Pius XII Blamed, Praised at Major Conference

Supporters of Pope Pius XII took a firm and impressive stand at a major Holocaust Conference, and in so doing, demonstrated that the debate on the wartime pontiff's role during the Holocaust may be shifting in his favor. On April 14-15, Millersville University, in Millersville, Pennsylvania, USA, hosted the Twenty Second Annual Conference on the Holocaust, which was devoted this year to the theme, "Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust." The Conference hosted lectures by a virtual Who's Who of the Popes supporters, detractors and those who fall somewhere in between. Among the presenters at Millersville were authors James Carroll (Constantine's Sword), Ronald Rychlak (Hitler, the War and the Pope), Susan Zuccotti (Under His Very Windows: The Vatican and the Holocaust in Italy), John Jay Hughes (Pontiffs: Popes Who Shaped History), J. Michael Phayer (The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930-1965), John Morley (Vatican Diplomacy and the Jews During the Holocaust, 1939-1943), Stewart Stehlin (Weimar and the Vatican, 1918-1933), Jose Sanchez ( Pius XII and the Holocaust: Understanding the Holocaust), Sergio Minerbi (The Vatican and Zionism), John S. Conway (The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-1945) , German scholar Michael Feldkamp (Pius XII and Deutschland [Pius XII and Germany]), and Rabbi David Dalin (author of the watershed article, "Pope Pius XII and the Jews," published in The Weekly Standard). Ecumenical leaders Fr. John Pawlikowski, A. James Rudin and Seymour Reich were also in attendence and contributed to the debate.

A number of prominent philosophers and theologians also spoke, including Richard Rubinstein (Professor Emeritus of the University of Bridgeport) who opened the Conference with a startling--many said shocking--speech, saying of Pius XII: "The question is, whatever he did, did he regard the elimination of the Jews as a benefit, and the answer to that, I think, is yes." The statement was so wild, so beyond the pale that it created a backlash: no one else among the panelists (or in the audience) dared to defend it, and it badly damaged the authority of Pius XII's critics for the rest of the Conference. James Carroll was deeply critical of the Vatican's role during the Holocaust, and drew a connection between the current pedophilia scandals (involving homosexual priests) and the cause of Pope Pius XII. "The same people who want to canonize Pius XII are the same people who have covered up for these priests," he said.

But this charge was undermined by Carroll's own admission that many conservative Catholics who have a favorable opinion of Pius are equally horrified by the sexual scandals and cover-ups in the Church. Moreover, after it was pointed out to Carroll that many of the scholars in attendance who had a high opinion of Pius were neither Catholic nor conservative, he admitted that people of good will, from all different perspectives, can and do disagree about the wartime pontiff. As if to prove that point, David Dalin, a distinguished American Rabbi and historian, delivered an address which detailed the Pontiff's wartime assistance to Jews, the testimonies of those who worked with him and loved him, and described Pius's outspoken denunciation of Nazi atrocities (showing that they were clearly understood by both the Nazis, who hated them, and the Catholic rescuers, who were inspired by them). He ended by asserting that the Jewish leaders who hailed Pius XII both during the War, and at the end of his life, were objectively right, and that the Pontiff was indeed a "Righteous Gentile."

None of Dalin's fellow-panelists answered any of his major points, except for one minor challenge which questioned whether the Israeli Philharmonic actually honored Pius XII or the Italian people in general. (It turns out that Dalin is correct: the Philharmonic played a special Concert for Pius, on May 26, 1955, in gratitude "for the immense work of humane assistance taken by the Pontiff to save a great number of Jews during the Second World War," to quote "The Tablet" of London, July 30, 1955)

The debate became polemical when Susan Zuccotti assailed Jose Sanchez (for criticizing her) Ronald Rychlak (for using quotes from John XXIII and Paul VI in defense of Pius XII) and "Inside the Vatican" magazine (for publishing an article on the late Msgr. John Patrick-Carroll Abbing, whose rescue efforts on behalf of Jews she questioned).

Sanchez, who is considered a Pius XII moderate, and who delivered one of the best received speeches of the Conference, stated that when Pius XII's wartime actions are looked at "in context," his defenders have the stronger case. A disgruntled member of the audience, who obviously was on the side of the critics, asked Sanchez incredoulously, "Are you saying that if we examine all of Pius XII's activities in context, then we must all cast our lot with the defenders?"

