of what has been happening on earth," but as with all other instances of tow-way communication btwn beings from Heaven (except God) and earth, this required created beings to be in the same realm, versus them constantly hearing prayers from Heaven, as only God is shown able to do.

Moreover, the only evidence of them knowing what was happening on earth was that they "spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem," (Luke 9:31) which was prophesied, and thus does not even require them to know what was occurring on earth, except that this was the mission of Christ.

Regardless, it remains that believers in Heaven knowing what is occurring on earth, or even them praying for the elect, or even hearing prayer, does not translate into evidence of anyone praying to them or support for this.

[] "The Book of Hebrews echoes this when it teaches that those who have gone before us into heaven still witness what happens on earth."

No, contextually the "great cloud of witnesses" does not speak of being watched by believers in Heaven, but is rhetorically speaking about being in the memorial company of those whose testimonies of faith preceded them. These souls are memorials to faith, akin to the stones that were in the midst of the river of Jordan being a memorial unto the children of Israel for ever. (Joshua 4:7)

[] "What I believe is the most amazing evidence from the Bible of the Saints in heaven hearing our prayers is from the book of Revelation".

That you find this amazing is a problem, since neither Revelations 5:8 or 8:3-5 teaches that the entities hear prayers, but only that they offer them up as a memorial before the finals judgments, like as in Lv. 2:2,15,16; 24:7; Num. 5:15, "an offering of memorial," versus regularly hearing such and being a delivery service.

[] "Those in heaven could not rejoice over a sinner repenting on earth unless they knew about it."

This does testify to angels knowing of conversions, which could simply be by knowing another souls was added to the Lamb's book of life, yet in any case this simply fails to support praying to created beings, nor that they actually constantly hear prayers to them.

Rather than an overwhelming evidence from Scripture supporting prayer to created beings in glory, there are appox. 200 prayers to Heaven in Scripture, and absolutely none of them are to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord God - except by pagans. And if such was talking then the utter absence of even one example of such is even more inexplicable in the light of prayer being a most basic practice. Instead it is simply a tradition of men, for which Catholics abuse Scripture in trying to extrapolate some support.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Refutation of Dave Armstrong: Prayer to Saints: “New” [?] Biblical Argument

Once again we have a RC apologist who deletes what refutes him and does not even mention it. By the grace of God I spent some time refuting yet another attempt to provide support from Scripture for what is purely a tradition of men, but which Rome holds to be from God.

Moreover, the validity of such teaching is based upon the novel premise of the presumed ensured veracity of the Roman church, which is  yet another tradition of men. However,   seeing as RCs attempt (often in condescension to evangelicals) to provide some sort of Scriptural support for such traditions, thus we need to examine her claims in the light of Scripture. In this case  it is that of alleged support for a most basic Catholic practice which is utterly absent in Scripture, either in example or exhortation, that of  praying to created beings in Heaven.

The following, with a couple or so grammatical corrections,  was posted on May 25, 2016 on Armstrong's blog entry (, and which I found silently deleted the next day.

I absolutely love discovering things like this. 

Which is not a new polemic but a refuted desperate attempt to finally find some Scriptural support for praying to created beings in Heaven which is as specious as all others.

This is the same sort of argument as the rich man’s prayer to Abraham in Luke 16 

Which is btwn beings in the same realm, as is always the case with such, not hearing mental prayers in Heaven addressed to them from those on earth, an ability only God is said and shown as possessing, as a Divine power and privilege.

Nor will angels and elders offering up prayers as a memorial to God before the final judgments provide testimony to prayer to created beings in Heaven, which is utterly absent in Scripture, even though prayer is a basic practice, and the Spirit records approx. 200 prayers to Heaven in Scripture. Which are all directly to God, except by pagans.

Matthew 27:46-50.The “bystanders” are presented as allies of Jesus, since one of them gave Him a drink, in the next verse (Matthew 27:48). 

Which conclusion is hardly warranted, as the bystanders are not said to be friend or foe, but are in the context of those who mocked the Lord, saying "Save thyself, and come down from the cross." (Mark 15:30)

Moreover, what one who offered the Lord to drink was vinegar (and which was also what the cruel soldiers offered Him, and which He would not drink after tasting it: Mt. 27:34; Lk. 23:36) and who also (likely in mocking) was one of those who called for Christ to come down off the cross. (Mk. 15;36)

The next verse (27:49) again shows that this was common belief at the time 

No, that simply does show that praying to Elijah was a common practice, or even one at all, and for which you have no evidence at all in Scripture, and here this is most likely part of the mocking of Christ which the context shows was going on, in contrast to the centurion, or they were superstitious.

It shows (in the most plausible interpretation, though not absolutely so) that the Jews of that time accepted such petitions as altogether proper and permissible. 

