Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #76  
Old Mar 5, '12, 1:17 pm
DavidPalm DavidPalm is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Posts: 772
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

The Olive Tree

St. Paul’s treatment of the metaphor of the olive tree contains the most obvious evidence that you have misread Romans 11.

Notice that in vv. 16-24 he speaks of the Jews who were broken off [ἐξεκλάσθησαν]; thus he cannot be talking of those Jews who follow Jesus. They are indeed presented as branches broken off from the cultivated olive tree, as St. Paul says, and the wild branches, the Gentiles were then grafted in:
For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.
Notice that according to St. Paul, the Jewish people who do not believe in Christ as a whole remain the "natural branches" (τῶν κατὰ φύσιν κλάδων, literally "the branches according to nature"; Rom 11:21) and the olive tree is spoken of as "their own" [τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐλαίᾳ], even in their separated state (Rom 11:24).

The Gentiles, the "wild olive shoots", are grafted on to their own tree - the Jews' tree. And precisely because the olive tree remains the Jews’ “own”, this grafting of the Gentiles is done “contrary to nature” [παρὰ φύσιν]. And it is also precisely why St. Paul states that Jews can more easily be grafted back in (v. 24). This runs contrary to what you have said in response to our article:
R. Sungenis: Hence, if anything, what Forrest, Palm and the National Catholic Register should be teaching is, according to 1 Peter 2:9-10, that it is mainly the Christian Gentiles who are the Chosen People and that Jewish converts can join with them, but certainly not teach that unconverted Jews are the Chosen People simply because they are Jews.
“Jewish converts can join with them”? First, it bears repeating that we have never said that Jews are “the Chosen People”, as if Israel according to the flesh is still God’s official representative on earth. That distinction now belongs solely to the Church, the New Israel (which is composed of both baptized Jews and baptized Gentiles). But by taking St. Peter’s epistle to mean that “Jewish converts can join with [the Gentiles]”, it appears you’re trying to invert St. Paul’s message in Romans 11. Again, St. Paul, writing after the giving of the New Covenant, makes it clear that it is the Gentiles, the “wild olive shoots”, who are grafted “contrary to nature” into the Jews’ tree. Jews who convert and accept their messiah are rejoining “their own olive tree.” While it is true that the tree is now mostly composed of adopted or “grafted in” Gentiles, Jews who convert are not therefore somehow transformed into the wild branches joining a Gentile tree. St. Paul teaches that the Jews remain the “natural branches” even in their separated state. Again, this is precisely why St. Paul says that they can be grafted in more easily than the Gentiles (cf. Rom 11:24).

And the Apostle specifically warns Gentiles like you, “do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you....So do not become proud, but stand in awe. . . Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off” (Rom 11:18, 20, 22).

We have already examined how your interpretation of Rom 11:26 runs contrary to literally dozens of Fathers, Doctors, Popes, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And we have seen how your interpretation of Rom 11:28-29 runs contrary to how the Magisterium of the Church consistently applies those verses to the Jews of today who have not yet accepted Christ.

You break Rom 11:28 into two entirely different groups of people:
R. Sungenis: "As such, since verses 4-5 explain the “election” as the remnant of Jews who believed out of a nation that was largely in unbelief, so it is with the “election” in verse 28. There are Jews that are “enemies of the gospel” but there is a smaller group of “elect” Jews who are “beloved of God.”" (p. 18)
And in post #53 you wrote,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
If the “divine choice” refers to the elect Jews that are separated from non-elect Jews (as St. Paul clearly teaches in Roman 9:6 and 11:5-11) then you simply have no basis reading into Romans 11:28 that “the election” refers to all Jews.
I have already pointed out the exegetical difficulties of that approach here). But more importantly, as I have shown in this forum, the Magisterium has repeatedly spoken of Jews who have not yet received the Gospel as “beloved” and has cited Rom 11:28 as biblical support for this.

And in fact there is one other pertinent person in this discussion who has admitted that the Jews at large are “beloved” according to Rom 11:28, namely, you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
You claim that I say “Rom 11:28 that you say only applies to Jews who have accepted Christ.” No I don’t. I said that the Jews, at large, are “beloved,” but only because they are given a chance to become saved, to become “the elect.”
The problem for you, of course, is that the very same group that is called "beloved for the sake of the fathers" is said to be so "according to the election". The election and being beloved have to apply to the same group. So you not only contradict the Magisterium, you contradict yourself as well.

Last edited by DavidPalm; Mar 5, '12 at 1:36 pm.
  #77  
Old Mar 5, '12, 1:17 pm
DavidPalm DavidPalm is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Posts: 772
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

The New Covenant Not a Punishment

Your one quibble that had some substance may be easily addressed. You said,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
By the way, all the quotes you have cited from Cardinal Ratzinger or Pope Benedict XVI are unofficial and therefore merely his opinion....So I don’t consider him an authority on the issue unless he wants to speak officially.
Then how about the following? This is from the Holy Father’s Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini:
we now naturally turn to the special bond which that relationship has engendered between Christians and Jews, a bond that must never be overlooked. Pope John Paul II, speaking to Jews, called them “our ‘beloved brothers’ in the faith of Abraham, our Patriarch”. To acknowledge this fact is in no way to disregard the instances of discontinuity which the New Testament asserts with regard to the institutions of the Old Testament, much less the fulfilment of the Scriptures in the mystery of Jesus Christ, acknowledged as Messiah and Son of God. All the same, this profound and radical difference by no means implies mutual hostility. The example of Saint Paul (cf. Rom 9-11) shows on the contrary that “an attitude of respect, esteem and love for the Jewish people is the only truly Christian attitude in the present situation, which is a mysterious part of God’s wholly positive plan”. Indeed, Saint Paul says of the Jews that: “as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers, for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable!” (Rom 11:28-29).
Sorry Bob. It remains absolutely clear that the Magisterium has repeatedly applied Romans 11:28-29 to unbaptized Jews, as a whole, and does not partition it out like you do.