Sanchez paused a moment and then delivered his answer: "Well, yes--that's exactly what I am saying." A moment later, he said he wasn't trying to be flippant but had reached his conclusion after condiderable study and reflection.

Rychlak took the high ground and treated Zuccotti's criticisms with humor; he pointed out that there is far more evidence than just the quotes Zuccotti cited to demonstrate that John XXIII and Paul VI both attributed Jewish rescue to Pius XII. He did not spend further time responding to her specific claims, since he has a major forthcoming article in "The Journal of Modern Italian Studies" (to appear in June) which does just that.

Instead, he delivered a speech entitled, "A Lawyer Looks at History," in which he demonstrated how the prosecuters of Pacelli withhold or manipulate evidence which would never be accepted in a court of Law. "If the charges now made against Pope Pius XII ever actually did reach a court, they would be thrown out for a lack of evidence," he said.

"Inside the Vatican" will publish a forthcoming article which will cover the Millersville Conference in depth, and give a detailed reply to Zuccotti's criticisms. But for now, it must be said: Dr. Zuccotti made a serious (but no doubt unintentional) error when she denied that Msgr. Carroll-Abbing ever wrote about his rescue efforts on behalf of Jews in his memoirs, "But for the Grace of God" (Delacorte Press, 1965). In fact, Carroll-Abbing, who was in Rome during the German occupation, writes that after the Nazis rounded up Rome's Jews in October of 1943, "I went back to my desk that October morning and wondered why my colleague, Monsignor Vitucci, had not yet put in an appearance. It was one o'clock before he did arrive and he was visibly agitated.

"On entering the convent of Our Lady of Sion that morning to say Mass he had found the place in an uproar. A crowd of Jewish women and their children had sought refuge there from the round-up and were in a state bordering on hysteria. Some of them had their menfolk taken away; others did not know where their husbands and sons had gone to seek a hiding-place.

"Almost immediately, word came from the Vatican that, because of the emergency, nuns would be allowed to give hospitality in their convents to Jewish men as well as their families....With each day that passed, Monsignor Vitucci [Carroll-Abbing's assistant] and I found ourselves becoming increasingly involved in the problems of the hideaways. The word had passed from one good sister to another, from one convent to another. Soon we were in touch with many of the more than a hundred and fifty religious institutions that were sheltering Jews." (emphasis added, p.56)

The issue of the Vatican's sealed Archives and the recent Jewish-Catholic panel (now-defunct) which studied the wartime role of Pius XII was also discussed. Seymour Reich, one of the two coordinators of the Pius XII study group, expressed his view (shared by everyone at the Conference) that the Holy See should open up its wartime archives as soon as possible. To his credit, he accepted some responsibility over the failure of the Pius XII study group which, he acknowledged, had leaked sensitive information, and ended in discord. But he thought the whole affair, in its own way, drew attention to the importance of the Vatican archives and may have played a part in the Vatican's recent announcement that it will release new archival material beginning in 2003.

John Conway seconded Reich's desire to see all the relevant archives, but defended the Vatican's archival policies and politely questioned the conduct and competency of certain members of the disbanded study group. He also emphasized that most historians have never even heard of, much less read, the enormously important 12 volumes of "Acts and Documents of the Holy See Relating to the Second World War," which have already been published. Fr. Hughes gave a strong address explaining the difficulties of cataloguing and releasing the Vatican's archives, which contain millions of documents and need to be meticulously analyzed and organized before they are released. He pointed out that many countries, including our own, have kept many of their archives sealed, and that these will remain sealed long after the Vatican opens theirs.

Hughes effectively demolished the arguments of those who claim that the Vatican is hiding incriminating documents, and made a stirring call for mutual respect among scholars and the Holy See as they move forward in pursuit of historical truth.

Particularly impressive was Dr. Michael Fedkamp of Germany, who sytematically refuted the thesis embraced by John Cornwell (author of Hitler's Pope) and other extreme critics, who accuse Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pius XII) of engaging in reactionary policies, as Pius XI's Secretary of State, which enabled Hitler to aquire power. As Feldkamp proved, citing unimpeachable evidence from German and Church archives, there is not a shred of truth to these charges, and that, if anything, Pacelli was a moderate realist who was open to progressive thinking, and always pursued a path compatible with an honorable Christian conscience.