Which insults the Spirit of God, who nowhere records the Jews praying to anyone else in Heaven but God, leaving Caths to try to extrapolate it of mere personal exchanges while being in the same realm, not invisible angels or saints hearing multitudinous mental or oral prayers from earth in Heaven. As God alone does.

it’s not presented as if they are wrong, and in light of other related Scriptures it is more likely that they are correct in thinking that this was a permitted scenario. 

Actually, it is far from being presented as if they were right, which is what you need, and for which there is no precedent in Scripture. No "other related Scriptures" show any believers at all ever praying to someone in Heaven besides God, mentally or out loud, which is what you propose Jews held as a common belief at the time.

Elijah and Moses appeared with Jesus 

Which again required the respective parties from both realms to be in the same realm, communicating face to face.

It’s not required. Once or a few times in Scripture is enough, just as the virgin birth and original sin are based on just a few passages. 

Wrong, as you simply have zero examples of any believers ever praying to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or any teaching that they are to be addressed in prayer to Heaven ("our Mother, who art in Heaven") .

And which conspicuous absence is all the more inexplicable in light of prayer being a most basic common practice. Catholics basically infer the Spirit did not see even one mention of this as warranted, and so Catholicism must supply what He would not.

Scripture does have quite a bit about praying to angels 

Wrong: Scripture says absolutely nothing about those on earth praying to angels in Heaven, and with the Divine ability to hear all such supplications addressed to them, and instead your examples show both parties being in the same realm and engaging in personal, visible communications.

Since the dead saints are said to judge the angels (1 Cor 6:3) and be higher than they are in a sense, then a deductive argument can be made for praying to saints 

But since no one on earth ever prayed to angels in Heaven, nor are they shown as able to hear all prayer from Heaven, you are left with no argument, and having to explain why the Holy Spirit would utterly leave out this basic, purportedly helpful practice.

The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906 (“Elijah”) provides an extraordinary summary of Jewish beliefs regarding Elijah 

Which also fails to document praying to him, or to any created being, which was a later, post Biblical and unscriptural development.

The canon of Scripture is nowhere in the Bible at all, yet believed anyway based on tradition. 

Which is not analogous, as while we have zero testimony of any believer (versus pagans) praying to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, despite the abundance of examples of this basic practice, we do have clear testimony that common souls correctly discerned both men and writings of God as being so, and which thus leads to a canon.

Sola Scriptura (in its full epistemological / theological meaning) is never ever taught, 

Who knows how you would define this, but unlike prayer to created beings in Heaven, we abundantly see the written word of God becoming the supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing Truth claims, and as providing what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace, in its formal and material aspects combined. More grace was given under the New Cov, and more will be revealed at the resurrection, thanks be to God.

Finally, you may absolutely love to discover such egregious extrapolation for support for traditions of men as this, but it simply reveals the manner of desperation some   Caths will sink to, while in reality the basis for the veracity of Cath teaching does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural warrant anyway, but the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

Saturday, March 5, 2016

Rome against the Jews

  Rome against the Jews

We are often reminded by certain Catholics of Luther's latter-days exasperated rage against a recalcitrant Jewish population, and of his unholy counsel and of the tragic use of both against Jews. But which one-sided self-righteous indignation against Luther's antisemitism (which is more accurately anti-Judaism)  ignores that of Rome while  supposing Luther is like a pope to us (perhaps because they cannot conceive of convictions that rest upon Scriptural substantiation, vs. men), yet evangelicals are the strongest supporters of Israel (not necessarily due to eschatological beliefs), contrary to the fruit of Catholicism. 

Rome has also resisted, and been slow and weak in its support of the state of Israel, and American bishops especially seem to favor Muslims over their enemies.  
The light of history testifies that Luther said what Catholics have said, both of which provided Hitler with historical pretext for his wicked actions. While history also testifies to (or at least charges of) iniquity and recalcitrant hardness manifest in much of Jewish culture against the Christianity they saw, which rendered them hard to love and fostered invectives, this does not excuse all such, much less sanction the inexcusable actions against them. Even Moses was once penalized for speaking wrongly, even though he was provoked to do so by his people. (Ps. 106:33; Num. 20:10,11)
Yet the Lord sent the apostles with the good news (gospel) to the Jews first, and both Moses and Paul were willing to be damned if that could mean the salvation of their people (Ex. 32:32; Rm. 9:3) who overall rejected their Messiah and have suffered due to it,
(1Thes. 2:16) while God yet promises repentance and salvation by faith for all of a future remnant that remains. Glory to God. But the selflessness of Moses and Paul should be the Christian attitude for all, though I come too short in it. 
Any emphasis throughout the below has been added  by me. 
Canons of the 4th Lateran Council (convoked by Pope Innocent III with the papal bull of April 19, 1213)

Text. The more the Christians are restrained from the practice of usury, the more are they oppressed in this matter by the treachery of the Jews, so that in a short time they exhaust the resources of the Christians. Wishing, therefore, in this matter to protect the Christians against cruel oppression by the Jews, we ordain in this decree that if in the future under any pretext Jews extort from Christians oppressive and immoderate interest, the partnership of the Christians shall be denied them till they have made suitable satisfaction for their excesses...

