Note: There are many "links" interspersed throughout these pages. By clicking on a link, you will be connected with background or source material regarding the text that directly precedes it. There are also many links that are underlined words, phrases or numbered footnotes.
Compilation on the Conversion of the Jews
[NOTE: About six years after I presented the following compilation, Bob Sungenis published a critique of it (if it really can be called such). My answer to his critique can be read by clicking here.]
Below is a compilation of various Fathers, Saints, Popes, scholars and respected Catholic
commentators who support the idea of an unusual conversion of the Jews in the future
(this list is not intended to be exhaustive).
A) Against Celsus:book 6, cap. 80
"To the Jews, however, especially those of ancient times, who employ none of these
practices, he did not merely refuse the name of inspired, but declared that they would
immediately perish. And this prediction he uttered respecting them, as being doubtless endued with prophetic power, not observing that the whole history of the Jews, and their ancient and venerable polity, were administered by God; and that it is by their fall that salvation has come to the Gentiles, and that “their fall is the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles,” until the fulness of the Gentiles come, that after that the whole of Israel, whom Celsus does not know,
may be saved."
B) The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies, Book III, Vol 26, pg 252:
"For the Church was called between the two callings of Israel; that is to say, first Israel was called, and afterwards when Israel had stumbled and fallen, the Church of the Gentiles was called.But when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, then will
all Israel, having been called again, be saved."
C) Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 4:272, 274 (Cited in Bray, Ancient Christian Commentary, VI Romans, page 291):
“Consider the wisdom of God in this. For with him not even sins and lapses are
wasted, but whenever someone rejects freedom of his own accord, the
dispensation of divine wisdom makes other rich by using the very failure by which
they have become poor…”
“Now indeed, until all the Gentiles come to salvation the riches of God are
concentrated in the multitude of believers, but as long as Israel remains in its unbelief
it will not be possible to say that the fullness of the Lord’s portion has been attained.
The people of Israel are still missing from the complete picture. But when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in and Israel comes to salvation at the end of time, then it will be the people which, although it existed long ago, will come at the last and complete the fullness of the Lord’s portion and inheritance.”
A) On Modesty, chapter 7:
Chapter VIII.—Of the Prodigal Son.
For they set down, as represented in the two sons, two peoples—the elder the Jewish,
the younger the Christian: for they cannot in the sequel arrange for the Christian sinner,
in the person of the younger son, to obtain pardon, unless in the person of the elder they first portray the Jewish…….And accordingly the Jew at the present day, no less than the
younger son, having squandered God’s substance, is a beggar in alien territory, serving
even until now its princes, that is, the princes of this world. Seek, therefore, the Christians some other as their brother; for the Jew the parable does not admit. Much more aptly would they have matched the Christian with the elder, and the Jew with the younger son, “according to the analogy of faith,” if the order of each people as intimated from Rebecca’s womb permitted the inversion: only that (in that case) the concluding paragraph would oppose them; for it will be fitting for the Christian to rejoice, and not to grieve, at the restoration of Israel, if it be true, (as it is), that the whole of our hope is intimately united with the remaining expectation of Israel (Rom 11:25).
B) Contra Marcion, Ch. 9:
Christ is the proper and legitimate high priest of God.He is the Pontiff of the priesthood
of the uncircumcision, constituted such, even then, for the Gentiles, by whom He was to be more fully received, although at His last coming He will favour with His acceptance and blessing the circumcision also, even the race of Abraham, which by and by is to
St. Cyril of Alexandria:
A) Commentary on Genesis, Bk. 5
"Towards the end of time, Our Lord Jesus Christ will effect the reconciliation of His
former persecutor Israel with Himself. Everybody who knows Holy Scripture is aware that, in the course of time, this people will return to the love of Christ by the
submission of faith . . . Yes, one day, after the conversion of the Gentiles, Israel
will be converted, and the Jews will be astonished at the treasure they will find in Christ."
(Note:Here St. Cyril states that this belief is common knowledge for Catholics, not
merely his own personal view.)
B) Commentary on Romans (Bray, ACCS, Vol. VI, 298-299)
“Although it was rejected, Israel will also be saved eventually, a hope which Paul
confirms (Romans 11:26) by quoting this text of Scipture (Is. 59:21). For indeed, Israel will be saved in its own time and will be called at the end,
after the calling of the Gentiles.”
C)Commentary on Hosea 3:3-5 (Bray, ACCS, Hosea, pg. 17):
“One says that Israel will be weak not forever but for days. For
it has been reserved for her a time of salvation and a return to faith.”
D) Fragment 264 (Bray, ACCS, Matthew 24:1-14, p. 185):
"That which has been spoken possesses an interpretation that comes
through the vision of faith. when 'the fullness of the nations come in'
and they believe in Christ, then the Jews who believe after these things
see the beauty of the divine nature of Christ. They behold the Father in
the Son and declare him to be the Redeemer proclaimed through the
prophets, whom the prophets previously mentioned as coming in the
name of the Lord. For the other prophets did not come in the name of
St. John Chrysostom:
A) Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (NPNF, vol
1, p 493)
Ver.25. “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery,
lest ye should be wise your own conceits.”
Meaning by mystery here, that which is unknown and unutterable, and hath
much of wonder and much of what one should not expect about it. As in another
passage too he says, “Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we
shall all be changed.” (
1 Cor. xv. 5
1.) What then is the mystery?
“That blindness in part hath happened unto Israel.” Here again he levels a blow
at the Jew, while seeming to take down the Gentile. But his meaning is nearly this,
and he had said it before, that the unbelief is not universal, but only “in part.” As
when he says, “But if any hath caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part”
(2 Cor. ii. 5): And, so here too he says what he had said above, “God hath not
cast off His people whom He foreknew” (Rom. xi. 2): and again, “What then?
Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid” (ib.
1): This then he says
here also; that it is not the whole people that is pulled up, but many have already
believed, and more are likely to believe. Then as he had promised a great thing,
he adduces the prophet in evidence, speaking as follows. Now it is not for the fact of a blindness having happened that he quotes the passage (for every one could see that), but that they shall believe and be saved, he brings Isaiah to witness, who crieth aloud and saith,
Ver.26. “There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away
ungodliness from Jacob.” (Is. lix. 20.)
Then to give the mark that fixes its sense to salvation, to prevent any one
from drawing it aside and attaching it to times gone by, he says,
Ver. 27. “For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their
sins.”Not when they are circumcised, not when they sacrifice, not when they
do the other deeds of the Law, but when they attain to the forgiveness of sins.
