Yes when said leader founded it; yes, else you would condemn him and not count him as a founder, but he is the founder so you are stuck with him;yes and they can either be in a state of purgatory or eternal judgment and it changes no catholic doctrine; no, I think some Evangelicals will support the State of Israel to the last drop of Jewish blood, but not their own with some few exceptions ..., significant numbers of younger Evangelicals do not share their parents' support of Israel, and already oppose Israel. The Catholic Church has diplomatic relations with Israel and is friendlier to the Jewish people than any other church, faith group, sect, or cult I can think of.
Just what is your problem that you seem to inevitably resort to the "Luther was an anti-Semite" screed to deal with the Reformation. Are you acting out of being a victim of anti-antisemitism that prevents you from dealing with this issue objectively and in context?
I view the Reformation built on this notorious antiSemite to be an abomination. I base it on Messiah's second commandment, parable of the sheep and goats, condemnation of the doctrine of Baalam, and so much more.
Do you wish to defend Sola Ecclesia as meaning men can require physical extermination of people even such as me as well as manifest hate of the Jewish people and work against them and end up in heaven without repentance?
Sola Ecclesia is not a Catholic doctrine; it is a Protestant ascription/assignment to Catholics, what you call a straw man. I defend the judgment of all nations, separating them into sheep and goats, based on what they did with respect to the least of Messiah's brethren.
Yes when said leader founded it; yes, else you would condemn him and not count him as a founder, but he is the founder so you are stuck with him;
Wrong, as being "founder" in this case meant that the founder was one of many, and held Scripture as supreme, and Luther's judgment was not binding, and thus Prots do not even hold to all he believed theologically, let alone his and the cultures attitude toward the Jews. Thus your attempts to impugn Protestantism by your unbalanced diatribes against Luther on the Jews are spurious.
Some (maybe not you) RCs do not even affirm official papal requirements to exterminate the heretics from Catholic lands.
I think some Evangelicals will support the State of Israel to the last drop of Jewish blood, but not their own with some few exceptions .
"Some" is always a given, while both are your opinion, and the latter is contrary to the heart many ministries to Jews express, including Jews for Jesus. I myself have often said that a unique love for Jews is a mark of a born again believer. From my experience, support for Israel is because evangelicals see Jews them as fathers, beloved for the father's sake, which the state of Israel confirms, and have a special love for Jews not merely being for eschatological purposes. Listen to Michael Brown "line of fire" in your radio.
And your estimation of evangelicals must be compared with Catholics. Do you want to argue RCs overall would be more committed to the welfare of Jews when they example about the lowest commitment to their own faith? Moreover, you can hardly claim to love Jews and not support the State of Israel against the Muslims. More on that in a minute.
significant numbers of younger Evangelicals do not share their parents' support of Israel, and already oppose Israel.
It is also quite manifest that significant numbers of younger Evangelicals are not Evangelicals, in much of any historical sense. As they grow older they can go in both directions. I pray the latter. But i think media reports that Israel is losing support from evangelicals is a combination of exaggeration due to wishful thinking, but also reflects a growing manifest division btwn classic evangelicals and the inevitable diluted version which uses the term.
Among white evangelical Protestants, nearly half (46%) say that the U.S. is not providing enough support for Israel (vs. Caths. at 20%) .
When asked whether God gave Israel to the Jewish people, more Christians (55%) than Jews (40%) say yes (although virtually all of the discrepancy is explained by Jews’ lower levels of belief in God overall). And the share of white evangelicals saying that God gave Israel to the Jews (82%) is on par with the percentage of Orthodox Jews who believe this (84%). [Caths were at 38%]
When it comes to the long-standing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, asked whether they sympathize with either side, 72% of white evangelicals sided with Israel in the dispute while 4% picked the Palestinians, according to a March 2013 survey. -http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/27/strong-support-for-israel-in-u-s-cuts-across-religious-lines/
The Catholic Church has diplomatic relations with Israel and is friendlier to the Jewish people than any other church, faith group, sect, or cult I can think of.
Whatever "friendlier" means, yet it is what one does and fosters that defines this, and you will have to talk to the likes of Michael Brown or John Hagee (too friendly if anything), and then dismiss it as merely being for eschatological purposes. Likewise a 128-person delegation of leaders from the Pentecostal Church of God (a 91-year old denomination of 620,000 peopl founded in Chicago in 1919) proclaimed their support for Israel
Rejecting that [modern I presume] Jews are not to be held responsible for the death of Jesus, and that they are beloved of God due to the Abrahamic covenant, and that prejudice, hatred, oppression, and persecution of Jews is wrong, and promoting dialogue between Catholics and Jews is friendly.
But what RCs can think of when it comes to objectivity has been abundantly shown to only be what supports Rome, and both past history and present provides a fuller picture.The Vatican did not even formally recognize Israel until 1993. A bit late.
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. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See%E2%80%93Israel_relations
In addition, "friendlier" now 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, 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 as much a distinct God as that of Mormonism, and which even more than that false deity has skewed Biblical stories besides adding its own, and denied 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 scan and is replaced by platitudes for peace.
together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” - Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964
For they,
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
And,
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....
“Our pilgrimage to these holy places is not for purposes of prestige or power. It is a humble and ardent prayer for peace, through the intercession of the glorious protectors of Africa, who gave up their lives for love and for their belief. In recall the Catholic and Anglican Martyrs, 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 [emp. mine.]
“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 -http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/interreligious/islam/vatican-council-and-papal-statements-on-islam.cfm
I view the Reformation built on this notorious antiSemite to be an abomination.
Thanks for stating the obvious, but it is also obvious your raging biased opinion hardly warrants much value.
Sola Ecclesia is not a Catholic doctrine;
It is and some RCs defend it, for it denotes the Church of Rome and its law being the supreme authority, which you can only affirm, as popes have. You cannot presume to uniquely indisputably infallibly define both what Scripture and the word of God consists of and what it means without claiming to alone be the supreme authority. Which thus autocratically defines Scripture, tradition and history as defining her. It only means what she decrees in any conflict.