Lastly, we decree that the Jews be compelled by the same punishment (avoidance of commercial intercourse) to make satisfaction for the tithes and offerings due to the churches, which the Christians were accustomed to supply from their houses and other possessions before these properties, under whatever title, fell into the hands of the Jews, that thus the churches may be safeguarded against loss. 

Summary. Jews and Saracens [a generic term for Muslims] of both sexes in every Christian province must be distinguished from the Christian by a difference of dress. On Passion Sunday and the last three days of Holy Week they may not appear in public.

Text: In some provinces a difference in dress distinguishes the Jews or Saracens from the Christians, but in certain others such a confusion has grown up that they cannot be distinguished by any difference. Thus it happens at times that through error Christians have relations with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews and Saracens with Christian women. Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress. Particularly, since it may be read in the writings of Moses [Numbers 15:37-41], that this very law has been enjoined upon them.

Moreover, during the last three days before Easter and especially on Good Friday, they shall not go forth in public at all, for the reason that some of them on these very days, as we hear, do not blush to go forth better dressed and are not afraid to mock the Christians who maintain the memory of the most holy Passion by wearing signs of mourning.

This, however, we forbid most severely, that any one should presume at all to break forth in insult to the Redeemer. And since we ought not to ignore any insult to Him who blotted out our disgraceful deeds, we command that such impudent fellows be checked by the secular princes by imposing them proper punishment so that they shall not at all presume to blaspheme Him who was crucified for us.
[Note by Schroeder: In 581 the Synod of Macon enacted in canon 14 that from Thursday in Holy Week until Easter Sunday, .Jews may not in accordance with a decision of King Childebert appear in the streets and in public places. Mansi, IX, 934; Hefele-Leclercq, 111, 204. In 1227 the Synod of Narbonne in canon 3 ruled: "That Jews may be distinguished from others, we decree and emphatically command that in the center of the breast (of their garments) they shall wear an oval badge, the measure of one finger in width and one half a palm in height. We forbid them moreover, to work publicly on Sundays and on festivals. And lest they scandalize Christians or be scandalized by Christians, we wish and ordain that during Holy Week they shall not leave their houses at all except in case of urgent necessity, and the prelates shall during that week especially have them guarded from vexation by the Christians." Mansi, XXIII, 22; Hefele-Leclercq V 1453. Many decrees similar to these in content were issued by synods before and after this Lateran Council. Hefele-Leclercq, V and VI; Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the XIlIth Century, Philadelphia, 1933.]
Summary. Jews who have received baptism are to be restrained by the prelates from returning to their former rite.

Text. Some (Jews), we understand, who voluntarily approached the waters of holy baptism, do not entirely cast off the old man that they may more perfectly put on the new one, because, retaining remnants of the former rite, they obscure by such a mixture the beauty of the Christian religion. But since it is written: "Accursed is the man that goeth on the two ways" (Ecclus. 2:14), and "a garment that is woven together of woolen and linen" (Deut. 22: ii) ought not to be put on, we decree that such persons be in every way restrained b the prelates from the observance of the former rite, that, having given themselves of their own free will to the Christian religion, salutary coercive action may preserve them in its observance, since not to know the way of the Lord is a lesser evil than to retrace one's steps after it is known.

(From H. J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: Text, Translation and Commentary, (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1937). pp. 236-296) —