I would point out that this exhortation from the Holy Father is also interesting because he refers to unconverted Jews as “our beloved brothers”. Yet, in your critique of our article “All in the Family”, you were disturbed that we referred to the Jewish people as family. We’ve provided multiple other instances where the Church has referred to the Jewish people in familial terms as well (https://sites.google.com/site/sungen...#_Toc255151550). But in your view, the Jewish people are not family in any sense. You teach that “the Jews are godless” and when one looks at your theology and the dozens of postings attacking Jews, it seems sadly obvious why you’re disturbed when the Jewish people are described as “family”.

And we see a similar phenomenon with your insistence on the word “revoked” and your not-so-subtle insistence that the cessation of the Old Covenant and arrival of the New Covenant was a punishment against the Jews.

I would argue that that understanding is seriously flawed. God intended from the beginning to establish the New Covenant in Christ. And the reason is that the Old Covenant could not save. It never had the power to do so. The wayward hearts of the Jewish people could not be changed by the Old Law and in order to save them and everybody God had to supersede that Old Covenant, which could not save, with the New Covenant which could.

The New Covenant was given first to the Jewish people and only later were the Gentiles included. The Kingdom of God–the New Israel–was entrusted by the Jewish Mashiach to twelve Jews, with a Jew named Kepha leading the way, and a Jewess by the name of Miriam as spiritual Mother and Mediatrix. These Jews and their followers regularly received the flesh and blood of the Jewish God-man–including the Gentiles (the wild olive shoots) who were eventually grafted onto that cultivated olive tree, Israel (Romans 11:17, 24). This hardly represents a punishment and repudiation of the Jewish people, Bob.

This dynamic (regarding the reason the Mosaic covenant was replaced) is seen clearly in Heb 8:7-12. Certainly, they have a “fault” — the people were wayward and were stuck in their sins. But there was a fault too with the Old Covenant—it could not save them. The replacement of the Mosaic covenant with the New Covenant in Christ is not a punishment of the Jewish people. It is rather an act of God’s mercy and love toward them:
For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: "The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord. This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach every one his fellow or every one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more."
Now certainly punishment came, as you will be quick to point out from any number of verses in the New Testament. But notice that, again, the replacement of the Mosaic Covenant with the New Covenant was not itself that punishment. The breaking off of the natural branches came after the giving of the New Covenant and the great judgment of Israel in the destruction of the Temple came forty years after, as a result of their rejection of the Messiah.
  #78  
Old Mar 5, '12, 1:18 pm
DavidPalm DavidPalm is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Posts: 772
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Is this to say that in their cut-off state—whether it’s Israel collectively or individual Jews—that they are immune from criticism or that they don’t do bad things? Not at all. Obviously Jews sin, because they have Original Sin like the rest of us. Jews can be criticized when those criticisms are just, just like all men (although it is a violation of the Golden Rule to broad-brush them as you so often do, Bob.) And indeed we have openly stated, for example, that we tend to agree that it makes sense from Scripture and from the logic of salvation history that the Messiah comes from the Jews and that the Antichrist may come from the Jews. What is called for here is the balance of the teaching of the Church. You rush to find everything you possibly can that’s bad, but you ignore and oppose that which is good.

And we’re not saying and have never said that Israel according to the flesh will somehow be restored over us. No, they will be grafted back into their own tree alongside us. You seem to perceive this odd “us vs. them” dynamic that doesn’t exist. Either the Gentiles are on top or the Jews are on top for you. It’s not like that. Unbaptized Jews are most certainly in a seriously disadvantaged situation as a people now, but by God’s grace they will be restored to a position alongside us in the New Covenant in Christ.

Now, in fairness, one question remains: that of the chicken and the egg. Which came first: your theological errors about the Jewish people, or your animus against them? Did your flawed theology lead to your animus? Or did your animus inspire your flawed theology?

This question we can’t answer. But the prejudice is clearly evident, in your private treatment of biblical texts, in your manhandling of the Fathers, in your treatment of Jews, in your treatment of Jewish converts, in your treatment of anyone who comes to the defense of those you malign, and in your treatment even of your own bishop.

So here’s the deal, Bob. Neither Michael nor I care if you disagree with our presentation of the Church’s teaching in these areas. Catholics of good will can and do disagree with one another. But we do care when you start throwing around irresponsible and unjustified charges of heresy—especially when it’s against a successor to the Apostles: Bishop Rhoades.

The thing is, you haven’t supported your charges at all. I’ve asked you repeatedly to show us the magisterial statements that we deny or contradict and you haven’t even made an effort to do so. The same is true of your charges against Bishop Rhoades. I think you know very well that you’ve completely violated your own publicly stated standards https://sites.google.com/site/sungen...ards-of-heresy. And I know you well enough to know that if you had the evidence, you would have brought it forward a long time ago. So it’s time to publicly retract and apologize for these false charges against Bishop Rhoades and us.

In regard to Bishop Rhoades, it’s also past time to publish the letters you received from His Excellency (29 June 2007) and Fr. King (23 Aug. 2007), in their entirety. It’s unacceptable to leak whatever selective sentences you think will help you. And it’s time to stop giving us your personal version of what’s in them. I’m publicly challenging you again, Bob: bring forth the letters. The longer you keep refusing to bring these letters forward in their entirety, the more obvious it becomes that you’re hiding information that doesn’t comport with your public story. And I would like to remind you that you recently indicated to me in an e-mail that you believe you were likely wrong about Bishop Rhoades being a dual covenant proponent. And yet you’ve just re-posted an old article that accuses him of this very thing and posted a new article that repeats those slanderous claims. Why would you do this, Bob?