If then this hath been promised, but has never yet happened in their case, nor
have they ever enjoyed the remission of sins by baptism, certainly it will come
to pass. Hence he proceeds,Ver.29. “For the gifts and calling of God are
And even this is not all he says to solace them, for he uses what had already
come about. And what came in of consequence, that he states as chiefly
intended, putting it in these words,
Ver. 28. “As concerning the Gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but
as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.” That the
Gentile then might not be puffed up, and say, “I am standing, do not tell me
of what would have been, but what has been,” he uses this consideration to
bring him down, and says, “As concerning the Gospel, they are enemies for
your sakes.” For when you were called they became more captious.
Nevertheless God hath not even now cut short the calling of you, but He waiteth for all the Gentiles that are to believe to come in, and then they (the Jews) also shall come.
B)Homilies on Matthew (LXVI)
But He did these things, as I said, signifying beforehand the things to come. For
here the church is signified by the colt, and the new people, which was once
unclean, but which, after Jesus sat on them, became clean. And see the image
preserved throughout. I mean that the disciples loose the asses.For by the
apostles, both they and we were called; by the apostles were we brought near.
But because our acceptance provoked them also to emulation, therefore the ass appears following the colt. For after Christ hath sat on the Gentiles, then shall they also come moving us to emulation. And Paul declaring this,
said, “That blindnesss in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the
Gentiles be come in; and so all Israel shall be saved.” For that it was a prophecy
is evident from what is said. For neither would the prophet have cared to express
with such great exactness the age of the ass, unless this had been so.
C)Homilies on Romans (XIX)
But let us see if the fall is of such kind as to be incurable, and quite preclude
their being set up again. But of such kind it is not. You see how he is attacking
them again, and under the expectation of some allayment he proves them guilty
of confessed sins. But let us see what even by way of allayment he does devise
for them. Now what is the allayment? “When the fulness of the Gentiles,” he says, “shall have come in, then shall all Israel be saved,” at the time of his second coming, and the end of the world. …
D)Homily XIX on Rom. 11, Ver 15 (NPNF Vol 11, page 490):
'For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the
receiving of them be but life from the dead?
' ....But see also even in his favors
to them, how he solaces them in words only.
'For if the casting away of them
be the reconciling of the world,
' (and what is this to the Jews?)
'what shall the
receiving of them be but life from the dead?
' Yet even this was no boon to
them, unless they had been received. But what he means is to this effect: If in anger with them He gave other men so great gifts, when He is reconciled to them what will He not give?
'"(Note that he says not “if” but “when”
God is reconciled to the Jews.)
E) Homily XIX on Rom.11 ver. 27: “For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins”. Not
when they are circumcised….but when they attain to the forgiveness of sins. If then this hath been promised, but has never yet happened in their case, nor have they ever enjoyed the remission of sins by baptism, certainly it will come to pass.
F) NPNF Vol 11, page 489, ver. 12:
"Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and diminishing of them the
riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fulness?...
' For if when they
stumbled, he says, so many enjoyed salvation, and when they were case out
so many were called, just consider what will be the case when they return. ....
Now, he does not say,
'how much more their
'return, or their altering, or their
'how much more their fulness
', that is, when they are all about coming in."
G) Homily on Ep. to the Rom, chap 11:
"Seeing the Gentiles abusing little by little their grace, God will recall a second time the Jews."
Note:These supportive quotes from St. John Chrysostom on the conversion
of theJews are of particular import in that he is widely views as having taken
a significantly more critical view of Jews than the average Church Father.
H) Homilies on Matthew, Homily LVII:
Wherefore He too, guiding them on to that remembrance, said, “And he shall
restore all things”, that is, shall correct the unbelief of the Jews that are then
in being.Hence the extreme accuracy of his expression, in that he did not say,
“He will restore the heart of the son to the father”, but, “of the father to the son.” For the Jews being fathers of the apostles, His meaning is that he will restore to
the doctrines of their sons, that is, the apostles, the hearts of the fathers, that is,
the Jewish people’s mind.
I) Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Bray, Vol VI, page 299:
“When the Gentiles believed, the Jews became even more obnoxious. But even
now god has not stopped calling the Gentiles. He is waiting for all of them who are to
believe to come in, and then the rest of the Jews will come as well.”
A) City of God, XX chapter 29
Of the Coming of Elias Before the Judgment, that the Jews May Be Converted to
Christ by His Preaching and Explanation of Scripture…. It is a familiar theme in the
conversation and heart of the faithful, that in the last days before the judgment the
Jews shall believe in the true Christ, that is, our Christ
Note:Here Augustine indicates that the idea of the conversion of the Jews is
“a familiar theme” among “the faithful”,once again indicating that this belief was not his own speculation but that it was well-known.
B) City of God, chapter 30
For in that day the Jews—those of them, at least, who shall receive the spirit of
grace and mercy—when they see Him coming in His majesty, and recognize that it
is He whom they, in the person of their parents, insulted when He came before in His
humiliation, shall repent of insulting Him in His passion: and their parents themselves, who were the perpetrators of this huge impiety, shall see Him when they rise; but this will be only for their punishment, and not for their correction. It is not of them we are to understand the words, “And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and mercy, and they shall look upon me because they have insulted me;” (Note:also reference to “looking on him whom they pierced” as beyond only applying to the actual crucifixion and into a future prophecy as well.)
C) On the Psalms (Psalm 14)
“Who will give salvation to Israel out of Sion?” (ver. 7). Who but He whose humiliation ye have despised? is understood. For He will come in glory to the judgment of the quick and the dead, and the kingdom of the just: that, forasmuch as in that humble coming “blindness hath happened in part unto Israel, that the fulness of the Gentiles might enter in,”in that other should happen what follows, “and so all Israel should be saved.” For the Apostle too takes that testimony of Isaiah, where it is said, “There shall come out of Sion He who shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.”
D)On the Psalms (Psalm XLVI)
Miracles are done among the heathen, full filled is the faith of the heathen; burned are the arms of human presumption. Still are they, in tranquillity of heart, to acknowledge God the Author of all their gifts. And after this glorifying, doth He yet desert the people of the Jews? of which saith the Apostle, “I say unto you, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened unto Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.” That is, until the mountains be carried hither, the clouds rain here, the Lord here bows the kingdoms with His thunder, “until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.” And what thereafter? “And so all Israel shall be saved.” Therefore, here too observing the same order, “I will be exalted” (saith He)
“among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth;” that is, both in the sea, and in the earth, that now might all say what followeth: “the God of Jacob is our taker up.”