By the end of the two day affair, the extreme and bitter comments made by Rubenstein and Carroll were largely forgotten, and the supporters of Pius XII came out ahead, as intelligent and well-informed scholars who had solid reasons for their views.

Fr. Morley ended the conference with a note of grace, by calling for moderation, sensitivity and humility among the practicioners of historical research.

The Conference was put together by Dr. Jack Fischel, Chair of the History Department at Millersville University, and Director of Millersville's annual Holocaust Conference, who won high marks from all involved.

The most complete account I have at hand of the Church’s acts on behalf of the Slovak Jews in WWII is in Pinchas E. Lapide’s Three Popes and the Jews. Lapide was a Canadian-born journalist and former diplomat of the Israeli government, who fought with the British Eighth Army in WWII in North Africa, Malta, and Italy.

Lapide deals with events in Slovakia in pages 138-149 of Three Popes and the Jews. His account begins with Slovakia’s adoption of the anti-Jewish Nuremburg Race Laws on September 9, 1941 -- and the objection thereto by the papal nuncio in Bratislava, who just two days later complained in person to the Slovak president of “the injustice of these ordinances.” On October 7, the Slovak Catholic bishops delivered a collective protest to Fr. Josef Tise, the Slovak president, in which they stated that “the so-called Jewish Code violates natural law and the liberty of individual conscience.” The Holy See followed through with a complaint delivered to the Slovak ambassador on November 12. Because this complaint was unsuccessful in preventing a deportation of 52,000 Slovak Jews in March, 1942, the Vatican submitted a second protest on March 14: “His Holiness’s Secretariat of State trusts that such painful and unjust measures against persons belonging to the Hebrew race cannot be approved by a government that is proud of its Catholic heritage...The Holy See would...neglect its Divine mandate if it would not deplore these enactments and measures, which gravely hurt the natural rights of persons, merely because of their race.”

Lapide’s Slovak account concludes by reporting that “Dr. Livia Rotkirchen, authoress of the standard work on this sad chapter in Eurpean history, and on the senior research staff at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, writes: ‘ In conclusion it may be said that the six letters of protest delivered by the Vatican during the years 1941-44 prove sufficiently that the Vatican objected to the deportation of Jews from Slovakia.’...these six official papal protests do not include the numerous oral intercessions on behalf of Jews undertaken by the Holy See during the years of persecution.”

Lapide goes on to report the conclusions of Leon Poliakov: “The cessation of the deportations of Jews from Slovakia in the summer of 1942 -- and consequently the survival of nearly twenty-five percent of the Slovakian Jews -- must be attributed to Vatican pressure on Monsignor Tiso.”

I never expected you to admit how wrong you were about Pacelli's never having uttered an objection to the Slovakian deportations.

By the same token, Pius XII, confronted with a moral outrage, which his letters of protest clearly indicate, did nothing but run his mouth.

As opposed to what? Order the Papal Air Force to bomb Bratislava?

The notion that his pressure saved the approximately 25% of Slovak Jews is a ludicrous one. In neighboring Bohemia and Moravia, which were incorporated directly into the Reich as the Protectorate, only 66% died.

Those are lovely statistics, but they're utterly irrelevant. Pius deserves to be judged by his good faith efforts. If they bear fruit (as they did in Italy, where very few Jews were deported) well and good, but if he proved powerless to control other events, how is that his fault?

Pope Pius XII's performance just doesn't cut it. Slovakia was ruled by a prelate who shipped Jews to the gas chambers with a relish and an efficiency rarely matched in German-occupied territory. The Pope's response was a few angry letters. No demand that Tiso come to Rome for 'consultation'.

Don't be obtuse. As the Slovak president, Tiso was the head of state. Popes do not "summon" heads of state to the Vatican to be spanked like naughty boys. Moreover, if he had considered himself subject to ecclesiastical obedience, he'd have halted the deportations what urgently requested to do so. The fact that he chose collaboration instead shows how little he cared for his priestly duty. As disobedient priest, he would have refused a summons; and as head of state he should have. Your suggestion that Pius somehow had the power to compel Tiso's compliance is, to be charitable, stupid.

First you blame Pius for silence; now you complain he was running his mouth. Your bottom line is that you want to blame Pius for what other people did. This is stark character assassination and Catholic bashing.

Since Tiso was a priest, Pius XII certainly had the power to order him to Rome for consultation just as John Paul II has done with the American Cardinals.