Last edited by DavidPalm; Mar 5, '12 at 1:30 pm.
  #79  
Old Mar 5, '12, 1:19 pm
DavidPalm DavidPalm is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Posts: 772
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Conclusion

Now, I’d like to step back for a moment and reiterate that I think you’re a very intelligent person in many ways and that you’ve done some good things for the Church. But, unfortunately, you’ve allowed yourself to degenerate into an anti-Jewish propagandist and conspiracy theorist. At this moment alone, there are almost 40 items attacking Jews and promoting various conspiracy theories about them on your website. You’re even promoting a video about Jews and the mafia by former “Grand Wizard” of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. And you also just put up a link to an article and gave it the title, “Bishop Williamson Wins His Appeal Against the Jews”. Bob, he won his appeal against the German government. This is just a simple fact anyone can see by glancing at your website, Bob. So, your attempt to portray yourself as a reasonable, objective participant in a simple discussion about Jewish issues just isn’t going to fly. Also unreasonable are your attempts to portray Michael and me as being completely biased in favor of Jews. You’ve told falsehoods about a number of people supposedly being “Zionists”, including me. You’ve tried to lead people to believe that Michael Forrest and I are Jews who are just hiding our identities. You’ve told falsehoods about us supposedly never criticizing anything involving Jews. This article alone completely disproves that contention (although there are more): http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2010/0...i-semitic.html

Now, you’ve repeatedly promised to stop all this. Look at your own promises – they’re listed for you right here: https://sites.google.com/site/sungen...attacking-jews

You broke all of these promises shortly after you made them and you continue to break them. So, there are two possibilities: Either you never intended to keep them or you’re unable to control yourself. Either way, it’s a serious problem. It’s sad and frustrating. What’s also sad and frustrating is that these doctrinal issues involving Jews are very interesting and well worth examining and discussing. But unfortunately, at least in your current condition, you’re not a reasonable and reliable contributor. Your very presence only tends to poison the well. One of the most obvious illustrations of this is when the media used your self-proclaimed role in the U.S. bishop’s decision to change page 131 of the USCCA in order to discredit that very change. There was a reason they were all too glad to associate you with the change, Bob, and it wasn’t because they think you’re great. Whether it’s promoting your anti-Jewish agenda or geocentrism, you don’t seem to care that you’ve become a useful tool for those who want nothing more than to embarrass and marginalize the very Church that you claim to care so much about.

I’m sorry if that seems harsh. But it’s just a fact. And someone needs to help you see the reality of what you’re doing as opposed to what you think you’re doing. Believe me, Michael and I would like nothing better than to see you jettison this poison and return to reliably solid contributions. We would both rejoice at such a change of heart and direction and I believe many, many others would as well. We believe you’re better than this. But, failing that, it's important to at least keep as many innocent people as possible from getting sucked into the ugly and paranoid view of the world and the Church that you're currently promoting.
  #80  
Old Mar 6, '12, 8:43 am
Robert Sungenis Robert Sungenis is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: February 17, 2012
Posts: 17
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Palm: Do you have any objection to your friend Bob Sungenis promoting a video about Jews by former KKK Grand Wizard, David Duke?

R. Sungenis: I’ll answer for Yanni since I don’t want him to dirty his hands with Mr. Palm’s muck. David Duke is no longer with the KKK, just as Mr. Palm, as he claims, is no longer a non-Christian because he converted to the Christian faith. But unfortunately, Mr. Palm continues to sin as a Christian due to his slanderous attempts to dig up what Mr. Duke was 30 years ago and use it to prejudice the audience against what he has to say today. This is typical of irrational philosemites like Mr. Palm, that is: don’t listen to the facts about Jewish criminals and New World Zionists that Duke brings to the fore. Just slander Duke for what he was 30 years ago and the matter is settled. Yes, very typical.

Palm: Do you have any objection to Bob continuing to publicly slander his Bishop with bogus charges of heresy when Bob has privately admitted that he knows he may well not be right?

R. Sungenis:  “That he knows be may well not be right”?? This is the typical ambiguity Mr. Palm passes off as cogent argument. As for Bishop Rhoades, I’ve already pointed out that his Feb 2007 letter to Forrest shows he believes the Jews have a special relationship because of the Mosaic Covenant, not the Abrahamic covenant Mr. Palm is now trying to push as an alternative answer. So, by his own words Bishop Rhoades shows his views are erroneous, and Mr. Palm conceded to it by rejecting the Mosaic covenant answer.

Palm: Do you have any objection to Bob spreading a lie about Jewish convert Roy Schoeman’s beliefs and not retracting and apologizing for it even though he knows it's a lie? http://www.pugiofidei.com/fraud.htm

R. Sungenis: Oh, here we go again, the old canard about Roy Schoeman. Roy Schoeman can tout erroneous statements about the Jews all over his “Salvation is from the Jews” book and Mr. Palm doesn’t say a word in criticism. But if I accuse Roy Schoeman of teaching errors about the Jews, Mr. Palm gets incensed and slanders me to no end. Sense an agenda here?

Palm: Do you have any objection to Bob trying to convince people that Michael Forrest, Jared Olar, Jacob Michael and I may secretly be Jews who are hiding our identities? Do you have any objection to the stunt that Bob pulled, enlisting a young man - against his conscience - to try to "out" Jacob Michael as a Jew (see here)?

R. Sungenis: I already explained that it was Jared Olar who brought the Jew issue up, not me? Go here to find out: http://www.catholicintl.com/index.ph...rhoades-affair. As for Forrest, he decided not to answer when the question was posed to him whether he was Jewish and thus the public cannot determine if he is prejudice. As for Mr. Palm, his Protestant seminary education (Trinity Evangelical Divinity) is pro-Israel and it sees modern Israel as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy – a classic case of a Catholic convert not leaving his baggage at the door.

