Pope Francis, Catholics, and Christians in the news worldwide
ridski said:
Are you trying to convert joanne?
She'd have to convert herself first.
mtierney said:
Joanne understands, more than most posters, that the Judeo-Christian connection is profound.
Very profound.
mtierney said:
Joanne understands, more than most posters, that the Judeo-Christian connection is profound.
Thanks for sharing your very uninformed opinion of "other posters" on MOL.
mtierney said:
Joanne understands, more than most posters, that the Judeo-Christian connection is profound.
If the J-C connection was so profound, how come the term didn't really exist until the mid 20th century?
It's a made up term - practically meaningless. Other than sharing different parts of the same book, I can't think of two religions that are more different. The parts that they share are basically shared by every major religion. i.e. be nice, and honest, and don't kill people.
I mean, Judaism is based on skepticism, and Christianity is based on dogmatism. It's like they're mirror images of each other. (mirror images are reversed) Plus there's the whole Jesus thing.
drummerboy said:
If the J-C connection was so profound, how come the term didn't really exist until the mid 20th century?
It's a made up term - practically meaningless. Other than sharing different parts of the same book, I can't think of two religions that are more different. The parts that they share are basically shared by every major religion. i.e. be nice, and honest, and don't kill people.
I mean, Judaism is based on skepticism, and Christianity is based on dogmatism. It's like they're mirror images of each other. (mirror images are reversed) Plus there's the whole Jesus thing.
I wouldn't say it's meaningless, as there's quite a lot of historical and theological continuity there. But there is also a lot of important discontinuities, as well as a lot of conflict, that the term glosses over. I'd put it this way -- "Judeo-Christian" as a term is as defensible as "Christo-Islamic". The fact that the latter term doesn't really exist, despite being as defensible as the former, suggests this is really more about American politics than anything else. And American politics doesn't seem to have much to do with Christianity beyond an identity label -- especially in these days of latter day Trumpism. Those folks read their Bibles about as poorly as they do the constitution.
Back in the day, circa 1970s, Maplewood and South Orange clergy, local and county governing bodies, etc. held a yearly event to honor Holocaust victims, rotating the location site among churches and synagogues. There were honored guests, with numbered arms, who told their stories. I recall these events were SRO.
The Institute of Judaea-Christian Studies at Seton Hall University was established under the leadership of Sr. Rose Thering (an amazing woman whom I knew, who made dozens of trips back and forth to the Holy Land for her work at the Institute — along with trips to Washington); and, Msgr. John Oesterreicher, a resistance operative who escaped death by fleeing. His book, “God at Auschwitz” is worth reading.
Msgr. Oesterreicher sometimes assisted at Our Lady of Sorrows on rotating Sundays. His sermons always held everyone’s attention.
Wonder what those folks from back in the day would make of Charlottesville and Jan. 6.
mtierney said:
Back in the day, circa 1970s, Maplewood and South Orange clergy, local and county governing bodies, etc. held a yearly event to honor Holocaust victims, rotating the location site among churches and synagogues. There were honored guests, with numbered arms, who told their stories. I recall these events were SRO.
They are continuing. This year's was "virtual" due to circumstances. It can be viewed here.
When the term "Judeo-Christian" is used in politics, it's the successor to "Christian" being used to describe the U.S. as a "Christian" nation, or having "Christian" values. They added "Judeo" so as not to seem like Nazis.
If they really meant to refer to traditions with a common root, they would say "Abrahamic", to include Islam.
drummerboy said:
It's a made up term - practically meaningless. Other than sharing different parts of the same book, I can't think of two religions that are more different. The parts that they share are basically shared by every major religion. i.e. be nice, and honest, and don't kill people.
The parts they share are the actual scriptures that are held in common. Also, Christianity acknowledges its history.
drummerboy said:
I mean, Judaism is based on skepticism, and Christianity is based on dogmatism. It's like they're mirror images of each other. (mirror images are reversed) Plus there's the whole Jesus thing.
I think that's a too simplified attempt at a distinction. It may be a comparison between a certain type of Christian fundamentalism and a certain type of Judaism (Reform or to some extent Conservative).
PVW said:
"Christo-Islamic"
LOL! I am going to use this term at every opportunity from now on.
Even back in the worst of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the worst of the Pogroms the Churches admitted the shared documented heritage between Judaism and Christianity. There were brilliant showpiece debates on various teachings, translations, traditions, ethics and canon laws.
The staging of all these, and the twinned learning-from while also subtly mocking the vastly learned Jewish rabbis and scholars who were forced to participate, still affect Christian/Jewish relations. People who know their family histories still tell accounts of those times; some, like Marek Halter, have written books.
I’m not saying the modern interfaith gatherings and Shoah commemorations are anything but genuine. Just that history is full of awful precedents.
joanne said:
Even back in the worst of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the worst of the Pogroms the Churches admitted the shared documented heritage between Judaism and Christianity. There were brilliant showpiece debates on various teachings, translations, traditions, ethics and canon laws.
The staging of all these, and the twinned learning-from while also subtly mocking the vastly learned Jewish rabbis and scholars who were forced to participate, still affect Christian/Jewish relations. People who know their family histories still tell accounts of those times; some, like Marek Halter, have written books.I’m not saying the modern interfaith gatherings and Shoah commemorations are anything but genuine. Just that history is full of awful precedents.
Joanne, without trust — but, certainly with distrust — there can be no going forward, since faith in mankind requires faith in a higher power.
Your use of the word “subtly” in the text I underlined is telling, as is the opinion expressed with the choice of your descriptive word “mocking”.