He may have had the right; certainly he did not have the power. No one believes Tiso would have obeyed. And even if he had, would the Jews have been better off, seeing a vaccillating and devious Tiso replaced by a passionate, dedicated Jew-hunter?

Look. The war was a dreadful time, and terrible things were happening. The Vatican was looking for cooperation wherever it could get it -- sometimes from some pretty shady characters. Under such circumstances, it doesn't pay to be too particular. With thousands of lives hanging in the balance, what's more important -- playing up to Tiso in the hope that he might deliver, or preserving the precious honor of the Church by ordering Tiso cast into the outer darkness? (Upon which he would have laughed, btw, making the Vatican appear pathetic and powerless at just the time when it had no weapon other than its prestige and moral authority.)

You win some, you lose some. If the point of the game is saving human lives, you concentrate on that game and not let yourself be distracted by futile gestures and worries about what historians will make of your precious honor. Fretting over your legacy is for Clintons, not Pacellis.

Interesting thread. I have three questions for you, Romulus.

1. You're an ardent Catholic apologist, so I assume, naturally, that you believe in God. Do you also believe there is a very powerful being called Satan who is very real, and very much at work in the world today, as well as throughout human history?

2. Clearly, no race of people on the earth are more universally hated and despised than the Jews. With the exception of the USA they are hated by virtually every other country and society on earth. Do you believe that this is just coincidence, or "the way things just worked out", or do you believe anti-semitism is Satanic in origin and nature?

3. If so, why do you believe Satan is desperately trying to wipe out the Jewish race? What's in it for Satan to wipe Israel off the map and/or kill the Jewish Race? Why (in your opinion) does Satan seem to expend so much of his energies to that end?

In preparing his way and finally giving us the Savior, the Jews have already performed their unique and priceless role in salvation history. I do not believe the evil one seeks their destruction any more than he seeks the same for the rest of us. I do not believe that a ginned-up secular polity calling itself Israel has any eschatological role to play. I do not believe that man, by jiggling the levers of history has any power whatever to alter the coming of Christ; I believe it's literally an descent into magic to suppose that we have the power to conjure Christ's appearance. I'm convinced that the futile and dangerous exercise of obsessing over predictions of the second coming have much to do with a spiritually unhealthy hunger to see oneself shown to be justified -- an unseemly pride that ought to be confessed. Members of the apostolic churches understand that justification proceeds from reconciliation and communion -- from unity in a Body whose head is Christ -- and not from the envious anticipation of the enjoyable spectacle of seeing the unrighteous condemned.

I do not believe that man, by jiggling the levers of history has any power whatever to alter the coming of Christ

Well, Pius XIIth would disagree with you, because he certainly did everything in his power to PREVENT the re-birth of Israel in their Biblical homeland; even if it meant aligning himself with the Muslim world to do so!

I believe it's literally an descent into magic to suppose that we have the power to conjure Christ's appearance.

I agree!! And likewise it is a decent into black magic for one little man to believe that he had the power to PREVENT the Sovereign God from doing what His will with Israel!

The fact is... Pius' desires were swept aside and Israel WAS re-born! Now, what caused that? Was it just a case of the boys at the UN "putting one over" on God? Or do you believe, as your note seems to suggest, that although "God knows and cares about every sparrow that falls to the ground", He is curiously indifferent about the re-birth of Biblical Israel?

So which is it? Do you believe that God "placed it on Pope Pius XXIIth's heart, (His "vicar on earth") to oppose the re-creation of Israel, but that God was "OVERRULED" by the boys at the UN? Or do you believe that Pius just took it upon himself to oppose the Rebirth of Israel, WITHOUT bothering to consult with God?

Yes, you and I can certaily agree to disagree about dispensationalism, but I'm sure you agree that God knows the true Theology, right?

Well in 1st John chpt 5, we are told...

14 And we can be confident that he (GOD) will listen to us whenever we ask him for anything in line with his will. 15 And if we know he is listening when we make our requests, we can be sure that he will give us what we ask for

If God promises this to you and me, He would CERTAINLY promise this to the man who represents himself as "Christ's Vicar on Earth" -- the Pope, right? And if a Pope was going to intrude himself into an issue regarding Israel, the subject of 90% of the Holy Bible, Pius XII would be mega-derelict in his duties if he didn't pray intensely and diligently to God beforehand about it, right?