Palm: Do you have any objection to any of the statements Bob has made about Jews, listed here?

R. Sungenis: Meanwhile, the Zionist Jews control our foreign policy and are just about to get us into World War III with their incessant hatred against Arabs and Iran in particular; falsely accusing Iran of both having nuclear weapons and a plan to destroy Israel (when they have never attacked another country, but the Israeli’s have slaughtered thousands of Palestinians) but Mr. Palm is concerned about statements I make about the Jews when I point out their malfeasance!! This is the typical way irrational philosemites deal with the issue: try your best to discredit the messenger and never pay attention to the factual information in the message.

Palm: Do you have any problem with the fact that Bob has broken multiple promises to stop attacking Jews and to at least stick to theological issues involving them (see here)?

R. Sungenis: First, in saying I “attack” Jews, Mr. Palm is implying that the Jews I write about (Zionists, Jewish criminals, anti-christian rabbis, etc) are innocent of the charges against them and that I just like to attack them because they are Jewish. Wrong, Dead wrong. If you don’t believe me, view the videos and read the articles about Jewish criminals and Zionist political activity on our website www.catholictintl.com. You will find out for yourself why say what I say about the Jews. Then go over to Mr. Palm’s website and see if you can find any statements critical of either Zionism, Jewish criminals, Israeli slaughter of Palestinians, Judaism, Jewish history, the Jewish banking cartel, or anything derogatory at all about the Jews. You will find nothing. Sense an agenda here?

Palm: Do you believe that the kind of material presented by Bob and the sources behind them represent the sort of balance you are seeking and are rightly viewed as an effective way to reach the Jewish people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

R. Sungenis: Obviously, when Mr. Palm doesn’t refute the material about the Jews in the news on our website but instead attacks those who bring it to you, then the “balance” he is seeking is not an open-minded discussion about the good and evil the Jews have done, but merely that you not be exposed to the evil things they have done and are still doing. In his world, you can only be pro-Jew and can never openly criticize the Jews, but you can slander people like Robert Sungenis who bring the other side of the story.
  #81  
Old Mar 6, '12, 9:46 am
Robert Sungenis Robert Sungenis is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: February 17, 2012
Posts: 17
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Palm: Have We “Changed Our Minds”? No. What’s actually happening is that you and “Yanni” are finally beginning to read our material for the first time and understand it a bit better.

R. Sungenis: First of all, Mr. Palm, “Yanni” is not Mark Wyatt, nor is it me. It is someone else who has finally seen your errors and isn’t afraid to point them out, even against the personal slander you spew out on a daily basis against him.

Palm: Supersessionism…Yet Again Neither sacred Scripture nor the Catholic Church has ever used this word. Yet you deploy it as an absolute litmus test of Catholic orthodoxy - even against a successor of the Apostles.

R. Sungenis: Wrong. The English translation of the Romans Catechism of 1566 uses it. Go talk to them. Scripture uses words even stronger then supersessionism, but Mr. Palm made an arbitrary and irrational decision not to accept synonyms!!

Here is what else I think. I think Mr. Palm is a racist, a Jewish racist. He is desperately trying to propagate a heresy that requires us to interpret history and Scripture through Jewish eyes. His fallacious idea that Deut 7:7 applies to Jews today is enough evidence of his racism. He wants to elevate the Jew to a “special relationship” with God just because they are Jews. That is racism. It is not Christianity. He is little different than the raving lunatic Protestant Zionist John Hagee who thinks that Israel is so special that the US should do a preemptive strike on Iran; and that the Jews, just because they are Jews, have the divine right to take over Palestine. This is where Jewish racism leads – straight to hell.

But, of course, Mr. Palm’s tactic is to make it appear that if I even “challenge a successor of the Apostle’s” on this issue then I’m the one in the wrong just for the challenge. This is typical of Mr. Palm’s cleaning the outside of the cup and drinking the poison inside, as Jesus pointed out about the Pharisees.

Palm: Revoked…Yet Again – Neither sacred Scripture nor the Catholic Church has ever used this word that you use as an absolute litmus test of orthodoxy and insist is one of "the most important legal words related to the topic of the Old Covenant today."

R. Sungenis: Mr. Palm was shown that English dictionaries use “abrogation” and “annul” (which he has used for the Mosaic covenant) to define “revoke,” yet Mr. Palm decided he doesn’t want to use “revoke” for the Mosaic covenant!! Go figure. Bottom line: Mr. Palm is all over the proverbial map on this issue. That’s what happens when you are in error. It breeds contradictions.

Palm: Racism: The Conversion of the Jews – Your treatment of the future conversion of the Jews remains one of the clearest indications of your “theology of prejudice”. Here, I lay out additional examples of that. Most glaring is your treatment of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church and also Catechism of the Catholic Church 674. The Catechism speaks of the “full inclusion” of the Jews into the Church after (post in Latin) the full number of the Gentiles. In the CCC this information is placed under the section dealing with what will occur leading up to the Second Coming. Everything else listed there is something that a person could perceive—Christ's return itself, the "final trial" of the Church that will "shake the faith" of her members, and the coming of Antichrist. And the recognition of the Messiah by "all Israel" is right square in the middle of that section. According to your unusual interpretation of Romans 11, this really isn't really that big of a deal. Very odd, then, that the Church found it important enough to include along with the Great Tribulation, the Great Apostasy, and the Antichrist as signs of the Second Coming. See more details here

R. Sungenis: Notice that when I disagree with Mr. Palm’s view it’s a “theology of prejudice,” but when Bishop Rhoades defends the error on page 131 of the US Catechism as teaching that the Jews have a special relationship with God because of the Mosaic covenant, he is a “successor to the Apostles” that cannot be challenged.

