← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Valley Forge
Thread ID: 10025 | Posts: 3 | Started: 2003-09-25
2003-09-25 04:37 | User Profile
Vatican Has Not Taken A Position on Gibson's Film 'The Passion', Top Cardinal Assures ADL
New York, NY, September 22, 2003 ââ¬Â¦ A top Vatican official in charge of promoting Jewish-Christian dialogue has assured the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) that a recent statement regarding Mel Gibson's film "The Passion" made by a Vatican representative in Rome "bears no official status."
In a letter to ADL, Walter Cardinal Kasper, President of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, indicated that "The view expressed by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos is a purely personal one and bears no official status."
Cardinal Kasper wrote the letter in response to recent media reports that Cardinal Hoyos was speaking as an official representative of the Holy See when he made remarks supporting the film. ADL had asked the Vatican to clarify those statements.
The Cardinal assured ADL that "The Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews is aware of the debate concerning the release of the film, and of the damage it can cause to Catholic-Jewish relations."
He indicated that the Vatican has not had a chance to view the film, which is not yet released, and has decided not to make an official statement at this time.
[url]http://www.adl.org/PresRele/VaticanJewish_96/4355_96.htm[/url]
2003-09-25 04:43 | User Profile
The Catholic Church has come a long way since the days of Torquemada. :(
2003-09-25 11:17 | User Profile
I Googled Kasper this morning and from what I saw I'd bet that if the ADL has a list of Catholic leaders to go to for a Jew-friendly spin, he's right up near the top:
"But I am at a loss to understand how anyone can conclude, with Walter Cardinal Kasper, that 'the Church believes that Judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the Jewish people to Godââ¬â¢s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises' ... It is this statement above all that has created in me, and in many others, such turmoil. Why then, if Israel is already in a saving covenant with God and if his coming was for the 'nations other than Israel' (see comment in Reflections re Matthew 28:19) did Jesus weep over Jerusalem? Why then did the apostle Paul wish himself accursed for the sake of his kinsmen if their covenant was salvific? There are so many confusing statements in Reflections that, if I took each sentence or even each paragraph at a time, this letter would become a small volume. The above is one instance. Who among us would deny that every individualââ¬â¢s freedom of religion and freedom of conscience should be respected? But to deny that it is Christ alone who saves, that the old covenant was, as Paul says, 'our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ' (Gal. 3:24, NASB), the one mediator between God and men (1 Tim. 2:5), is to deny Christ for ourselves. If he is not the Messiah of Israelââ¬âGod come in the flesh (1 John 4:2)ââ¬âthen he is no oneââ¬â¢s Messiah."
[url]http://elcaminoreal.blog-city.com/[/url]
[url]http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2001_November/Cardinals_With_No_Faith.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.newoxfordreview.org/2002/apr02/philipblosser.html[/url]