Pope Paul IV (1555-59) was one of twenty-nine popes who sharply attacked the Jews (see below), as did many Church Fathers — in the Early Church, after Christianity became the state religion, and also in the Middle Ages.
This disproves the lie that Christianity was pro-Jewish. After all, unlike Buddhism or Islam, its founder was hated and murdered by the Jews.
The problem is that because of the baleful influence of Saul/Paul, Christanity has never been antisemitic and radical enough.
Myself leading chants in 1993 with 30 others during (and disrupting) the opening of the US National Holocaust Museum in Washington
Myself 16 years later, in 2009, on NBC Nightly News explaining why James von Brunn was so angry at the Jews that at age 88 he went in and shot up the Holocaust Museum
.
.
…..Wikipedia on the Papal Bull against the Jews by Paul IV
Cum nimis absurdum
[in Latin, roughly, “When enough is enough”]
Cum nimis absurdum was a papal bull issued by Pope Paul IV dated 14 July 1555. It takes its name from its first words:[1] “Since it is absurd and utterly inconvenient that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal slavery…”
The bull revoked all the rights of the Jewish community and placed religious and economic restrictions on Jews in the Papal States, renewed anti-Jewish legislation and subjected Jews to various degradations and restrictions on their personal freedom.
The bull established the Roman Ghetto and required the Jews of Rome, which had existed as a community since before Christian times and numbered about 2,000 at the time, to live in it. The Ghetto was a walled quarter with three gates that were locked at night. Under the bull, Jewish males were required to wear a pointed yellow hat, and Jewish females a yellow kerchief. Jews were required to attend compulsory Catholic sermons on the Jewish shabbat.
The bull also subjected Jews to various other restrictions such as a prohibition on property ownership and practising medicine among Christians. Jews were allowed to practice only unskilled jobs, as rag men, secondhand dealers or fish mongers. They could also be pawnbrokers.
Paul IV’s successor, Pope Pius IV, enforced the creation of other ghettos in most Italian towns, and his successor, Pope Pius V, recommended them to other bordering states. The Papal States ceased to exist on 20 September 1870 when they were incorporated in the Kingdom of Italy, but the requirement that Jews live in the ghetto was only formally abolished by the Italian state in 1882.
Background[edit]
Gian Pietro Carafa was seventy-nine when he assumed the papacy as Pope Paul IV, and was by all accounts austere, rigidly orthodox, and authoritarian in manner. As a cardinal, he had persuaded Pope Paul III to establish a Roman Inquisition, modelled on the Spanish Inquisition with himself as one of the Inquisitors-General. Carafa vowed, “Even if my own father were a heretic, I would gather the wood to burn him”.[2]
In September 1553, Cardinal Carafa had overseen the burning of the Talmud in Rome.[3] Deutsch and Jacobs link this to part of the reaction to the Protestant Reformation that led to censorship of books deemed detrimental to Christians.[4]
Content[edit]
Two months after becoming Pope, Paul IV issued Cum nimis absurdum. As temporal ruler of the Papal States it applied to those areas over which he had direct control.
Provisions[edit]
Paul IV sought to strictly enforce earlier canonical restrictions against the Jews—as those prohibiting their practising medicine among Christians, employing Christian servants, and the like—but he also restricted them in their commercial activity, forbade them to have more than one synagogue in any city, enforced the wearing of the yellow hat, refused to permit a Jew to be addressed as “signor”, and finally decreed that they should live in a designated area separated from Christians.[5] The last measure was carried out in Rome with unrelenting cruelty.[4]
According to Herbert Thurston, “[E]dicts issued at various times for the destruction of copies of the Talmud, the Bull “Cum nimis absurdum” of Paul IV constraining the Jews of Rome to live segregated in a Ghetto and subject to other harassing disabilities, represent rather the prejudices of individual pontiffs …”[6]
There was to be no more than one synagogue in each state, territory and domain. It forbade the construction of new synagogues, and decreed the demolition of any others beyond the one permitted. Furthermore, Jews were not allowed to own real property and were required to sell those properties which they then owned within a set period of time.[5] This contradicted a precedent set as early as 598, by Gregory the Great which clearly laid down that the Jews were to be allowed to keep their own festivals and religious practices, and their rights of property, even in the case of their synagogues.[6]
Paul IV restated a canon of the Fourth Council of the Lateran of 1215 that required Jews and Muslims to wear something to distinguish them from Christians. Paul now specified that Jews were required to wear some distinguishing sign, yellow in color.
They were forbidden to have Christian nurses, maids or servants, nor Christian wet-nurses. They were prohibited from working or have work done on Sundays or on other public feast days declared by the Church, or fraternize in any way with Christians.[5]
Jews were limited to the trade of rag-picking, and were not to trade in grain, barley, or any other commodity essential to human welfare. Nor were they to use other than Latin or Italian words in short-term account books that they held with Christians, and, if they did so, such records would not be binding on Christians in legal proceedings. Nonetheless, Serena di Nepi demonstrates that Jewish bankers remained actively involved with Christian partners in a variety of activities, including the purchase and sale of real estate.[7]
Those who were physicians, were not to attend, even if summoned, any Christians, and they were not to be addressed as superiors even by poor Christians.