Then my question is, when Pope Pius XII went on record as opposing the re-creation of Israel in it's Biblical homeland, WAS HIS REQUEST IN LINE WITH GOD'S WILL? Obviously NOT, because he didn't get his wish! Israel was reborn! Right where God spoke to Abraham thousands of years ago!

Therefore, what conclusion can you draw but that it was GOD'S WILL that Israel be reborn in the Biblical Homeland that He gave to Abraham FOREVER! Shouldn't this reversal have been a red-flag to the "theologeons" at the Vatican re: dispensationalism?

Thank you for attempting to provide the biblical prophecy of the creation of a Jewish state. I now have a better understanding of why there is so much American support for the nation of Israel. I can blame the Proddies. You had said in a previous post that Revelations "expressly" says that Israel will be back in the land in the end times. Well....the end times bit you didn't really touch upon, and I hardly think that Revelation 12:1-6 "expressly" says anything about Israel. You are entitled to your interpretation. I would disagree, but the issue seems to be your link to the pope. What does the creation of an Israeli state have to do with Pius XII's "thwarting the will of God?" How do you know that God's will for the pope was not to oppose the creation of a Jewish state? And let me ask this. If the pope opposed the legalization of abortion, yet the legalization occurred, does that also mean that the pope "thwarted the will of God." My take on your take of what is God's will is whatever actually occurs. Therefore, Israel's existence is God's will. Abortion is God's will. Unless, I suppose, you are saying God's will is what occurs plus justification from a bible interpretation. But that is what makes personal interpretation so objectionable. One can justify pretty much anything they want. David Koresh certainly did. And with such fanciful imagery as a woman clothed in the sun... the sky is the limit. But thanks for trying; the pope didn't have that baggage (your interpretation) when he wrote the letter opposing Jewish statehood, and in hindsight he was spot on. The state of Israel has been nothing but a perpetual holocaust for the Jewish people. Frankly, I think your particular exegis is a result of the nation of Israel being created. I wonder if prior to 1945, Christians would have thought such a thing. Thanks agaiin.

Chuck. Your statement that Pius XXII was right to oppose the creation of Israel because...

"The state of Israel has been nothing but a perpetual holocaust for the Jewish people".

Is simply beyond preposterous. When modern Israel was created, the Jews had just gone through an event called "The Holocaust". SIX MILLION Jews were slaughtered at the hands of a supposedly civilized Western European Nation. Since the creation of the Jewish state, how many of them have ACTUALLY died violently? What percentage of population?

Israel is a free democratic land. Not ONE JEW is forced to live in Israel against their will. On the contrary, MILLIONS of them freely and voluntarily MIGRATED to Israel where they proudly live, raise their families, and fight for the land they LOVE. Are you actually suggesting that Israelis wish some catholic pope could have imposed HIS will on THEIR destiny?

Regarding exegesis, I call your attention again to the prophesy in Zechariah 12. Let's patiently go over it again, as I did in note # 55...

God says that on THAT day (in the FUTURE, Chuck -- we're dealing with Prophesy, remember) on THAT day, He would "make Jerusalem a heavy stone, a burden for the world.

The prophesy was given to Zechariah in 480 BC -- Jerusalem was destoyed in 70 AD. Jerusalem was never "a burden for the world" in that time frame. BUT IT IS TODAY.

Later, in the same prophesy, God says...

"Then (in the future) I will pour out (future tense) a spirit of grace and prayer on the family of David and on all the people of Jerusalem. They will look on me whom they have pierced and mourn for him as for an only son.

When did the people of Jerusalem "pierce ME" (God)? That would be Jesus, right Chuck? Notice "have piercED. PAST tense. POST 32 AD. God prophesies that ALL the people of Jerusalem would mourn for the One whom they PIERCED. When has that happened? It hasn't happened YET, right? And it CERTAINLY didn't happen between 32 AD when Christ was crucified, and 70 AD, when Jerusalem was destroyed. (And the vast majority of Jews rejected Christ and murdered His Apostles.)

So, what other logic can you derive from this, than God is prophesying a Jerusalem in the FUTURE, after the Curcifixion and Resurrection, which does NOT fit the Jerusalem of 32-70 AD. When God says something, you can't just good-naturedly shrug it off. God wants us to seek the meaning of His words.

