What the war revealed (the vatican and the Iraq war)

So, then can I attend this guy's church?? :)

NO. The Vatican and the traditionalists have been united for once on the issue of Iraq. The priest who said the Latin Mass every day on Mel Gibson's set, Fr. Stephen Somerville, works with the SSPX and they were very vocal in their opposition to the war.

What this article tells you is that opposition to US actions in Iraq is universal, crossing all nationalities and all party lines, uniting enemies across Europe and even in the US. It's strange to see Pat Buchanan and the anti-WTO hippies agreeing on something, for example. The only people supporting it are the neo-cons running the US government and stooges in the US who swallow their absurd propaganda. When the pope and Bishop Williamson agree on Iraq, then you know that your seeing a new definition of "wide-spread opposition." And it's scary to think that these people who disagree on everything else only agree on one thing: opposition to the US.

I agree the Vatican and European catholics dislike the state of Israel. But part of this dislike is the position of Christian Palestians.

In the last 20 years, the number or Christian palestinians has shrunk--ditto for Lebanese Christians. Most have emigrated elsewhere. The Europeans in the Vatican bureaucracy blaims Israel rather than the Muslims.

However, your claim of anti semitism isn't quite correct. It's more complicated.

The "right" wing catholics in Europe are traditionally nationalist and anti semetic for various reasons, the reasons vary from country to country. But the "right" wing Catholics in the US are not anti Jewish. They are anti elite, and anti Communist, and anti socialism. The anti jewish is the very far nut cases. That is why the accusations against Gibson doen't make sense: like most right wing catholics, he only wants a reverant Latin mass instead of the pep rally masses that Mahoney's Los Angeles has. (Gibson's father was the basis of the movie "conspiracy theory", which sees conspiracies in a lot of things)...So they are little danger to Jews, and most are similar to evangelicals in that they are pro israel.

As for the Left wing catholics, their pacifism and activism is similar the the left in europe and in the vatican: They oppose Israel as imperialist (overlooking that when the Jews arrived in 1880 the place was a mess).
They are not anti Jewish per se, so would be in sympathy with most democratic Jews, but their hatred of Israel and failure to oppose Islamofascism are the biggest threat to the country of Israel...

It's strange to see Pat Buchanan and the anti-WTO hippies agreeing on something, for example.

No it's not. They belong together.

"Palaeoconservatives," like leftie third-world types, consider religion to be the creations of the various "autochthonous" (or "indigenous" in leftist parlance) peoples. Both are opposed to the idea of an objective abstract universal truth in favor of "de ways of our pipples." That is why "palaeo" rhetoric concerning `Aseret HaDevarim (the Ten Commandments) and public chr*stianity never touches on the truth or falsity of the religion but rather that it is "traditional" or "the American way" or necessary for the smooth functioning of society (the pragmatic/utilitarian approach). "Palaeoconservatives" do not seem to believe in an eschaton of any kind in which the true religion is vindicated but rather that the world will simply go on and on as it is. In fact, their phrase "new world order" may be a code phrase for any post-eschaton Kingdom of G-d on earth.

I am not the first or only person to recognize that the far left and far right merge on local cultural autonomy and on "alternative spiritualities." The PLO is the most obvious example of left/right convergence on "national liberation," but an often overlooked other example is the Irish and other Celtic nationalist movements.

Since "palaeoconservatives" oppose the idea of an objective G-d and objective Truth that applies to all mankind they instinctively oppose Zionism as an "anti-nationalist" nationalism--ie, the existence of a Jewish State in the ancient Biblical homeland threatens their "localist," subjectivist, and pluralist worldview.

There is an interesting essay on "Southern religion" at the Leage of the South website that defines religion as what binds the people of a culture together (rather than what binds man to G-d) and seems to suggest that "true Southerners," beling "palaeos," are non-missionary and don't care what other people believe or how they live. Duh.

I agree the Vatican and European catholics dislike the state of Israel. But part of this dislike is the position of Christian Palestians.

In the last 20 years, the number or Christian palestinians has shrunk--ditto for Lebanese Christians. Most have emigrated elsewhere. The Europeans in the Vatican bureaucracy blaims Israel rather than the Muslims.

And why? Because the Vatican (and perhaps orthodox Catholic theology) simply cannot deal with a restored Jewish state in 'Eretz Yisra'el. All the ancient liturgical churches believe in full-blown supercessionism, with the church being the "new Israel." In light of this they cannot look favorably on Israel and this is the source of most of the attitude, however rationalized otherwise.

Furthermore, it is a common claim among the ancient churches that the "palestinian" chr*stians are in fact the descendants of the very first Jewish chr*stians and that they have lived in Israel since the time of Chr*st. In fact the Romans exiled all Jews (including chr*stian Jews) from Israel after the Bar Kokhba' rebellion (132-35CE) and forbade them to return. The Romans then renamed the city Syria Aelia Capitalina and turned it into a pagan Hellenistic Roman city. Even when Rome converted to chr*stianity and turned Jerusalem into a chr*stian city Jews (including what was left of the original Jewish church) were still not allowed back into the city.

Arab chr*stians are Arabs. They are not Jews nor the descendants of a nonexistent Jewish chr*stian community that supposedly lived uninterrupted in Israel from the time of Chr*st until today. Many of them are probably descendants of the chr*stian Arabs the crusaders brought in to take the place of the moslems and Jews they had slaughtered.

The "indigenous" churches of the Middle East are the most anti-Semitic in the world, and they are "indigenous" and "third world" enough to slip under the radar screen of the liberal anti-Semite hunters, who prefer to attack white American churches they associate with domestic conservatism.

The Middle East Council of Churches recently declared that "Zionist chr*stianity is not chr*stianity at all." They're right. It would be a blessing from Heaven if our American Fundamentalists, whose chr*stianity comes from an uninterpreted composite Jewish/chr*stian Bible, would see that their religion is not chr*stianity and turn from that religion to the Torah as Noachides.

'Amein. Ken yehi ratzon.

I'd already read this, but thanks for the ping.

Basically the Iraq war united left and right wing Catholics in opposition because both left and right wing Catholicism are anti-Zionist (since the existence of a restored sovereign Jewish state in the Holy Land disproves the Church's claim to being the "new Israel"). It's the exact same reason that Buchanan, Sobran, Reese, et al, are lined up behind Yasser Arafat, Ramsey Clark, Ralph Nader, Gore Vidal, and the Workers World Party.

It's really a tragedy that in the face of this alliance of evil most Jews are still hyperventilating over pro-Israel Fundamentalist Protestants whose support embarrasses them and threatens their self-image as a nation of irreverent Weimar-style world-weary sophisticates.

`Od Yehoshu`a Bin Nun chai!!!

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.