Popes Against the Jews
In The Popes Against the Jews : The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, historian David Kertzer notes, 
the legislation enacted in the 1930s by the Nazis in their Nuremberg Laws and by the Italian Fascists with their racial laws—which stripped the Jews of their rights as citizens—was modeled on measures that the [Roman Catholic] Church itself had enforced for as long as it was in a position to do so” (9). 
In 1466, in festivities sponsored by Pope Paul II, Jews were made to race naked through the streets of the city. A particularly evocative later account describes them: “Races were run on each of the eight days of the Carnival by horses, asses and buffaloes, old men, lads, children, and Jews. Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them, and at the same time, more amusing for the spectators. They ran from the Arch of Domitian to the Church of St. Mark at the end of the Corso at full tilt, amid Rome’s taunting shrieks of encouragement and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily. Two centuries later, these practices, now deemed indecorous and unbefitting the dignity of the Holy City, were stopped by Clement IX. In their place the Pope assessed a heavy tax on the Jews to help pay the costs of the city’s Carnival celebrations. 
But various other Carnival rites continued. For many years the rabbis of the ghetto were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the streets to the jeers of the crow, pelted by a variety of missiles. Such rites were not peculiar to Rome. In Pisa in the eighteenth century, for example, it was customary each year, as part of Carnival, for students to chase after the fattest Jew in the city, capture him, weigh him, and then make him give them his weight in sugar-coated almonds. 
In 1779, Pius VI resurrected some of the Carnival rites that had been neglected in recent years. Most prominent among them was the feudal rite of homage, in which ghetto officials, made to wear special clothes, stood before an unruly mob in a crowded piazza, making an offering to Rome’s governors. 
It was this practice that occasioned the formal plea from the ghetto to Pope Gregory XVI in 1836. The Jews argued that such rites should be abandoned, and cited previous popes who had ordered them halted. They asked that, in his mercy, the Pope now do the same. On November 5, the Pope met with his secretary of state to discuss the plea. A note on the secretary of state’s copy of the petition, along with his signature, records the Pope’s decision: “It is not opportune to make any innovation.” The annual rites continued
When all is said and done, the [Roman Catholic] Church’s claim of lack of responsibility for the kind of anti-Semitism that made the Holocaust possible comes down to this: The Roman Catholic Church never called for, or sanctioned, the mass murder of the Jews. Yes, the Jews should be stripped of their rights as equal citizens. Yes, they should be kept from contact with the rest of society. But Christian Charity and Christian theology forbade good Christians to round them up and murder them.” See more in part 5 of a series (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 .

Pope Leo XII
As cardinal vicar of Rome, Della Genga [the new Pope Leo XII] had been outraged to discover that not all of the Holy City’s Jews had returned to their ghetto following the restoration of the papal regime. One of his major projects as cardinal vicar had been to oversee a modest enlargement of the ghetto, to undermine the Jews’ complaint that it was impossible for them all to fit in the densely packed space within the old ghetto walls. Now, as pope, he redoubled these efforts. In 1823, in one of his first pontifical acts [which the Church can officially dismiss as if it were nothing], Leo XII ordered the Jews back into the ghetto, “to overcome the evil consequences of the freedom that [they] have enjoyed…

In the first year of his papacy, he had the Holy Office investigate the extent to which the old restrictions on the Jews in the Papal States were still being enforced. The goal as an internal Inquisition report expressed it, was “to contain the wickedness of the obstinate Jews so that the danger of perversion of the Catholic faithful” could be avoided. The report expressed dismay that some Jews lived outside the ghettoes, some traveled from place to place without the special permits they were required to get from the local office of the bishop or the inquisitor, and some had opened stores and businesses beyond the ghetto’s walls...

The new Pope’s efforts to enforce these restrictions on the Jews relied on the bureaucracy of control provided by the Inquisition and by various other agencies of the Papal States. —

Note that according to the Catechism:
2032 "To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls." —

What follows falls under judgments on human affairs which is justified as being necessary for the salvation of souls. 
Cum nimis absurdum
Cum nimis absurdum was a papal bull issued by Pope Paul IV dated 14 July 1555 [after Luther]. It takes its name from its first words:[1] "Since it is absurd and utterly inconvenient that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal slavery..."

The bull revoked all the rights of the Jewish community and placed religious and economic restrictions on Jews in the Papal States, renewed anti-Jewish legislation and subjected Jews to various degradations and restrictions on their personal freedom.

The bull established the Roman Ghetto and required the Jews of Rome, which had existed as a community since before Christian times and numbered about 2,000 at the time, to live in it. The Ghetto was a walled quarter with three gates that were locked at night. Jews were also restricted to one synagogue per city. Under the bull, Jewish males were required to wear a pointed yellow hat, and Jewish females a yellow kerchief (see yellow badge). Jews were required to attend compulsory Catholic sermons on the Jewish shabbat.

The bull also subjected Jews to various other restrictions such as a prohibition on property ownership and practising medicine among Christians. Jews were allowed to practice only unskilled jobs, as rag men, secondhand dealers [2] or fish mongers. They could also be pawnbrokers.
Paul IV's successor, Pope Pius IV, enforced the creation of other ghettos in most Italian towns, and his successor, Pope Pius V, recommended them to other bordering states. The Papal States ceased to exist on 20 September 1870 when they were incorporated in the Kingdom of Italy, but the requirement that Jews live in the ghetto was only formally abolished by the Italian state in 1882. Though the Roman and other ghettos have now been abolished, the bull has never been revoked. —