The bull listed restrictions on loan practices. Collateral, put up as temporary security for their money, was not to be sold unless such goods were put up a full eighteen months prior to the day on which such collateral would be forfeit. At the expiration of the specified number of months, if Jews sold a security deposit, they were to remit all money in excess of the principal of the loan to the owner of the collateral.
The measures were aimed at bringing about Jewish conversions. “These policies were easier to enforce in the Papal States, where the Pope had executive power, as well as elsewhere in Italy, where the papacy had influence. Beyond Italy, though, the provisions of the bull were largely ignored.”[8] In Poland, Church officials never proposed segregation of the Jews as such a measure would not have been supported by the king or the nobles.[8]
Serena di Nepi argues that “in spite of the increasing implosion of the Jewish world of Rome, imposed by papal policy, which imposed exclusion and enclosure, the Jews of Rome were able to hold steadfast to an identity, preserve a specificity and defend themselves against persisting attempts to convert them through active proselytism and social exclusion calculated to erode their adherence to their Jewish faith”.[7]
…..From my recent, major blog on Jesus the Aryan
“The Jewish people fell from the heights because of their faithlessness and condemned their Redeemer to a shameful death. Their godlessness has assumed such forms that, for the salvation of our own people, it becomes necessary to prevent their disease. Besides usury, through which Jews everywhere have sucked dry the property of impoverished Christians,
….they are accomplices of thieves and robbers; and the most damaging aspect of the matter is that they allure the unsuspecting through magical incantations, superstition, and witchcraft to the Synagogue of Satan and boast of being able to predict the future.
We have carefully investigated how this revolting sect abuses the name of Christ and how harmful they are to those whose life is threatened by their deceit.
On account of these and other serious matters, and because of the gravity of their crimes which increase day to day more and more, We order that, within 90 days, all Jews in our entire earthly realm of justice — in all towns, districts, and places — must depart these regions. ~ Pope St. Pius V (From his Bull, “The Jewish Race,” Feb.26, 1569
This respectable number of twenty-nine Popes and fifty-seven anti-Semitic bulls could even be expanded by citing the bull Beatus Andreas issued by Benedictine XIV on February 22, 1755, which refers to the martyrdom of a Christian child, little Andy Oxner, on 12 July 1462, aged 3, by Christ-hating Jews, in a very notorious ritual murder case. The severity of the Pope’s tone could not have been improved on by Dr. Joseph Goebbels.
[JdN: I read the entire bull in German translation. Half-expecting a tirade against the Jews for killing this child, I found instead the legal and formal attitude that Ariel Toaff credited to popes in various ritual murder cases. Popes in effect “bent over backwards” to not condemn Jews unjustly, having in mind the claim of “Saint” Paul that the Jews were “still” in some way God’s Covenant People — but were they ever? The bull implies that because the little child could not and did not consciously choose martyrdom, at least four miracles that were witnessed by others are necessary for official beatification or sanctification of the jew-murdered child, that is, for the Church to formally declare them to be “blessed” or “saints.”)
The church in Rinn near Innsbruck, Austria
A politically correct modern plaque is all that is left now in the church at Judenstein (Jew’s Stone”) recalling little Andreas Oxner, “Anderl [Andy] von [of] Rinn”, who was beatified in 1755.
The painted wooden statue of the three-year-old Andy
The poor boy’s bones were removed from the church in 1985 by a traitorous, jew-serving bishop, ‘Reinhold Stecher. (And, who knows with the Catholic Church of today, perhaps he was even a homosexual and a pedophile. This priest was arrested by the Gestapo as an enemy of the Reich, and almost sent to a concentration camp, but instead was put in the Army and forced to fight for Germany up in Finland and Norway.)
The former ceiling fresco depicting what the Jews did to him, as with the case of Simon of Trent, the Jews did this out of direct hatred and mockery of Jesus and Christians. Under Jew pressure, the Vatican-II Church in 1961 revoked its own beatification from 1755 of little Andy, saying the case was being “misused” to incite antisemitism, there was no proof Jews did it, or if so, none that Jews did it out of religious hatred — all bald-faced lies. Only Jews drain (using up to 100 cuts) all the blood out of white children when they murder them, and it is for the dried blood for matzoh bread eaten at Passover.
A vile Gentile, the godfather actually, took his own godson to the Jews and sold him for money. This fresco, as of 2015, is still to be seen in the church.