Be that as it may, what is “very odd” is that Mr. Palm keeps reading into para 674 of the US catechism what he wants to see. He’s now telling us that because “full inclusion” comes “in the wake” of the fullness of the Gentiles, this MUST mean that there is a separate conversion of Jews after all the Gentiles are saved. Really? It’s amazing how Mr. Palm gets that out of the simple metaphor “in the wake”! Ever been water skiing Mr. Palm? Notice that one ski on the wake and moves right along with the wake at the same speed and goes the same distance. I never saw a wake that was behind the skier. Go back to the drawing board, Mr. Palm.
  #82  
Old Mar 6, '12, 9:48 am
DavidPalm DavidPalm is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Posts: 772
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Bob,

You caught me on my lunch break and I can spare a few minutes to respond.

You're really going to stand by David Duke? You're not concerned that Duke is still openly racist? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_duke. I have an acquaintance who gets material from Duke which is blatantly racist--in fact this last year he got a Christmas card with the tender wish, "May All Your Christmases Be WHITE" (the emphasis is Duke's, not mine.)

You write,

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidPalm View Post
go over to Mr. Palm’s website and see if you can find any statements critical of either Zionism, Jewish criminals, Israeli slaughter of Palestinians...or anything derogatory at all about the Jews.
Well, not derogatory--that would be un-Christian. But critical, yes. I already gave the proof that you're wrong, Bob.

http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2010/0...i-semitic.html


Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidPalm View Post
Oh, here we go again, the old canard about Roy Schoeman...But if I accuse Roy Schoeman of teaching errors about the Jews, Mr. Palm gets incensed and slanders me to no end.
No, Bob. We've never had a problem with responsible and charitable criticisms of Roy's work. In fact, we've made some ourselves: http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.c...n-is-from.html. But we do have a problem when you spread lies about him that you know are lies and then refuse to set the record straight and forthrightly apologize.

Again, by your former vice president, Ben Douglass:

Origin of Schoeman Forgery Revealed: Sungenis Up to Old Tricks

As for your claim that I'm being ambiguous about your admission that you weren't sure about Bishop Rhoades, let me be more clear. You wrote to me on September 2 of last year and admitted that:
I wasn’t quite sure whether it was Rhoades [sic] or [name deleted] who was the mastermind behind this whole thing. My suspicion now is that it was [name deleted], not Bishop Rhoades.

I’ve heard from someone very close to the Harrisburg diocese, who grew up with [name deleted], that he is “an evil man.” Those were his exact words. . . . Perhaps now that Rhoades [sic] is away from [name deleted], he may be more open to talk about these events and I would be more than willing to do so to clear up the issue. In fact, I think I am going to write Rhoades [sic] a letter and make some conciliatory gesture toward him based on how [name deleted] handled this whole thing. My present interpretation is that it is [name deleted] who is the real anti-supersessionist, not Bishop Rhoades. And if I am right, I will certainly apologize to Bishop Rhoades. But I need to know the truth, and that can only come from Bishop Rhoades.
I don't think you did contact Bishop Rhoades, Bob, because if you did you would have found out that he does not hold the views you've accused him of. And yet in spite those doubts about your "case", you went right ahead and re-posted your heresy charges against Bishop Rhoades. Twice now, in fact.

As for the rest of what you wrote, I think it pretty much makes my point.

Last edited by DavidPalm; Mar 6, '12 at 9:58 am.
  #83  
Old Mar 6, '12, 10:57 am
DavidPalm DavidPalm is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Posts: 772
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
PalmThe English translation of the Romans Catechism of 1566 uses it. Go talk to them. Scripture uses words even stronger then supersessionism, but Mr. Palm made an arbitrary and irrational decision not to accept synonyms!!
The English translation? We've been over this. It's English, for starters. Second, it doesn't use the word "supersessionism". I don't know how we can we make this any clearer. The Church has never used the word supersessionism, we've repeatedly shown that it commonly has a pejorative nuance and many variations, yet you use it as an absolute litmus test of orthodoxy. You know very well why this precise word is so important to you Bob. Your entire "case" again Bishop Rhoades hangs on the allegation that his vicar general used it. You had no justification at all to conclude that Bishop Rhoades is teaching heresy based on this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
Here is what else I think. I think Mr. Palm is a racist, a Jewish racist. He is desperately trying to propagate a heresy that requires us to interpret history and Scripture through Jewish eyes. His fallacious idea that Deut 7:7 applies to Jews today is enough evidence of his racism. He wants to elevate the Jew to a “special relationship” with God just because they are Jews. That is racism. It is not Christianity. He is little different than the raving lunatic Protestant Zionist John Hagee who thinks that Israel is so special that the US should do a preemptive strike on Iran; and that the Jews, just because they are Jews, have the divine right to take over Palestine. This is where Jewish racism leads – straight to hell.
John Hagee? I think I've made my own position very clear here and I've provided a great number of clarifications. I've also provided citations from the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, something that you have so far failed to do. Again, more on your false charges of "racism" here: https://sites.google.com/site/sungen...#_Toc255151551

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
But, of course, Mr. Palm’s tactic is to make it appear that if I even “challenge a successor of the Apostle’s” on this issue then I’m the one in the wrong just for the challenge. This is typical of Mr. Palm’s cleaning the outside of the cup and drinking the poison inside, as Jesus pointed out about the Pharisees.
I just think that if you're going to publicly charge a Catholic bishop of having a "war with Catholic doctrine", of attempting to "propagate a heresy" to "unsuspecting Catholics", or having greater "allegiances" to Jewish interests than to Catholic doctrine, of being afraid of Jews because they supposedly hold the mortgages on diocesan property (as you have) then you actually need to cite his own words, again, something you have failed to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
Mr. Palm was shown that English dictionaries use “abrogation” and “annul” (which he has used for the Mosaic covenant) to define “revoke,” yet Mr. Palm decided he doesn’t want to use “revoke” for the Mosaic covenant!! Go figure. Bottom line: Mr. Palm is all over the proverbial map on this issue. That’s what happens when you are in error. It breeds contradictions.
We illustrated the negative nuance of "revoked".