Those who either won't or can't learn from history are doomed to look like idiots.
mtierney said:
Joanne, without trust — but, certainly with distrust — there can be no going forward, since faith in mankind requires faith in a higher power.
Your use of the word “subtly” in the text I underlined is telling, as is the opinion expressed with the choice of your descriptive word “mocking”.
mtierney said:where logic goes to dieJoanne, without trust — but, certainly with distrust — there can be no going forward, since faith in mankind requires faith in a higher power.
mtierney said:
joanne said:
Even back in the worst of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the worst of the Pogroms the Churches admitted the shared documented heritage between Judaism and Christianity. There were brilliant showpiece debates on various teachings, translations, traditions, ethics and canon laws.
The staging of all these, and the twinned learning-from while also subtly mocking the vastly learned Jewish rabbis and scholars who were forced to participate, still affect Christian/Jewish relations. People who know their family histories still tell accounts of those times; some, like Marek Halter, have written books.I’m not saying the modern interfaith gatherings and Shoah commemorations are anything but genuine. Just that history is full of awful precedents.
Joanne, without trust — but, certainly with distrust — there can be no going forward, since faith in mankind requires faith in a higher power.
Your use of the word “subtly” in the text I underlined is telling, as is the opinion expressed with the choice of your descriptive word “mocking”.
Hi mtierney, sorry I couldn’t reply sooner.
I’m not sure if you’ve read the historical accounts of Baruch Spinoza’s life, let alone the many ‘trials’ of various Books of the ‘Old Testament’ and Hebrew sages … my university degree is founded on a study of pre-Reformation, Reformation and Renaissance eras documents of such events. (It’s fun reading Goethe in his own writing, as he’s shaping what will become modern German, as he’s railing at demons and ignorant clergy) One of my ancestors was a rabbi caught in one of those papal show trials in the 1600s, supposedly to ‘save’ the lives of his yeshivah students; instead they were horribly tortured to ‘save their souls’ which included losing eyes, hands and tongues… Yep, definitely something on which to build interfaith trust.
As a child, my father was caught in a pogrom, being hunted by Doberman-type dogs; he had an uncontrollable fear of all dogs for the rest of his life.
Again, I’ll suggest we all would do well to listen to First Nations peoples’ experiences: there are strong traditions of handing down family history, imprinting historical experiences for new generations. In recent years this has come to known as ‘living history’ and ‘living museum records’.
joanne said:
Even back in the worst of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the worst of the Pogroms the Churches admitted the shared documented heritage between Judaism and Christianity. There were brilliant showpiece debates on various teachings, translations, traditions, ethics and canon laws.
The staging of all these, and the twinned learning-from while also subtly mocking the vastly learned Jewish rabbis and scholars who were forced to participate, still affect Christian/Jewish relations. People who know their family histories still tell accounts of those times; some, like Marek Halter, have written books.I’m not saying the modern interfaith gatherings and Shoah commemorations are anything but genuine. Just that history is full of awful precedents.
This relates to the problem with the term "Judeo-Christian" in American culture. During the middle ages and early modern period you reference here where Christianity was the dominant culture in European societies, non-Christian members of society were inevitably placed in an inferior position, even when accorded any respect or privilege. At best, it was "subtle mocking" as you note, and at worse it was very bad indeed -- heavy restrictions on where one could live and work, subtle and blunt discrimination, and often terrible violence.
To try and make the claim that America is a "Judeo-Christian" nation, then, similarly poses a lot of danger to anyone not lucky enough to be part of that category (and tbh, the "judeo" part there is, historically, only provisional and at the sufferance of the "Christian" half).
America is not a Christian nation. It's a nation full of many, many peoples with a truly staggering diversity of traditions, beliefs, and nonbeliefs. To claim that the character of the country is in some essential way "Christian" is to narrow the scope of America, with subtle and blunt discrimination, and often terrible violence.
A country is just a collective story we tell ourselves, and we are all a part of that telling. It's true that, historically, many of us have insisted on the kind of exclusionary story the centers "Christianity" (and, what's more, a Christianity very narrowly defined that excluded many Christians). But that's not the only story that's been told. As long as we've been America there's also been a counter-narrative attempting to tell a broader story, one where America is large and welcoming rather than haughty, fearful, and small.
Every day we choose who and what is America. What story are we telling?
Thinking of “story-telling”, I thought Msgr. Oesterreicher deserves more commentary for those who did not know of him…
mtierney said:
Thinking of “story-telling”, I thought Msgr. Oesterreicher deserves more commentary for those who did not know of him…
If Österreicher deserves our thoughts then surely Mario von Galli and Franz Mandl are equally deserving of our contemplation.
Klinker said:
If Österreicher deserves our thoughts then surely Mario von Galli and Franz Mandl are equally deserving of our contemplation.
Why? Did they move to NJ also?
nohero said:
Klinker said:
If Österreicher deserves our thoughts then surely Mario von Galli and Franz Mandl are equally deserving of our contemplation.
Why? Did they move to NJ also?
Sorry, I was just expressing my fatigue resulting from mtierney's inexhaustible efforts to portray the European Catholic response to the Holocaust as something other than ambiguous. I have been epochtimesrolled too many times to generally click on her links but, perhaps in this case, I should have.
I'm not Christian, I'm Jewish. I do feel that I have to stick up for Msgr Oesterreicher though. He was anti-Nazi and escaped Austria to go to Paris where he did anti-Nazi broadcasts and just escaped the Nazi invasion by the skin of this teeth.
He did a lot of what I would consider good works at Seton Hall and also had a lot to do with Vatican II's revising things to take the onus off the Jews.
Joanne understands, more than most posters, that the Judeo-Christian connection is profound.