E) On the Psalms (Psalm LXXIV)
(Citing the account of Moses
' hand turning white with leprosy and then being restored to health as a sign of the restoration of Israel after its initial rejection of the Messiah). “ 'Wherefore dost Thou turn away Thine hand, and Thy right hand from the midst of Thy bosom unto the end?' ” (ver.
1). Again, another sign which was given to Moses. For in like manner as above from the rod was a sign, so also from the right hand now. For when that thing had been done concerning the rod, God gave a second sign: 'thrust,' He saith, “thine hand into thy bosom, and he thrust it: draw it forth, and he drew it forth: and it was found white,” that is, unclean. For whiteness on the skin is leprosy, not fairness of complexion. For the heritage of God itself, that is, His people, being cast out became unclean. But what saith He to him? Draw it back into thy bosom. He drew it back, and it was restored to its own colour. When doest Thou this, saith this Asaph? How long dost Thou alienate Thy right hand from Thy bosom, so that being without unclean it remaineth? Draw it back, let it return to its colour, let it acknowledge the Saviour. 'Wherefore dost thou turn away Thine hand, and Thy right hand from the midst of Thy bosom unto the end?' These words he crieth, being blind, not understanding, and God doeth what He doeth. For wherefore came Christ? 'Blindness in part happened unto Israel, in order that the fulness of the Gentiles might enter in, and so all Israel might be saved.' Therefore now, O Asaph, acknowledge that which hath gone before, in order that thou mayest at least follow,if thou wast not able to go before. For not in vain came Christ, or in vain was Christ slain, or in vain did the corn fall into the ground; but it fell that it might rise manifold."
F) Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament LXXII
"5. The time will come, the end of the world will come, and all Israel shall believe; not they who now are, but their children who shall then be.For these present walking in their own ways, will go to their own place, will pass on to everlasting damnation."
A) Letter CXXIII
"At their birth was broken down that middle wall of partition which typified the division existing between the two peoples; while the binding of Zarah’s hand with the scarlet thread even then marked the conscience of the Jews with the stain of Christ’s blood.And how shall I speak of the whore married by the prophet who is a figure either of the church as gathered in from the Gentiles or—an interpretation which better suits the passage—of the synagogue? First adopted from among the idolaters by Abraham and Moses, this has now denied the Saviour and proved unfaithful to Him. Therefore it has long been deprived of its altar, priests, and prophets and has to abide many days for its first husband. For when the fulness of the Gentiles shall have come in, all Israel shall be saved."
B)Comm. to the Song of Songs, Homily 1:
"Their sins occasioned the salvation of the Gentiles and again the incredulity of the
Gentiles will occasion the conversion of Israel. You will find both in the Apostle (St. Paul)."
C) Commentary on St. Matthew, Ch. 2:
". .. because when the Jews receive the faith at the end of the world, they will find
themselves in dazzling light, as if Our Lord were returning to them from Egypt."
D) Commentary on Romans, 11:20-22
(See Trial, Tribulation and Triumph by Desmond Birch, p. 417-418)
“If for the crimes of the Jews (crimes of unbelief), the salvation passed to the Gentiles; by the incredulity of the Gentiles it will pass to the Jews.”
St. Prosper of Aquitaine
A) The Call of All Nations book 1, Cap 21, Ancient Christian Writers series,
vol 14, pp 69:
"He delayed for centuries while he was educating Israel, to enlighten the countless
peoples of infidels; and now he allows that same Israel to go blind till the universality
of the Gentiles enter the fold.He allows so many thousands of this people to be born
and die and to be lost when only those whom the end of the world will find alive will
B) Ibid, Book 2 Cap 9,Vol 14, pp 103:
The great parsimony in bestowing grace which in past ages befell all other nations,
is now the lot of the Jewish people.Yet, when the fullness of the Gentiles shall have
come in, then a flood of the same waters of grace is promised for their dry hearts…
When the Apostle Paul stopped in his knowledge and discussion of this problem and
gave way to utter astonishment, who would be so presumptuous as to believe that he
could try and explain it rather than admire it in silence?
St. Ambrose (Epistle LXIII)
57. Miriam the prophetess herself, who with her brothers had crossed the straits of the sea on
foot, because, being still ignorant of the mystery of the Ethiopian woman, she had murmured
against her brother Moses, broke out with leprous spots, so that she would scarcely have been freed from so great a plague, unless Moses had prayed for her. Although this murmuring refers to the type of the Synagogue, which is ignorant of the mystery of that Ethiopian woman, that is the Church gathered out of the nations, and murmurs with daily reproaches, and envies that people through whose faith itself also shall be delivered from the leprosy of its unbelief, according to what we read that: "blindness in part has happened unto
Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, and so all Israel shall be saved.”
St. Hippolytus (Bray, ACCS, Vol. VI, page 313):
[That is, Christ] himself first accomplished the course, and was received into the heavens, and was set down on the right hand of God the Father, and is to be manifested again at the end of the world as judge. It is a matter of course that his forerunners must appear first, as he says by Malachi and the angel, "I will send to you Elijah the Tishbite before the Day of the Lord, the great and notable day, comes; and he shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, lest I come and smite the earth utterly."
These, then shall come and proclaim the manifestation of Christ that is to be from heaven: and they shall also perform signs and wonders; in order that the people may be put to shame and turned to repentance for their surpassing wickedness and impeity.
(Note: while this passage does not specify Israel, it does at least support the idea that Elijah will come and perform signs and wonders in the very last days that are ordered to bringing the people to repentance.)
Victorinus of Petovium (Bray ACCS, Vol. VI, pg. 313):
Under the heading, “Elijah Will Call Jews to Repentance in the End Times”, we read Victorinus’s words in Bray’s Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture:
“And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God.” He speaks of Elijah the prophet, who is the precursor of the times of the antichrist, for the restoration and establishment of the churches from the great and intolerable persecution. We read that these things are predicted in the opening of the Old Testament and New Testament, for he says by Malachi, “Lo, I will send you Elijah the Tishbite, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, according to the time of calling, to recall the Jews to the faith of the people that succeed them.” (Commentary on the Apocolypse II)
Ambrosiaster (commentary on Romans:Bray, Vol 6, Romans pp. 299):
A) However seriously the Jews may have sinned by rejecting the gift of God…
nevertheless, because they are the children of good people, whose privileges
and many benefits from God they have received, they will be received with
joy when they return to the faith, because God’s love for them is stirred up by
the memory of their ancestors.