https://sites.google.com/site/sungen...m#RevokedAgain

https://sites.google.com/site/sungen...#_Toc255151556

And no one gets to create his own personal vocabulary and then use it to condemn other people of heresy. Again, I don't know what is so hard to understand about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
R. Sungenis: Notice that when I disagree with Mr. Palm’s view it’s a “theology of prejudice,” but when Bishop Rhoades defends the error on page 131 of the US Catechism as teaching that the Jews have a special relationship with God because of the Mosaic covenant, he is a “successor to the Apostles” that cannot be challenged.
Bishop Rhoades didn't defend an error. He gave a perfectly orthodox interpretation of a problematic passage in the USCCA. He was obviously trying to be as charitable as possible with his interpretation. Yet, it was clear he recognized there was an issue with the wording. In fact, he voted to change it - contrary to the impression you've given. And what I pointed out is that the bishop's wording was not even erroneous, let alone heretical. However, in my view, there is a better, more accurate way to word it. Do you see the difference between that and publicly condemning him of heresy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
Be that as it may, what is “very odd” is that Mr. Palm keeps reading into para 674 of the US catechism what he wants to see. He’s now telling us that because “full inclusion” comes “in the wake” of the fullness of the Gentiles, this MUST mean that there is a separate conversion of Jews after all the Gentiles are saved. Really? It’s amazing how Mr. Palm gets that out of the simple metaphor “in the wake”!....I never saw a wake that was behind the skier. Go back to the drawing board, Mr. Palm.
First, again, this is the English translation, not the original language. Regardless, "in the wake of" as a temporal metaphor means "after". But more importantly, I have already pointed out here in this thread that the Latin of the Catechism uses the word "post", which means temporally after (as in post hoc, ergo propter hoc). It does not mean "at the same time", as you're trying to interpret it. And this contradicts your view of "all Israel" being solely a continuous trickle of Jewish converts throughout time, coming in simultaneously with the Gentiles.

Last edited by DavidPalm; Mar 6, '12 at 11:08 am.
  #84  
Old Mar 6, '12, 11:34 am
YanniP YanniP is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: February 8, 2012
Posts: 18
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Mr. Palm: I now understand the propriety of your moniker “Reluctant” Traditionalist. You are trying very hard to maintain consistency with the Tradition of the Church, yet you are conflicted. That conflict is creeping out as novelty.

First, please realize that you are transposing anger and spite you have for another onto me. You have gone so far as to allege that I am someone I am not. Quite an elaborate conspiracy theorist you are! I’m not Mark Wyatt, Wyatt Erp, nor Robert Sungenis’ lackey. You have been condescending and quite rude. The only “glasses” I wear were given to me at my confirmation by the Church. Please quell the anti-sungenis fetish. If you don't like his website, don't go to it. Last I checked, he's not claiming his political commentary is magisterial- you are. If you don't want to discuss the issues, don't post any further.

Yes, I have posted similar arguments on the (c)atholics for Israel website after seeing a post here on CA that was very troubling. The poster had that website’s banner attached to his post. I researched the website, and was very, very concerned. Thank you for pointing out that my arguments were consistent. I have researched this issue myself, and obviously raised arguments that are my own.

Onto the substance if you will join me, but this will be my last post if you continue with your attempt to divert the conversation. This discussion WAS very on-point for the topic of the thread, and as you probably saw, your article was cited by a very kind poster in the catholics for Israel forum discussion I was having regarding similar covenant issues. The tone of that conversation was very professional. Hint.

Seeing as you didn’t answer any of my last questions or address any of the theological arguments I raised, I’ll make one last point in response to your post #75, you state:

“The place where your fundamentally flawed approach to Romans 11 really comes to the fore is in your treatment of the olive tree in vv. 17-24. First, you have previously gone to great lengths to deny that the “olive tree” of which St. Paul speaks is Israel. You’ve claimed that the olive tree is Christ and that "this was also the constant teaching of the Fathers" (CASB2, p. 149), going so far as to publicly castigate Jewish converts for saying that the olive tree was Israel. Of course, you seem to have forgotten that Jesus is a Jew. He is the Israelite par excellence, the representative head of Israel. So, even if you were correct, to be grafted into Christ is still to be grafted into Israel.

And although you offered a few citations from the Fathers as a "representative sample" of your claim, it turns out that you missed in the very same context of those citations where those Fathers made it quite clear that they saw Israel as the Olive Tree.”


To say the “tree” in this analogy is Christ is completely consistent with Church teaching. The tree and roots have specifically been referenced as the Church, which is consistent with the Fathers teaching that the tree is rooted in the patriarchs. Do you see the consistent thread here to this position? Why is it that the tree is rooted in the Patriarchs? Let's find out.

Pope Pius X proclaimed it in his encyclical Iucunda Sane:

“13. But in those days the people, albeit rude, ignorant, and still destitute of all civilization, were eager for life, and this no one could give except Christ, through the Church, who "came that they may have life and have it more abundantly" (John x. 10). And truly they had life and had it abundantly, precisely because as no other life but the supernatural life of souls could come from the Church, this includes in itself and gives additional vigor to all the energies of life, even in the natural order. "If the root be holy so are the branches," said St. Paul to the Gentiles, "and thou being a wild olive art ingrafted in them, and art made partaker of the root and of the fatness of the olive-tree (Rom. xi. 16, 17).
14. To-day, on the contrary, although the world enjoys a light so full of Christian civilization and in this respect cannot for a moment be compared with the times of Gregory, yet it seems as though it were tired of that life, which has been and still is the chief and often the sole fount of so many blessings--and not merely past but present blessings. And not only does this useless branch cut itself off from the trunk, as happened in other times when heresies and schisms arose, but it first lays the ax to the root of the tree, which is the Church, and strives to dry up its vital sap that its ruin may be the surer and that it may never blossom again.”
  #85  
Old Mar 6, '12, 11:49 am
YanniP YanniP is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: February 8, 2012
Posts: 18
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