Cum nimis absurdum text
Laws and ordinances to be followed by Jews living in the Holy See [decreed by the] Bishop [of Rome, the Pope] Paul, servant of the servants of God, for future recollection.
Since it is completely senseless and inappropriate to be in a situation where Christian piety allows the Jews (whose guilt—all of their own doing—has condemned them to eternal slavery) access to our society and even to live among us; indeed, they are without gratitude to Christians, as, instead of thanks for gracious treatment, they return invective, and among themselves, instead of the slavery, which they deserve, they manage to claim superiority: we, who recently learned that these very Jews have insolently invaded Rome from a number of the Papal States, territories and domains, to the extent that not only have they mingled with Christians (even when close to their churches) and wearing no identifying garments, but to dwell in homes, indeed, even in the more noble [dwellings] of the states, territories and domains in which they lingered, conducting business from their houses and in the streets and dealing in real estate; they even have nurses and housemaids and other Christians as hired servants. And they would dare to perpetrate a wide variety of other dishonorable things, contemptuous of the [very] name Christian... 
1. Desiring firstly, as much as we can with [the help of] God, to beneficially provide, by this [our decree] that will forever be in force, we ordain that for the rest of time, in the City as well as in other states, territories and domains of the Church of Rome itself, all Jews are to live in only one [quarter] to which there is only one entrance and from which there is but one exit, 
2. Furthermore, in each and every state, territory and domain in which they are living, they will have only one synagogue, in its customary location, and they will construct no other new ones, nor can they own buildings. Furthermore, all of their synagogues, besides the one allowed, are to be destroyed and demolished. And the properties, which they currently own, they must sell to Christians within a period of time to be determined by the magistrates themselves...

§ 3. Moreover, concerning the matter that Jews should be recognizable everywhere: [to this end] men must wear a hat, women, indeed, some other evident sign, yellow in color, that must not be concealed or covered by any means, and must be tightly affixed [sewn]; and furthermore, they can not be absolved or excused from the obligation to wear the hat or other emblem of this type to any extent whatever and under any pretext whatsoever of their rank or prominence or of their ability to tolerate [this] adversity...

7. And they may not presume in any way to play, eat or fraternize with Christians...

9. Moreover, these Jews are to be limited to the trade of rag-picking, or "cencinariae" (as it is said in the vernacular), and they cannot trade in grain, barley or any other commodity essential to human welfare.

10. And those among them who are physicians, even if summoned and inquired after, cannot attend or take part in the care of Christians.

11.And they are not to be addressed as superiors [even] by poor Christians...

14. And, should they, in any manner whatsoever, be deficient in the foregoing, it would be treated as a crime:..just as if they were rebels and criminals by the jurisdiction in which the offense takes place. —

In some parts of Spain towards the end of the 14th century, there was a wave of violent anti-Judaism, encouraged by the preaching of Ferrand Martinez, Archdeacon of Ecija. In the pogroms of June 1391 in Seville, hundreds of Jews were killed, and the synagogue was completely destroyed. The number of people killed was also high in other cities, such as Córdoba, Valencia and Barcelona.[32 
One of the consequences of these pogroms was the mass conversion of thousands of surviving Jews. Forced baptism was contrary to the law of the Catholic Church, and theoretically anybody who had been forcibly baptized could legally return to Judaism. However, this was very narrowly interpreted. Legal definitions of the time theoretically acknowledged that a forced baptism was not a valid sacrament, but confined this to cases where it was literally administered by physical force. A person who had consented to baptism under threat of death or serious injury was still regarded as a voluntary convert, and accordingly forbidden to revert to Judaism.[33] After the public violence, many of the converted "felt it safer to remain in their new religion."[34] Thus, after 1391, a new social group appeared and were referred to as conversos or New Christians. 
King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile established the Spanish Inquisition in 1478. In contrast to the previous inquisitions, it operated completely under royal Christian authority, though staffed by clergy and orders, and independently of the Holy See [but the prior Fourth Lateran Council did require Christians leaders to exterminate all the heretics its prelates convicted under his rule, or else Catholics were not bound to obey him]. It operated in Spain and in all Spanish colonies and territories, which included the Canary Islands, the Spanish Netherlands, the Kingdom of Naples, and all Spanish possessions in North, Central, and South America. It primarily targeted forced converts from Islam (Moriscos, Conversos and secret Moors) and from Judaism (Conversos, Crypto-Jews and Marranos) — both groups still resided in Spain after the end of the Islamic control of Spain — who came under suspicion of either continuing to adhere to their old religion or of having fallen back into it.
In 1492 all Jews who had not converted were expelled from Spain, and those who remained became subject to the Inquisition.—