B) Page 292: “This is why Paul worked so hard for the conversion of the
Jews, since the handicap of their blindness will be removed at the time when
their sin is paid for, so that they might receive the free exercise of their will.”
C) Page 298: “God will give them back the free exercise of their will so
that, …they may be put right afterward and saved…”
Cassiodorus: Explanation of the Psalms, Vol 3, Psalm
102 in Ancient Christian
Writers series, Vol 52, pp 22-23:
He will not always be angry, nor will He be wroth forever…-this verse can be applied
also to the Jewish people who we know are to be converted at the world’s end.On this
Paul says:Blindness in part has happened in Israel, that the fullness of the Gentiles
should come in, and so all Israel should be saved.
Note:Notice again here how Cassiodorus treats this as common knowledge among Catholics.
Pseudo-Constantius in Bray’s Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Vol 6:
A) Page. 291: “ Writing to the Romans, the apostle warns the Gentiles not
to look down on the Jews, because a remnant of them will be saved in the future.”
B) Page 297: "Here Paul shows that, as the complement of the Gentiles comes
into faith in Christ, the rest of the Jewish people will be stirred by jealousy and
a desire to follow suit, and believing in Christ, they will be saved."
Diodore: in Bray’s ACCS, Vol 6, page 298:
“What does it mean to say that all Israel will be saved? Just as we say that the whole
world and all the nations are being saved because everywhere among all the nations
are those who are coming to faith, so also all Israel will be saved does not mean that
every one of them will be but that either those who were understood by Elijah or those
who are scattered all over the world will one day come to faith.”
St. Anselm in Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Chap. II
St. Thomas Aquinas:
A) Commentary on the epistle to the Rom.
In examining a number of alternative interpretations of the phrase "resurrection of the dead" (Rom
1), he settles on the following: "What, I say, will such an admission effectuate, if not that it bring the Gentiles back to life? The Gentiles would be the believers whose faith has grown cold, or even that the totality, deceived by the
Antichrist, fall and are restored to their pristine fervor by the admission of the Jews."
B) Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans:
"The blindness of the Jews will endure until the fullness of the gentiles have accepted the faith. And this is in accord with what the Apostle says below about the salvation
of the Jews, namely, that after the fullness of the nations have entered, 'all Israel will be saved', not individually as at present, but universally." ...
C) Summa Theologica I-II ae, Q. 102, a.5, reply to Obj. 5
“The priest who immolated and burned the cow, and he who burned, and he
who gathered together the ashes, were unclean as also he that sprinkled the water:
either because the Jews became unclean through putting Christ to death,
whereby our sins are expiated; and this until the evening, i.e. until the end of the world, when the remnants of Israel will be converted.”
St. John Damascene:De Fide Orthodoxa
“But Enoch and Elias the Thesbite shall be sent and shall turn the hearts of the fathers
to the children, that is, the synagogue to our Lord Jesus Christ and the preaching of the
Pelagius : ACCS, Bray, page 298:
“The blindness continued until the Jews saw that the Gentiles were being saved, since
all were called to salvation.”
The 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia: has this to say: "(B) Universal and Cosmic
Eschatology.- 6) Notwithstanding Christ
's express refusal to specify the time of the
end (Mrak xiii, 32, Acts i, 6 sq) it was a common belief among early Christians that
the end of the world was near. This seemed to have some support in certain sayings
of Christ in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, which are set down in the
Gospels side by side with the prophecies relating to the end (Matt 24, Luke 2
and in certain passages of the Apostolic writings, which might, not unnaturally, have been
so understood (but see II Thes, ii, s2 sqq) where St. Paul corrects this impression.) On the other hand, Christ had clearly stated that the Gospel was to be preached
to all the nations before the end (Matt 24:14) and St. Paul looked forward to
the ultimate conversion of the Jewish people as a remote event to be preceded
by the conversion of the Gentiles (Rom xi, 25 sqq).
The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (article on the "General Judgment"):
"Conversion of the Jews: According to the interpretation of the Fathers,
the conversion of the Jews towards the end of the world is foretold by
St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (11:25-26): 'For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, . . .
that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles should
come in. And so all Israel should be saved as it is written: There shall come out of Sion,
he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.
Pope St. Gregory the Great:(Homily 22 from Forty Gospel Homilies): “Peter and John, the ones who loved more than the rest, ran more swiftly than
the rest (to the sepulchre).The two ran together but John outran Peter and came
first to the sepulcher; but did not presume to enter it.Peter came after him and went in….
What does John signify then, if not the synagogue, and Peter, if not the Church?
The synagogue came first to the sepulchre, but did not enter, because although it
received the commandments of the law and listened to prophecies of the incarnation and
passion, it was unwilling to believe in the one who had died.John saw the linen cloths
lying there, but even so he did not enter, because the synagogue know the mysteries
of the holy scriptures, yet put off entering by putting its faith in the Lord’s passion.
Then follows:Therefore that disciple who had come first to the sepulcher then
entered also.After Peter entered, John also went in.He who had come first
entered second.We know, my friends, that at the end of the world even Judea
will be brought to faith in the Redeemer.Paul testifies to this by saying: “Until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, and thus all Israel is saved.”
Pope St. Gregory the Great:Moralia in Iob (Preface, X, 20):
"After the loss of Job
's possessions, after all his bereavements, after all the suffering
of his wounds, after all his angry debates, it is good that he is consoled by twofold
repayment. In just this way does the holy church, while it is still in this world,
receive twofold reward for the trials it sustains, when all the gentile nations have been
brought into its midst, at the end of time, and the church converts even the
hearts of the Jews to its cause. Thus it is written,
'Until the fulness of nations enters
and so all Israel is saved.
Blessed Pope Pius IX:Histoire Complete de l’Idee Messianique,Feb.
“Because, according to the prophecy of Osee, the sons of Israel have remained for a
long time without king and without prince, without sacrifice and without altar, may that
other word of the same prophet soon begin to be accomplished: And after this the
children of Israel shall return and shall seek the Lord their God and David their king!”
(Note: this is also significant as Pius IX’s reference here is to Hosea 3:5.In contrast to
Bob’s absolute denials of any such connection, the Pope saw it in reference to the
return of Israel to Christ.)
Pope Innocent IIIin Regi Francorum :
“not displeasing to the Lord, but rather, acceptable to Him that the Dispersion of the
Jews should live and do service under Catholic Kings and Christian princes –
the remnants of which then will finally be saved, since in those days Judah will be
saved (Jeremiah 33:6-26) and Israel will dwell in mutual trust.”