Jews are here depicted truthfully as killing and draining the blood from white, Christian children, especially boys, to make a dried blood powder to be baked into the matzoh bread which Jews eat at Passover: BLOOD PASSOVER Ariel Toaff 2007
Most of the bulls and edicts refer to general topics, such as issues of doctrine, procedures, and the situation of Jews in the Papal States, and that of Jews in other Catholic states, and things to be regulated by decrees and papal ordinances.
In the years before the triumph of the Italian revolution [and the national unification of Italy] of 1859, and with it the subsequent disappearance of the Papal States, the regulations concerning the Jews of Rome were very strict, with occasional relaxations of their severity. The common character of all the measures taken was to protect Christian communities against the penetration of the Jewish race and its Talmudic ideas. These measures can be grouped into four categories:
1) Direct measures to protect the Catholic faith:
1.1) Destruction of the Talmud.
1.2) Severe prohibition of the teaching of the Talmud and even of the Bible [by Jews] without prior permission and supervision.
2) Measures aimed at ensuring the social separation of Jews and Christians:
2.1) Confinement of Jews to their ghetto.
Venice ghetto (Ghettoes had a literal wall around them, or in the case of Venice, a canal of water traversed by a footbridge, with Gentile soldiers or policemen standing guard and perhaps interrogating unknown people who were coming and going. Jews had to be back in their ghetto by the curfew.)
Jewish ghetto, Cracow, Poland
2.2) General prohibition – laid on both Jews and Christians – of cohabitation, in the broadest application of the expression.
2.3) Use of dresses and special badges.
2.4) Absolute expulsion from certain areas
.
3) Measures assuring the protection of certain professions, preserving them from Jewish influence:
3.1) Public charges.
3.2) Liberal professions, especially medicine.
3.3) Teaching.
3.4) Banking.
3.5) Certain types of trade.
3.6) Ownership of the land.
4) Measures concerning race:
4.1) Prohibition of employment by Jews, of nannies, maids, cooks, and in general, all kinds of non-Jewish female workers.
The ritual murder in Hungary of the 14-year-old farm girl Esther Solymosi on 1 April 1882, painted by Michael Munkácsy under commission by Tsar Alexander III of Russia
4.2) Prohibition of mixed marriages (a universal principle already in Christianity)
The encyclical letter of His Holiness Benedict XIV (photo; reigned 1740-58) sent to the Primate, archbishops and bishops of the country of Poland concerning the prohibitions against Jews residing in the same cities and districts as Polish Christians is a document that, in our age, would have cost the author, howevermuch Vicar of Christ he was, the honor of the gallows in any ecclesiastic Nuremberg.
His Holiness begins by recalling the Catholic traditions of the Polish nation and emphasizing the resolutions of the Petrikac (Petrikov) Council, presided over by nuncio Lipomanus, bishop of Verona … In said council and for the greater glory of God the principle of freedom of conscience was proscribed and definitely excluded from among the principles, governing the public life of the kingdom.
Remember, then, the Vicar of Christ wrote, the resolutions of the synod of the province of Gnesen, in which the Polish bishops took wise measures to preserve their king from Jewish perfidy.
His Holiness then expresses regret over the catastrophic news that has come to his knowledge. Here is the catastrophic news: “The number of Jews has increased considerably; the Jews have constituted monopolies, specifically in the
liquor trade; they have become owners of immense estates; and they have taken their daring to the point of becoming tax collectors. ”
He then calls attention to the fact that some Christians have entered the domestic service of Jews, which he calls a monstrous anomaly.
After asking that no reaction include committing abuses and exactions against the Jews, His Holiness demands a return to the healthy order of things and the complete separation (apartheid, we would say today) between both communities, Jewish and Christian, with the predominance of the latter in civil life.
Even without a moment’s consideration of its divine aspect, an organization like the Roman Catholic Church, nearly two thousand years old, does not make major decisions lightly and without thinking through carefully the pros and cons. It would seriously insult the intellect and the sensitivity of twenty-nine Pontiffs, and of hundreds of archbishops, cardinals, bishops — many of them at the altars [ = not shut up in monasteries but out in the real world with the toiling masses, the faithful, the people] — who dictated anti-Semitic measures. It seems logical to suppose that if they took such measures, they had powerful motives.
In the last two hundred years Judaism has created two monsters, capitalism and communism, has perpetrated the Russian Revolution [ = a putsch by 40,000 mostly Jewish bolsheviks], the plundering of Palestine, and has contributed powerfully to the unleashing of two world wars, among many other “achievements” with which they can be charged.
We are convinced of the existence of many decent Jews, innocent of the crimes that Judaism has committed and still now commits, although we will state that we have not found a Jew – not a single one! – who has dissociated himself from his kinsmen in the [Soviet-era] Kremlin, on Wall Street … or in Palestine.
We do not see, then, any special reason to believe that the antisemitic measures of the Church, which must have been a good thing for eighteen centuries, suddenly became a bad thing despite the emergence of [new Jewish menaces]:
–communism,
–capitalism, and
–the pirate state of Tel Aviv.
.
.
.
Leave a Reply