The Church is the root. Unless you define Israel as the New Israel, you are off target. Seeing as you quickly disregard my comments, and attribute them to another, I’ll keep mine to a minimum and rely on the words of St. Augustine:

“The wild olive is cut off from its stock, to be grafted into the olive: now they belong to the olive, no longer ought they to be called nations, but one nation in Christ, the nation of Jacob, the nation of Israel...What is Israel? Seeing God. Where shall he see God? In peace. What peace? The peace of Jerusalem; for, says he, He has set peace for your borders. There shall we praise: there shall we all be one, in One, unto One: for then, though many, we shall not be scattered.” Ex Ps 147

But does Augustine mean a physical, eternal, Israel? No, he means the New Israel, more definitvely Christ. The old Israel, the children of the flesh are NOT the children of God, as it depends entirely upon circumcision of the heart:

“Why then would we have some great mystery to be understood in this superscription, wherein it was written, King of the Jews, if Christ is king also of the Gentiles? For this reason, because it was the wild olive tree that was made partaker of the fatness of the olive tree, and not the olive tree that was made partaker of the bitterness of the wild olive tree. Romans 11:17 For inasmuch as the title, King of the Jews, was truthfully written regarding Christ, who are they that are to be understood as the Jews but the seed of Abraham, the children of the promise, who are also the children of God? For they, says the apostle, who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. Romans 9:7-8 And the Gentiles were those to whom he said, But if you be Christ's, then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:29 Christ therefore is king of the Jews, but of those who are Jews by the circumcision of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God; Romans 2:29 who belong to the Jerusalem that is free, our eternal mother in heaven, the spiritual Sarah, who casts out the bond maid and her children from the house of liberty.” Tractate 117, para. 5

Finally, as for your complaint that in interpreting Romans 11 you cannot seperate "Israel" into two groups, isn't Augustine saying exactly the contrary?

"Because God's hand and counsel predestinated such things to be done by the hostile Jews as were necessary for the gospel, for our sakes. But what is it that follows? But as concerning the election, they are beloved for their fathers' sakes. For are those enemies who perished in their enmity and those of the same people who still perish in their opposition to Christ—are those chosen and beloved? Away with the thought! Who is so utterly foolish as to say this? But both expressions, although contrary to one another— that is, enemies and beloved— are appropriate, though not to the same men, yet to the same Jewish people, and to the same carnal seed of lsrael, of whom some belonged to the falling away, and some to the blessing of Israel himself." On the Predestination of Saints, Book I, para. 33.


See, Mr. Palm, old truths from wise men. Tradition without reluctance.
  #86  
Old Mar 6, '12, 12:52 pm
Robert Sungenis Robert Sungenis is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: February 17, 2012
Posts: 17
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Palm: So what’s behind all of this? I believe the problem is that you’re beginning with unbalanced, faulty presuppositions. It is no wonder that you come to erroneous conclusions, which do not reflect what the Magisterium teaches.

R. Sungenis: Sure. I expose the error of the US Catechism; the bishops vote 243 to 14 to remove the error; the Vatican confirms the change, yet Mr. Palm claims I’m “not reflecting what the Magisterium teaches.”

Palm:I believe you have a fundamentally unbalanced and confused understanding of God's relationship with Israel according to the flesh, the Jewish people. You have adopted what we've called a "theology of prejudice", but upon further reflection it might also be called a "theology of punishment." From this flows your private choice of a word that the Magisterium has never used: “revoked”. From this flows your denial that the Jewish people retain any special place in salvation history (unless it’s at the service of Satan, of course).

R. Sungenis: Notice Mr. Palm avoids Scripture which is crystal clear that the Mosaic covenant is revoked (Hebrews 7:18; 8:13; 10:9). Notice that he avoids the Romans Catechism (after, of course, he used his own judgment to nullify its English translation). Notice how he avoids the Council of Trent reference to the “abrogation of the Mosaic covenant,” and, by his own private judgment, says that “revoked” is not the same as “abrogate.” Notice how he avoids Pius XII’s Mystici Coroporis that also says the Mosaic covenant was abrogated. Notice how he then implies that if I disagree with him its possibly because it is at the “service of Satan.” Where does Mr. Palm get off?

Palm: From this flows your insistence that the Jews have no special ongoing relationship with God (again, unless it's negative. For more, see Internal Contradictions in Sungenis’ Own Theology here). From this flows the great double standards you employ, latching onto any negative thing the Fathers or Scripture might say about Jews, while working desperately to explain away the instances in which Scripture, the Fathers, and the Magisterium affirm positive things about them. From this flow your extremely tendentious readings of Romans 11. From this flow all of the contortions you go through to try to divorce the Church as much as you can from its inherent Jewishness.

R. Sungenis: There he goes again. Mr. Palm wants race to be the basis of how we distinguish the Catholic Church! Not only are we to give unsaved and anti-Christian Jews some kind of “special relationship” with God, but the Church is “inherently Jewish”!! No wonder he claims that “the election” of Romans 11:28 refers to the Jewish race! Really, Mr. Palm? Is that why St. Paul, a Jew, said he was leaving the Jews because they didn’t accept the Gospel, and was turning to the Gentiles, and was doing so in direct fulfillment of OT prophecy (cf. Acts 13:43-48; Romans 9:24-26; 10:16-21)? Is that why Paul says in 1 Thess 2:14-16 that the Jews, at large, are a menace to the whole world? Is that why you can’t find any positive statement about the Jews from Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate and CCC 674 except for what these documents quote from Scripture? Is that why you keep twisting words of the English language (e.g., revoked, abrogate, annul, supersede) to confirm to your Israel first theology?