The Inquisition
While many people associate the Inquisition with Spain and Portugal, it was actually instituted by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in Rome. A later pope, Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition, in 1233, to combat the heresy of the Abilgenses, a religious sect in France. 
In the beginning, the Inquisition dealt only with Christian heretics and did not interfere with the affairs of Jews. However, disputes about Maimonides’ books (which addressed the synthesis of Judaism and other cultures) provided a pretext for harassing Jews and, in 1242, the Inquisition condemned the Talmud and burned thousands of volumes. In 1288, the first mass burning of Jews on the stake took place in France. 
In 1481 the Inquisition started in Spain and ultimately surpassed the medieval Inquisition, in both scope and intensity. Conversos (Secret Jews) and New Christians were targeted because of their close relations to the Jewish community, many of whom were Jews in all but their name. Fear of Jewish influence led Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand to write a petition to the Pope asking permission to start an Inquisition in Spain. In 1483 Tomas de Torquemada became the inquisitor-general for most of Spain, he set tribunals in many cities. Also heading the Inquisition in Spain were two Dominican monks, Miguel de Morillo and Juan de San Martin. 
First, they arrested Conversos and notable figures in Seville; in Seville more than 700 Conversos were burned at the stake and 5,000 repented. Tribunals were also opened in Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia. An Inquisition Tribunal was set up in Ciudad Real, where 100 Conversos were condemned, and it was moved to Toledo in 1485. Between 1486-1492, 25 auto de fes were held in Toledo, 467 people were burned at the stake and others were imprisoned. The Inquisition finally made its way to Barcelona, where it was resisted at first because of the important place of Spanish Conversos in the economy and society. 
More than 13,000 Conversos were put on trial during the first 12 years of the Spanish Inquisition. Hoping to eliminate ties between the Jewish community and Conversos, the Jews of Spain were expelled in 1492... 
The next phase of the Inquisition began in Portugal in 1536: King Manuel I had initially asked Pope Leo X to begin an inquisition in 1515, but only after Leo's death in 1521 did Pope Paul III agree to Manuel's request. Thousands of Jews came to Portugal after the 1492 expulsion. A Spanish style Inquisition was constituted and tribunals were set up in Lisbon and other cities. Among the Jews who died at the hands of the Inquisition were well-known figures of the period such as Isaac de Castro Tartas, Antonio Serrao de Castro and Antonio Jose da Silva. The Inquisition never stopped in Spain and continued until the late 18th century. 
By the second half of the 18th century, the Inquisition abated, due to the spread of enlightened ideas and lack of resources. The last auto de fe in Portugal took place on October 27, 1765. Not until 1808, during the brief reign of Joseph Bonaparte, was the Inquisition abolished in Spain. An estimated 31,912 heretics were burned at the stake, 17,659 were burned in effigy and 291,450 made reconciliations in the Spanish Inquisition. In Portugal, about 40,000 cases were tried, although only 1,800 were burned, the rest made penance [or else]. 
The Inquisition was not limited to Europe; it also spread to Spanish and Portugese colonies in the New World and Asia. Many Jews and Conversos fled from Portugal and Spain to the New World seeking greater security and economic opportunities. Branches of the Portugese Inquisition were set up in Goa and Brazil. Spanish tribunals and auto de fes were set up in Mexico, the Philippine Islands, Guatemala, Peru, New Granada and the Canary Islands. By the late 18th century, most of these were dissolved. — 
Goa Inquisition
The Goa Inquisition was the office of the Portuguese Inquisition acting in Portuguese India, and in the rest of the Portuguese Empire in Asia. It was established in 1560, briefly suppressed from 1774–1778, and finally abolished in 1812.[1] Based on the records that survive, H. P. Salomon and I. S. D. Sassoon state that between the Inquisition's beginning in 1561 and its temporary abolition in 1774, some 16,202 persons were brought to trial by the Inquisition. Of this number, it is known that 57 were sentenced to death and executed; another 64 were burned in effigy. Others were subjected to lesser punishments or penance, but the fate of many of those tried by the Inquisition is unknown.[2] 
The Inquisition was established to punish apostate New Christians—Jews and Muslims who converted to Catholicism, as well as their descendants—who were now suspected of practising their ancestral religion in secret.[2] —

Portuguese Inquisition
...was formally established in Portugal in 1536 at the request of the King of Portugal, João III. Manuel I had asked for the installation of the Inquisition in 1515 to fulfill the commitment of marriage with Maria of Aragon, but it was only after his death that Pope Paul III acquiesced. In the period after the Medieval Inquisition, it was one of three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Spanish Inquisition and Roman Inquisition. 
The major target of the Portuguese Inquisition were those who had converted from Judaism to Catholicism, the Conversos, also known as New Christians or Marranos, who were suspected of secretly practising Judaism. Many of these were originally Spanish Jews, who had left Spain for Portugal. The number of victims is estimated around 40000.[1] 
Spanish Inquisition
On November 1, 1478, Pope Sixtus IV published the Papal bull, Exigit Sinceras Devotionis Affectus, through which he gave the monarchs exclusive authority to name the inquisitors in their kingdoms...In 1482 the pope was still trying to maintain control over the Inquisition and to gain acceptance for his own attitude towards the New Christians, which was generally more moderate than that of the Inquisition and the local rulers.
In 1483, Jews were expelled from all of Andalusia. Though the pope wanted to crack down on abuses, Ferdinand pressured him to promulgate a new bull, threatening that he would otherwise separate the Inquisition from Church authority.[21][22] Sixtus did so on October 17, 1483, naming Tomás de Torquemada Inquisidor General of Aragón, Valencia and Catalonia. ...