Pope Martin Vin Declaration on the Protection of the Jews, 1419:
“Whereas the Jews are made to the image of God, and a remnant of them will
one day be saved, and whereas they have sought our protection: following in the
footsteps of our predecessors We command that they be not molested in their synagogues;
that their laws, rights and customs be not assailed; that they be not baptized by force,
constrained to observe Christian festivals, nor to wear new badges, and that they be not
hindered in their business relations with Christians.”
Pope Benedict XVI:
"As Christians, we believe that [the Jews] will in the end be together with us in Christ." (God and the World, p. 150)
"We are in fact waiting for the moment when Israel, too, will say Yes to Christ…" (Ibid, p. 150, emphasis added)
Note: the question is not “if” but “when.” And one will also notice that Cardinal Ratzinger writes about a “moment” when Israel will say “yes”. This also does not square with Sungenis’ concept of “all Israel” as solely a mere trickle-remnant that will continuously come to Christ over the millennia until the end of the world.
"It is in God’s hands, of course, just in what way, when, and how the reuniting of Jews and Gentiles, the reunification of God’s people, will be achieved." (Ibid, p. 150) Note: again, the question is not whether the Jewish people will be restored alongside the Gentiles so that we are united as one people, but “what way, when and how.”
Theodoret of Cyrus in Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans:
Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Bray, Volume VI, page 298
"Paul insists that only a part of Israel has been hardened, for many of them believe.
He thus encourages them not to despair that others will be saved as well.
After the Gentiles accepted the gospel, the Jews would believe,
when the great Elijah would come to them and bring them the doctrine of the faith.
The Lord himself said as much:
'Elijah will come and will restore all things.
St. Robert Bellarmine in De Summo Pontifice (I, 3) :
"the coming of Enoch and Elias, who live even now and shall live until they come to oppose
Antichrist himself, and to preserve the elect in the faith of Christ, and in the end shall convert the Jews, and it is certain that this is not yet fulfilled."
(Note: St. Bellarmine is Catholic Apologetics International’s patron saint.This quote
may also be found in Trial, Tribulation and Triumph by Desmond Birch, p. 474-475)
St. Peter Damian:Sermon #66:
“This obstinately unbelieving people, who now refuse to believe, will come back to the
faith and will occupy the lowest place in the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is to say,
that their conversion will take place in the last days of
Church, towards the end of the world.”
The Glossa Ordinaria, (the primary medieval source book for Scriptural interpretation
reflecting the consensus of Western Church Fathers) says of Romans
“This is the prediction that in the end Elias and Enoch will convert the Jews,
as Malachi says, ‘I will send you Elias the Tishbite who will convert the hearts of the
father to the sons and the sons to the father, (Mal. IV)”
The renowned Catholic exegete Cornelius a Lapide:
A) From The Great Commmentary of Cornelius Lapide, Volume II, p 266 Matthew
("Elijah does come, and he is to restore all things; but I tell you that Elijah has already
come, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the
Son of man will suffer at their hands.") states that Elias will:
"Restore all things: that is, convert the Jews to Christ as the Messiah promised
to themselves and their forefathers."
B) Regarding Matthew 23:37-39 (Volume III, page 54,55 of the same
series listed above):
("O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!
How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her
brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken and
desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say,
'Blessed is he
who comes in the name of the Lord.
'"): "It is possible that this passage may be
understood of the Jews, who about the end of the world shall be converted
to Christ by the preaching of Elias, and who, when He shall presently come to
judgment, will acknowledge Him to be the Messiah, the Blessed of the Lord."
The Venerable Bede:
A) In his Explanation of the Apocalypse,
"it is well believed that the wicked Jews will be deceived as well as deceive,
but that others will understand the law spiritually through the instruction
of the great prophet Elijah, and will be incorporated among the members
of the Church, and bravely overcome the enemy."
B) In a letter to Abbot Eusebius regarding his “Explanatio”:
"He has foretold that the Jews are to be made subject to the Church, and
that there is to be a trial of the world at large, and that He Himself will come quickly."
The Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, edited by Dom Bernard Orchard (
A) Page 1072 (Romans 11)
"From the present, (verses)
1-24, St. Paul turns his attention to the future.
The time will come when the present problem of Israel's exclusion from the salvation of the Messias will cease to exist because of her conversion, which will follow the conversion of the Gentiles. The final conversion of Israel could not
be known to St. Paul from any natural source."
B) Page 648 (in regard to Hosea 3:5):
“The prediction of Israel’s post-exilic restoration foreshadows the Messianic age
with all its spiritual blessing. This is borne out by the fact that the kind of the restoration is called simply David, an appellation o f the Messias….and by the indefinite time-indication ‘in the last days’ which usually denotes the Messianic times.”
C) Page 893 (in regard to Matt 23:39)
“If Jerusalem should come to hail him as her King…she will find him. But not till
then….many see in (these words) a promise of the future conversion of Israel to Christ –
a conversion which is in fact prophesied by Paul, Rom 11:25. For barren resentment
of Jewry, we should substitute prayer.”
Fr. Leo Haydock:In his highly esteemed New Testament Comprehensive Catholic
Commentary (a source well praised by Bob for its excellence and cited by Ferrara as an
authority as well):
A) On Romans 11:12-15:
"The nation of the Jews is not absolutely and without remedy cast off forever; but in part only and for a time:which fall of theirs God has been pleased to turn to the good of the Gentiles.“How much more the fullness of them (Jews)”:As if he should say, if the obstinacy of so many Jews seem to be an occasion upon which God …hath bestowed the riches of his grace on other nations; and while the glory of the Jews, the elect people of God, has been diminished, the Gentiles have been made happy:how much more glorious will be the fullness of them?That is, according to the common interpretation, will be the re-establishment and conversion of the
Jews hereafter, before the end of the world? "
(Notes:1) Here Haydock references several father, including St. Chrysostom,
St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Jerome, andSt. Augustine. 2) It is significant that he says this is “the common interpretation”, as opposed to
Bob’s assertions to the contrary) ….
"Then the receiving of them into the Church, and their conversion to Christ,
shall be like life from the dead, when the Jewish people in general,
shall rise from the death of sin…to the life of grace."
B) On Romans 11: 25-26:
"I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, this, hidden truth of
God’s justice and mercy, that blindness in part hath happened in Israel, or to part of
them, until the fullness of the Gentiles should come in, by the conversion of all nations:and then all Israel should be saved, when they shall submit to the faith of Christ."