Palm:Let’s look at this more closely. More examples could be cited, but the following will suffice.

From your “Question 231”, you write:
Also, your insistence that the revoke or annulling of the Old Covenant had nothing to do with "rebuke" or "disownership" is incorrect. Whether we use "revoke," "annul," "set aside," "take away," "cancel" or any other similar term, the fact remains that the legal or covenantal commission that God had originally given to the Jewish nation was revoked, and in the process of the revocation, the Jews were, indeed, "rebuked" for their sins and they were also severed from "ownership" of the Mosaic law. No longer could the Jews have a relationship with God based on the Mosaic law, legally speaking. No longer would the Jews be the "chosen people" or "the people of the covenant" in opposition to everyone else in the world. As a national or ethnic entity, God, indeed, has "repudiated" the Jews. . . . [i]n regards to national or ethnic aspects, the Jews have, indeed, been rejected. God no longer deals with or has a relationship to the Jews based on their Jewishness or their national origin. God will only relate to the Jews as he relates to everyone else in the world -- accept Jesus Christ for the salvation of your souls or perish.

And then the following, from your critique of our Lay Witness article:

“The only way a Jew can become a member of the “Chosen People” today is if he accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior…If he is unconverted, he is not of the “Chosen People.” In fact, a Jew, because he denies that Jesus Christ is the divine Savior, is consigned to hell by “divine choice.”

You sure can feel the love.

R. Sungenis: Notice how Mr. Palm resorts to sarcasm and demagoguery instead of the issue. You can sure feel his love, can’t you? Mr. Palm needs to ask himself the $64,000 question: which gospel is he going to preach? The one in the NT that says the Jews are not special because of their Jewish race and says that there is no longer Jew nor Greek but only those in Christ Jesus, or his race-based Gospel that says Jews are special just because they are Jewish? This is the crux of the issue. Mr. Palm has finally laid his cards on the table.
  #87  
Old Mar 6, '12, 12:52 pm
Robert Sungenis Robert Sungenis is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: February 17, 2012
Posts: 17
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Palm: I submit that this is at the heart of your whole approach to the Jews. You believe that the replacement of the Mosaic covenant with the New Covenant was a “rebuke” of Israel according to the flesh. The Jewish people, according to you, were “repudiated” by God and have no special relationship with God, as Jews and as a people. God only deals with Jews as individuals and their Jewishness is irrelevant now. That’s your position.

R. Sungenis: Mr. Palm, I suggest you go back and read the OT, and when you do, stop reading it behind your Deut 7:7 rose-colored glasses. Page after page after page of the OT deals with the sins of the Jews. Consult my review of David Klinghoffer’s book Why the Jews Rejected Jesus to get a bird’s eye view of their inordinate sins and why God finally rejected them for those sins
(http://www.catholicintl.com/index.ph...rejected-jesus).

The NT is crystal clear that God rejected the Jewish nation because of those sins, yet He held out his merciful hand to those Jews who accepted Christ, and continues to do so. You are a racist. God is not, since he shows no respect of persons (Romans 2:9-10).
  #88  
Old Mar 6, '12, 1:02 pm
Robert Sungenis Robert Sungenis is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: February 17, 2012
Posts: 17
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Palm: Bob, You caught me on my lunch break and I can spare a few minutes to respond. You're really going to stand by David Duke? You're not concerned that Duke is still openly racist? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_duke. I have an acquaintance who gets material from Duke which is blatantly racist--in fact this last year he got a Christmas card with the tender wish, "May All Your Christmases Be WHITE" (the emphasis is Duke's, not mine.)

R. Sungenis: If he is a racist, I'm not condoning it. You don't see anything on my website that does so. What you see is Duke's information on Jewish gangsters and bankers and Zionist hegemony. Besides, what's worse? David Duke's alleged white racism or your blatant Jewish racism?
  #89  
Old Mar 6, '12, 1:06 pm
Robert Sungenis Robert Sungenis is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: February 17, 2012
Posts: 17
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Palm: Well, not derogatory--that would be un-Christian. But critical, yes. I already gave the proof that you're wrong, Bob.

http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2010/0...i-semitic.html

R. Sungenis: Sorry, I'm not going to wade through your magniloquence. You can state here what criticisms you have of Israel and the Jews, and then we will judge how fair you are.
  #90  
Old Mar 6, '12, 1:17 pm
Robert Sungenis Robert Sungenis is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: February 17, 2012
Posts: 17
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Palm: No, Bob. We've never had a problem with responsible and charitable criticisms of Roy's work. In fact, we've made some ourselves: http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.c...n-is-from.html. But we do have a problem when you spread lies about him that you know are lies and then refuse to set the record straight and forthrightly apologize.

Again, by your former vice president, Ben Douglass:

R. Sungenis: It's a canard, Mr. Palm, because you know very well I gave a conditional apology to Mr. Schoeman due to the fact that I received information about a derogatory statement he alledgedly made. I also stated I would give him an unconditional apology if he would assure me, through written statement signed by him, that he did not say the statement in question. To this day he has not done so, and you have not encouraged him to do so. The only thing you do is spread slander about me claiming that I'm "lying" about about the original statement Mr. Schoeman allegdegly said and that I still accuse him of saying it!! Mr. Palm, get a grip on yourself. Stop digging up canards to prejudice the audience.
Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
6631CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: tawny
6226Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: hazcompat
5194Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
4631Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4312Poems and Reflections
Last by: tonyg
4055OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: Fischli
3293For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: GLam8833
3261Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Herculees
2828Let's Empty Purgatory 2
Last by: Tis Bearself
2449SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:44 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.