Henry Kamen estimates that, of a population of approximately 80,000 Jews, about one half or 40,000 chose emigration.[27] —

Tomás de Torquemada
The Pope went on to appoint a number of inquisitors for the Spanish Kingdoms in early 1482, including Torquemada. A year later he was named Grand Inquisitor of Spain, which he remained until his death in 1498. In the fifteen years under his direction, the Spanish Inquisition grew from the single tribunal at Seville to a network of two dozen 'Holy Offices'.[12] As Grand Inquisitor, Torquemada reorganized the Spanish Inquisition (originally based in Castile in 1478), establishing tribunals in Sevilla, Jaén, Córdoba, Ciudad Real and (later) Saragossa. His quest was to rid Spain of all heresy. The Spanish chronicler Sebastián de Olmedo called him "the hammer of heretics, the light of Spain, the savior of his country, the honor of his order". 
Under the edict of March 31, 1492, known as the Alhambra Decree, approximately 200,000 Jews left Spain. Following the Alhambra decree of 1492, approximately 50,000 Jews took baptism so as to remain in Spain; however, many of these—known as "Marranos" from Corinthians II, a contraction of anathema—were "crypto-jews" and secretly kept some of their Jewish traditions. —

Related: A Catholic Timeline of Events Relating to Jews, Anti-Judaism, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust From the 3rd Century to the Beginning of the Third Millennium. (
• In addition is The Vatican did not even formally recognize Israel until 1993. A bit late. 
Papal–Israel relations
Until 1948 the Pope was motivated by the traditional Vatican opposition to Zionism. Vatican opposition to a Jewish homeland stemmed largely from theological doctrines regarding Judaism.[40] In 1904, the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl obtained an audience with Pope Pius X in the hope of persuading the pontiff to support the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The pope's response was: "Non possumus"--"We cannot." In 1917, Pius X's successor, Pope Benedict XV, equally refused to support any concept for a Jewish state. Minerbi writes that when a League of Nations mandate were being proposed for Palestine, the Vatican was disturbed by the prospect of a (Protestant) British mandate over the Holy Land, but a Jewish state was anathema to it.[27][41] 
On 22 June 1943, Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, the Apostolic Delegate to Washington D.C. wrote to US President Franklin Roosevelt, asking him to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. ... 
If the greater part of Palestine is given to the Jewish people, this would be a severe blow to the religious attachment of Catholics to this land. To have the Jewish people in the majority would be to interfere with the peaceful exercise of these rights in the Holy Land already vested in Catholics.