C) On Luke 21:24:
"Till the times of the nations be fulfilled.According to the common exposition of this, and some other places, the Jews from the time of the destruction of their temple and city, under Titus Vespasian, and especially from their utter destruction under the emperor Adrian, in punishment of the obstinate blindness, shall remain dispersed through the world under miseries and oppressions, till the gospel hath been preached to all nations; then, not long before the end of the world, the Jews shall be converted and acknowledge Jesus to be their true Messias."
D) On Matthew 21:2:Of Jesus sitting on both the ass and the colt, he writes:
"Both Jews and Gentiles, figured by the ass and the colt, are to be loosed and
conducted by the hands of the apostles of Christ to their Redeemer.The
Gentiles, represented by the colt, though heretofore unclean, no sooner receive
Jesus resting upon them, than they are freed from every stain and rendered perfectly
clean.The zeal of the Gentiles stirred up the emulation of the Jews; therefore
did the ass follow after its colt.This approach of the Jews to the true faith,
after the vocation of the Gentiles, is spoken of by St. Paul in Romans
Blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles should come in.And so all Israel should be saved.St. Chysostom, homily
1xvi---As it is written, “there shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.And this is to them my covenant”.This prophecy of Isaias (lxi20)
St. Paul applies to the conversion of the Jews, and thus both Jew and Gentile
are to take up our Saviour’s yoke, which is certainly sweet and his burden light."
E) On Matthew 23:39/Luke 13:35:
“'Till you say ‘blessed is he that cometh’ …It may be understood of the Jews,
who are to be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ towards the end of the world
(St. Chrysostom, hom
F) On Hosea 3:2-5:
“Ver. 2: The unbelieving Jews, who refrain from idols, receive some temporal
advantages, but not….faith of the blessed Trinity and the observance of the
Decalogue whereby they might obtain eternal life. Towards the end of the world
they shall be converted.”
“Verse 5:‘David their king’ .That is, Christ, who is of the house of David. Ch. -After the captivity, the Jews submitted to Zorobabel.Yet this only foreshewed a more sincere conversion to Jesus Christ.In fact, the house
of David never regained the throne, (C.) and it is not clear that Zorobabel had
any authority over the people.H.-Christ is the literal object of this prediction.”
G) On Deuteronomy 4:30:
“Voice, after the captivity of Babylon, or rather at the end of the world.The nation at large has not embraced the worship of idols since the former period.But it will not be perfectly converted, until the fullness of the Gentiles come in….And so all Israel be saved. (Rom XI 25).C. – St. Paul terms their present state a blindness in part,
because, though few have embraced the revelation of God, made to all by his only Son, the far greater part have obstinately shut their eyes…they seem to have a veil on them.But, after, they shall have been the sport of their passions and errors till the latter time, when the man of sin shall be fully revealed, they will see how wretchedly they have been deluded, and, the grace of God touching their hearts, they will remember the covenant, and embrace Christ, the end of all the law.Happy those who do not defer their conversion till that awful period!”
H) On Isaiah 59:20:
“To Sion.Sept. “from Sion, and will turn away iniquity from Jacob. (2
1) And this,: H. –
St. Paul hence proves that the Jews will at last be converted.Romans
1:26. The return of the captives prefigured this event.”
I)On Jeremiah 31:1-2:
1Israel:The ten tribes returned as well as Judah.C.-They were more ready
to receive Christ than the other two tribes.(Here Fr. Haydock sees Jeremiah’s
reference to God being “the God of all the families of Israel and they shall be my people” as referring to Israel’s eventual acceptance of Christ.)"
J) On Micheas 2:12:
12:Assemble…W.- At least the Jews shall be converted (S. Jerome, Eusebius
Dem ii. 50.)"
K) On Malachi 4:5-6:
"Ver 6: By bringing over the Jews to the faith of Christ, he (Elias) shall reconcile
them to their father, viz, the patriarchs and prophets, whose hearts for many ages
have been turned away from them, because of their refusing to believe in Christ.
Ch- The antipathy of Jews and Gentiles shall cease.Both shall enter the
Ludwig Ott:from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, cites “The Conversion of the Jews”
as an expected sign of the second coming of Christ (p. 486):
2) Signs of the Second Coming
a) The preaching of the Gospel to the whole world.
b) The Conversion of the Jews:
1, 25-32, St. Paul reveals “the mystery”:When the
fullness, that is the number ordained by God, of the Gentiles has
God “all Israel” will be converted and saved. There is question of a morally universal conversion of the Jews.
Note:Ott lists “The Conversion of the Jews” as a “sign” of the second coming.See
note #3 below, under “Catechism of the Catholic Church”.
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
In this section, the CCC details the events leading up to the second coming of Christ. In regard to the Jews, we have the following:
CCC 674:The glorious Messiah’s coming is suspended at every moment of history until his
recognition by “all Israel”, for “a hardening has come upon part of Israel” in their
“unbelief” toward Jesus.
(Note: the CCC references both Romans
1:20-26 and Matt
1) Significant references again, Luke
2) The CCC sees the conversion of the Jews “in the wake of” the full number of the gentiles. Thus, the CCC conveys Jewish conversion following after the gentiles have reached their own point of “fullness”.This does not coincide with Bob’s insistence that Jews will come to Christ only as a continuing trickle that only operates concurrently with the conversion of the Gentiles and which will terminate at the same time with them.
[You may read a more thorough treatment of the Catechism and Bob's complete distortion of it by clicking here.]
3) The first footnote to the following sentence, “The “full inclusion” of the Jews in the
Messiah’s salvation, in the wake of “the full number of Gentiles”, (Rom
4) Again, as with Ott’s Fundamentals of the Catholic Dogma, this section of the CCC
details signs leading up to the second coming of Christ, including the coming of Antichrist. Under Bob’s interpretation, the continuing trickle-conversion cannot reasonably constitute
a sign at all.This seems somewhat analogous to those who mistakenly look at the Old
Testament prophecy of the arrival of the Messiah that “a virgin will conceive” and try to
eviscerate its prophetic meaning by insisting that the Hebrew for “virgin”, “almah”,
simply means a young woman.In both cases, these interpretations undermine the sign-value to the world.
How is a young woman simply giving birth a sign to be perceived?It has happened every
day for millennia.There is nothing significant about it.But a virgin giving birth (the correct,
fullest understanding), certainly constitutes something man would perceive as significant.
And in the case of the conversion of Israel, how is the continuance of a trickle of Jews
who convert to Christianity a sign to be perceived?By definition, this cannot constitute a sign.It is something that has happened previously and will continue to happen until the very end according to Bob.