But Pius XXII wanted Jerusalem to stay in the hands of ARABS. Pius XXII wanted the Jews to go to some piece of ground that had no Biblical historical relevance to them or God, and leave Jerusalem in the hands of MUSLIMS. ISLAM. The KORAN. If Pius had gotten his way, can you imagine how the Muslims would have danced in the streets? Saying "Allah has triumphed over the "god" of the Jews!"

I cannot help but assume that Pius was well aware of this prophesy in Zechariah. You may say that he had a different interpretation. But the words are clear enough that he had to at least TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION that the Prophesy was about a modern-day Israel/Jerusalem. Okay... before Pius went on record opposing the creation of Israel, (an event which he had to admit, at least had THE POTENTIAL to be a fulfillment of God's Holy Word, as given to Zechariah) did he pray about it? If so, did God first give him the go-ahead to oppose Israel, then DOUBLE-CROSS him?

Or did Pius just brazenly stick his nose into another people's destiny without even bothering to consult God, or His Holy Word? Or was there yet another motivation?

. If the pope opposes the legalization of abortion,and abortion is legalized, is the pope "thwarting the will of God"?

Of course not. In Matthew 24 Jesus said that in the latter days...

12 Sin will be rampant everywhere, and the love of many will grow cold.

We're not talking about sins, like abortion and murder, which are always with us, we (at least ME) are talking about a specific prophecy, given by God to a man named Zechariah, a recognized prophet of God, about the City of Jerusalem in a certain time-frame.

RE: your Q #2. Yes most definitely it has been a long time view of Christians long before modern Israel. Today we talk about a coming One World government, and One-World religion not becaise they HAVE happened, but because of what we read in prophesy. We believe that the Temple will be built right on the Temple Mount, because of the prophesies in Revelation.

I've vaguely heard of Jack Van Imp. I infer that he's a Christian TV personality that you don't like... but I've never read anything he;s written. Whether Jews are zionists or not is irrelevant to prophesy.

Now, Chuck, I've lavished much, much, time and effort on answering you to the best of my ability. Now YOU must answer me, without resorting to ad hominim attacks on "Proddies" or "Jack Van Imp" or "zionists"...

In the prophesy of Zechariah 12, written 480 BC, where God says of "ALL the people of Jerusalem"...

They will look on me whom they have pierced and mourn for him as for an only son.

Who do YOU say God is referring to there?

Just answer that, then we'll move on to the next quetsion...

Okay Chuck, now let's take the other prophesies in the SAME CHAPTER of Zechariah, and you tell me when they occurred...

3. On that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone, a burden for the WORLD. When, post 480 BC, did THAT occur?

4"On that day, says the LORD, I will cause every horse to panic and every rider to lose his nerve. I will watch over the people of Judah, but I will blind the horses of her enemies. When did that happen? (Except for one brief period, which ultimately ended in failure, Israel and Jerusalem were under the yoke of occupation or enslavement from 480 BC up until they were destroyed by Rome in 70 AD.)

6. "On that day I will make the clans of Judah like a brazier that sets a woodpile ablaze or like a burning torch among sheaves of grain. They will burn up all the neighboring nations right and left, while the people living in Jerusalem remain secure. When did THAT happen? The Maccabean revolt occurred WITHIN the confines of Israel, it did not "burn up all the neighboring nations to the right and left".

7. The LORD will give victory to the rest of Judah first, before Jerusalem, so that the people of Jerusalem and the royal line of David will not have greater honor than the rest of Judah. When did that happen? ("Judah" was made part of the Israeli state in 1948, but NOT JERUSALEM! Jerusalem was re-unified to Israel, LATER -- in 1967!!!)

Most importantly, God places these events POST-Jesus (vs 10) as you yourself freely admit. For your interpretation to be true, Israel (The "House of David") would have had to ACCEPT Jesus. They didn't. A small PART of Israel did, and they became the Church. But the Church is never depicted as the "House of David". That refers only to National Israel.

I suppose we can agree to disagree, but CLEARLY, Chuck, this is not talking about the Israel that, except for one brief revolt (which ultimately FAILED), was under the thumb of constant occupation up until it was destroyed in 70 AD.

But we can nail it down even more surely from the Book of Revelation, which we KNOW was written after the end of ancient Israel.

Harking back to our discussion of Rev 4... (from note # 55) "1 Then I witnessed in heaven an event of great significance. I saw a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon beneath her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant, and she cried out in the pain of labor as she awaited her delivery. Who do YOU, Chuck say that this is?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.