It is true that at one time Palestine was inhabited by the Hebrew Race, but there is no axiom in history to substantiate the necessity of a people returning to a country they left nineteen centuries before.[42] 
The Vatican view of the Near East was dominated by a Cold War perception that Arab Muslims are conservative but religious, whereas Israeli Zionists are modernist but atheists. The Vatican's then Foreign Minister, Domenico Tardini (without being even a bishop, but a close collaborator of Pius XII) said to the French ambassador in November 1957, according to an Israeli diplomatic dispatch from Rome to Jerusalem:
"I have always been of the opinion that there never was an overriding reason for this state to be established. It was the fault of the western states. Its existence is an inherent risk factor for war in the Middle East. Now, Israel exists, and there is certainly no way to destroy it, but every day we pay the price of this error."[45]
by initially siding with Palestinian claims for compensations on political, social and financial levels, the Vatican shaped its Middle Eastern policy since 1948 upon two pillars. One was based on political and theological reservations against Zionism,... the Holy See has also maintained reservations of its own. The more established the Zionist Yishuv became in Mandatory Palestine, the more political reservations the Vatican added to its initial theological inhibitions.[51]
On 26 May 1955, when the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra performed Beethoven's Seventh Symphony at the Vatican as an act of respect for Pius XII, the Vatican still refrained from mentioning the name of the State, preferring instead to describe the orchestra as a collection of "Jewish musicians of fourteen different nationalities."[53]
Paul VI was Pope from 21 June 1963 to 6 August 1978. He strongly defended inter-religious dialogue in the spirit of Nostra Aetate. He was also the first Pope to mention the Palestinian people by name...On 15 January 1973, the Pope met Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir at the Vatican, which was the first meeting between a Pope and an Israeli Prime Minister. At the meeting, the Pope brought up the issues of peace in the Middle East, refugees and the status of the holy places, but no agreement was reached.[58] According to Meir's own account of the meeting, the Pope criticized the Israeli government for its treatment of the Palestinians, and she said in reply: Your Holiness, do you know what my earliest memory is? A pogrom in Kiev. When we were merciful and when we had no homeland and when we were weak, we were led to the gas chambers.[59]
Relations since 1993[edit]
The opening towards the State of Israel by the Vatican was partially a result of Israel's effective control over the entire Holy City since 1967. This forced the Vatican to introduce a pragmatic dimension to its well-known declaratory policy of political denial. Hence, since 1967, Vatican diplomacy vis-à-vis Israel began to waver between two parameters:
  • A policy of strict and consequent non-recognition of Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem, far beyond the usual interpretation of international law, as the Holy See still embraces its own ideas regarding the special status of Jerusalem.
  • A pragmatic policy, through which Catholic interests can best be served by having a working relationship with the party who exercises effective authority and control in Jerusalem.
The establishment of full diplomatic relations in 1993–94, on the other hand, was a belated political consequence of the theological change towards Judaism as reflected in Nostra Aetate. It was also a result of the new political reality, which began with the Madrid COnference and later continued with the Oslo peace process, after which the Vatican could not continue to ignore a State that even the Palestinians had initiated formal relations with.
Pope Benedict XVI has declared that he wishes to maintain a positive Christian-Jewish and Vatican-Israel relationship. Indeed, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state, Benedict stated: "The Holy See joins you in giving thanks to the Lord that the aspirations of the Jewish people for a home in the land of their fathers have been fulfilled,"[72] which may be seen as a theological justification of the return of the Jewish People to Israel – indeed, an acceptance that has placed all previous Catholic denials of Zionism in the shade. On the other hand, he has also stressed the political neutrality of the Holy See in internal Mideast conflicts. Like John Paul II, he was disappointed by the non-resolution of the 1993 Fundamental Accord; and like his predecessor, he also expressed support for a Palestinian state alongside Israel. -
Evangelical support for Jews.
In contrast, 46% of white evangelical (blacks only make up 6% of evangelicals) Protestants, versus 33% of Prots and only 21% of Catholics say that the U.S. is not providing enough support for Israel. (2014) —
As for the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, asked whether they sympathize with either side, 72% of white evangelicals sided with Israel, versus 56% of Prots and 46% of Caths overall. —
Of course, this is consistent with the stats which shows 82% of white evangelical Protestants say that Israel was given to the Jewish people by God, versus 64% of Prots and just 34% of white Catholics, while 45% of Catholics outright deny that it was (others do not know). —
Egregious ecumenism
In addition, Rome being "friendlier"to Israel means not simply affirming Jews and the right to live in peace but also means affirming that Muslims worship the same God as Jews and Christians, that together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964)
Which is blasphemous. For with Allah, we are not dealing with an utterly ambiguous "unknown god" as in Acts 17, which had no express revelation and could said to be the true God they were looking for. But Allah is much a distinct God, and in the name of this false deity are the contradictory and skewed Biblical stories of the Qur'an, besides adding its own, and which denies the very essence of the gospel, that of the Divine Son of God procuring salvation with His own sinless shed blood! Yet again and again popes comfort Muslims by assuring them they have the true God, while any gospel is largely replaced by platitudes for peace.
Rome says Muslims the worship the same God as Catholics, "the one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth," and "strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan." -Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate 3, October 28, 1965
We feel sure that as representatives of Islam, you join in our prayers to the Almighty, that he may grant all African believers the desire for pardon and reconciliation so often commended in the Gospels and in the Qur’an... We gladly recall also those confessors of the Muslim faith who were the first to suffer death, in the year 1848, for refusing to transgress the precepts of their religion.” — Paul VI, address to the Islamic communities of Uganda, August 1, 1969.
I deliberately address you as brothers: that is certainly what we are, because we are members of the same human family, whose efforts, whether people realize it or not, tend toward God and the truth that comes from him. But we are especially brothers in God, who created us and whom we are trying to reach, in our own ways, through faith, prayer and worship, through the keeping of his law and through submission to his designs...
Dear Muslims, my brothers: I would like to add that we Christians, just like you, seek the basis and model of mercy in God himself, the God to whom your Book gives the very beautiful name of al-Rahman, while the Bible calls him al-Rahum, the Merciful One.” - John Paul II, address to representatives of Muslims of the Philippines, February 20, 1981
As Christians and Muslims, we encounter one another in faith in the one God, our Creator and guide, our just and merciful judge. - John Paul II, address to representatives of the Muslims of Belgium, May 19, 1985
We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection...Both of us believe in one God, the only God, - John Paul II , address to the young Muslims of Morocco, August 19, 1985
Christians and Muslims, together with the followers of the Jewish religion, belong to what can be called ‘the tradition of Abraham.’..Our Creator and our final judge desires that we live together. Our God is a God of peace, who desires peace among those who live according to His commandments. Our God is the holy God who desires that those who call upon Him live in ways that are holy and upright. -John Paul II, address to Islamic leaders of Senegal, Dakar, February 22, 1992 -