A sign is something different, something recognizable, something significant (the very
root of the word “significant” is “sign”).Conversely, an unusually large conversion of
Jews to Christ certainly constitutes something man can perceive as different, recognizable
and significant.(It is also noteworthy that while the CCC lists the acceptance of Christ by Israel and the arrival of Antichrist, it says nothing about the ethnic identity of Antichrist.)
“But [St. Paul] emphasises that ‘God has not cast off his people’ (Rm 11:2). Since ‘the root is holy’ (11:16), Paul is convinced that at the end, God, in his inscrutable wisdom, will graft all Israel back onto their own olive tree (11:24); ‘all Israel will be saved’ (11:26)” (emphasis added)
“God does not abandon [Israel]. His plan is to show them mercy. 'The hardening' which affects 'a part of' Israel is only provisional and has its usefulness for the time being (11:25); it will be followed by salvation (11:26). Paul sums up the situation in an antithetical phrase, followed by a positive affirmation: ‘As regards the Gospel they are enemies of God for your sake; as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable’ (11:28-29). Paul views the situation realistically. Between Christ's disciples and the Jews who do not believe in him, the relation is one of opposition. These Jews call the Christian faith into question; they do not accept that Jesus is their Messiah (Christ) and the Son of God. Christians cannot but contest the position of these Jews. But at a level deeper than opposition there exists from now on a loving relationship that is definitive; the other is only temporary.” (emphasis added)
Note:then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the preface for this document.
1:“ ‘That they should fall.’ The nation of the Jews is not absolutely and
without remedy cast off for ever; but in part only (many thousands of them having been
first converted) and for a time; which fall of theirs, God has been pleased to turn to the
good of the Gentiles.”
Note:The Douay-Rheims Bible expresses that this passage means that the Jews, as a nation (which also suggests interesting implications for Bob’s views on the nation of Israel), have been cast off only “for a time”.I do not believe it makes sense to argue, as it
seems Bob would have to, that the writers of the Douay-Rheims Bible thought that “for a time” effectively means “right up until the very end.”I believe the plain implication of “for a time” is that this time of being cast off as a nation or people is temporary, that a new circumstance will emerge.
Fr. Richard Stack, Lectures on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, 1806:
A) Page 317: “Romans Chap ii: We now come to the Apostles last prophetic
view of the Christian Church, when the fullness of the Gentiles shall come in,
and the Jews be converted and restored…”
B) Page 327: "So benign and charitable is the spirit infused by our holy Religion,
that, great and valuable as are the blessings thus acquired, they will be vastly
heightened and enlarged, when those men (the Jews) shall at length become
sensible of their guilt and their losses; and shall earnestly implore admission into
Christ's Church and kingdom. It is then, and not till then, that the joy of Gentile
Christians shall be complete, and the work of the redemption shine forth in perfect
glory, without the least cloud or sadness. Then shall Christ reign in the hearts of all
without distinction, and draw them together with bonds of amity and love…."
"In speaking of the advantages derived to Gentiles, from the rejection of the Jews
at present, and still more from their future restoration, the Apostle declares in the
13th verse that he magnifies or does honour to his ministry…"
C) Page 334: “ ‘There shall come a Deliverer out of Sion, and shall turn away
ungodliness from Jacob.’ The illustrious person, whose office is thus pointed
out, was the Messiah, and their ungodliness chiefly consisted in a disbelief of him.
When therefore the time proper for their conversion shall arrive, he will take off
the veil from before their eyes, that they might discern their Lord and Savior,
and confessing him with the heart and the mouth, may join the whole assembly
of the faithful upon earth: ‘For this’, says he, ‘is my Covenant with them when I
shall take away their sins.’ ….notwithstanding their degradation for a time, they
are not utterly forgotten, but shall be brought in at the last.”
Nevarre Bible Commentary:
A) Romans 11:25:
We all yearn for the fulfillment of these words- threatening yet consoling- which
Christ addressed to the scribes and Pharisees: “For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” “Together with the prophets and the Apostle, the Church awaits the day, known to God alone, when all peoples will call on God with one voice and ‘serve him with one accord’ (Zeph 3:9)
(Vatican II Nostra Aetate, 4) The conversion of the Jews is a secret- a mystery,
the text says (v. 25) – hidden in the future, which will come about when the Incarnation of the Word achieves its ultimate purpose.
This conversion will follow that of the Gentiles, which will be as it were a prelude to it.Jesus has foretold that “Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the
times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.”, which in some way suggests that the Jews
will be converted at the end of time.
B)Luke 21: 24:
The “times of the Gentiles” means the period in which the Gentiles, who do not
belong to the Jewish people, will become members of the new people of God, the
Church, until the Jews themselves are converted at the end of the world.
Fr. Dennis Fahey
From The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation:
A) “The conversion of the Jewish people to the True Supernatural Messias is,
therefore, certain…Their conversion will be a glorious triumph for the Immaculate
Heart of Mary.”
B) When the Fathers Lémann were petitioning the Bishops, assembled in Rome
for the Vatican Council, for their signatures to the Postulatum Pro Hebræis, many
of their Lordships smilingly put the objection that “to work for the conversion of the
Jews was to bring on the end of the world.” The two Fathers gave several answers to
this objection, and their arguments seem to go far towards proving that there will be a
considerable lapse of time between the conversion of the Jewish nation and the
Last Judgment. Two things are certain. The first is that, however short the time,
the newly-converted Jews will not remain idle. The second is that if the Jews as a
body sincerely accepted the true Messias and put all that restless energy and
unshakeable tenacity into the furtherance of the Kingship of Christ, which they now
display against His rule, the conversion of the world would be rapidly advanced.
Just picture for a moment, Jewish influence in the Press of the world directed towards
featuring the truth about Lourdes and
Fatima and the horror of the rejection of
God and our divine Lord in Russia! Just think of Jewish influence on the Cinema,
instead of being directed towards the elimination of the Supernatural life by the
production of irksomeness with all moral restraints, being canalised into showing the
solution of human unrest by the loving acceptance of membership of Jesus!
Note 1:These citations are particularly interesting as Fahey is perceived by many to have
had strong negative leanings in regard to Jews.Yet even he believed that it was “certain”,
that the Jewish people would eventually undergo an unusual conversion to Christ in the future. Bob has publicly acknowledged reading Fahey’s work and has drawn from him in previous
writings, yet he departs from Fahey in this, opting for a more negative interpretation.
Note 2:“B” is of special import for the reference to the fathers of Vatican I, many of
whom reportedly expressed a reluctance to sign Postulatum Pro Hebræis precisely
because “to work for the conversion of the Jews was to bring on the end of the world.”
As such, clearly, the idea of an unusual conversion of the Jews in the future was well
known to them as well as the eschatological implications of it.
Suarezin Disputat. LVI, Sect. I:
“the conversion of the Jews will take place at the approach of the Last Judgment and at the
height of the persecution which Antichrist will inflict on the Church.”
Père Lagrange, O.P in Epitre aux Romains, p. 278
As the reprobation of the Jews was the occasion of the reconciliation of the world, their conversion will be as it were, the signal for the consummation of the world
and the advent of a new one. It must, however, be admitted that the expressions
employed are not very precise and that one could not establish a definite relation of time
between the conversion of the Jews and the General Resurrection from the dead, in other words, affirm that the Last Judgment will follow closely on the conversion of the Jews.
Fr. Fernand Prat in The Theology of Saint Paul, 1926, pp 262-267
A) Footnote #4, p 266:
“If the leaders of the Reformation refused to believe in the ultimate conversion
of the Jews, it was only on account of dogmatic prejudices. Luther said that
the Jews, being as hard as stone, steel and the devil (for he brought the devil
into everything), were not susceptible to conversion, Modern Protestants have,
on the whole, returned to a better exegesis of St. Paul, whose teaching is wholly
unambiguous. The Apostle has already in the course of chapter 11 given us a hint
of the final conversion of the Jews (verses 11-12, 16, 23-24); now he announces
it unhesitatingly (verses 25-26). The Greek test is still more explicit than the
Vulgate (here Prat quotes the Greek), omnis Israel salvus diet, and not fieret: for
it is a question of a fact, not of an intention). St. Paul calls this a mystery: that is to
say, conformably to his language, a plan of redemption which was the secret of
God, because it proceeds from his free will; but which has ceased to be a secret
since God has revealed it to his confidants to be everywhere proclaimed. This
mystery, this providential design, consists in this: God has permitted the blindness
(Greek word) or rather obduracy (Greek word) of the majority of the Jews, in
order to hasten the evangelization of the Gentiles, and to stimulate the Jews
themselves to emulation; but when the heathen nations in their entirety (Greek
phrase) shall have entered into the church, the turn of Israel will come, and then
all Israel will be saved. It is clearly a question here of the Messianic salvation,
and the totality is to be understood as meaning the mass of Israel as a nation,
some individuals excepted. The fullness of the nations is to be interpreted in the
same way. For details, see Cornely or Lagrange.”
B) Page 262-263:
“1) Responsibility of the Unbelieving Jews. 2) The Conversion, Always
Possible, One Day Certain:… Moreover, the rejection of Israel is neither
total nor final. It has not been total, since the Church numbers already
thousands of Jewish Christians. It will not be final, for there will come a
day when the Jewish nation, as a whole, will be converted.”
C) Page 265:
“Man modifies his choices, because he does not foresee all the
inconveniences which may arise. But it is not so with God, who has
chosen Israel for his people, in spite of their infidelities, which are
foreseen. The reason that Paul gives for this is that the gifts of God
are without repentance. Israel, despite its present unworthiness,
remains dear to God on account of the patriarchs; and their election in
some way secures the divine faithfulness.”
(footnote to above, page 265): “ Romans 11:29, The Apostle is speaking
of purely gratuitous gifts, such as the theocratic election. Having no other
reason for the existence than the goodness of God, they give no occasion
for repentance. Israel, as a nation, remains therefore dear to God (Greek
text), both because it is the chosen people and because it is descended
from the patriarchs.”
D) Page 265-266:
“ ‘Even so then,’ concludes the Apostle, ‘at this present time also
there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace.’ The application
is evident. It cannot be said that God has rejected his people now, any more
than it could be said in the time of Elias.”
“Thus vanishes the theological objection; but there exists a
difficulty which may be called one of feeling, or a popular objection. If, de
jure, the nation, as nation, is not rejected, de facto the mass of its individuals
is unbelieving. How can this fact be reconciled with the special providence
with which God encompasses Israel?”
“Paul’s reply is given in two words: the apostasy of the Israelites is neither
absolute nor final. In other terms, those who are unbelieving today can be
believers tomorrow; in any case, at the end of the world Israel will repent
and will come back to the Church as a whole…”
“But as far as the ultimate conversion of Israel is concerned, hope is a certainty
….The Gentiles, at first incredulous, are called to faith, thanks to the unbelief of
the Jews; the Jews refuse to believe in the mercy shown to the Gentiles, in order
to be in their turn the object of mercy.”
Fr. Charles J. Callan:
A) The Epistles of St. Paul, 1922, Pages 181-182
“The Rejection of Israel is not Final, and Serves Meanwhile for the
Conversion of the Gentiles:
11: Cornely and others give to “that” (iva) the sense of finality, as if St.
Paul wished to ask if God, by justly withdrawing his graces from the
Jews, blinded their great number and permitted them to stumble for the
purpose of making them fall without any hope of reparation. In this opinion,
there is question here, not of the gravity, but of the purpose or end of the
Jews’ fall. But St. Chrysostom, Lagrange, etc. hold that “iva” has not a final
meaning here, and that the sense is rather, whether the fall of the Jews is so
great as to admit of no cure of remedy….the Apostle’s reply, vigorously
“….The second result is the salvation of the Jews themselves; for the salvation
given to the Gentiles will finally rouse Israel to competition and emulation
(Greek citation). The Jews will at length understand that their God has become
the God of the Gentiles….When this takes place, the anger and jealousy of the
Jews will have reached their climax and will be the occasion of a reaction against
past errors and a consequent return to the God of the forefathers. Thus, the
hardening of Israel permitted by God was ordained to the salvation of the
Gentiles and the salvation of the Gentiles is ordained in turn to that of the Jews
B) The Epistles of St. Paul, 1922, Pages 182-183:
“Verse 12: If the offence (Greek word) of
them (Greek word), i.e. those hardened, be the riches of the world, i.e., be the
occasion of the conversion of the Gentiles to the faith, and the diminution of them
(Greek word), i.e., the defeat, the loss of those hardened, be the means of
inestimable blessings to the pagan, how much more the fullness (Greek word)
of them (Greek word), i.e., how much greater blessings will come to
the world from the total conversion to the faith of all the Jews!”
C) The Epistles of St. Paul, 1922, Pages 188-189: “The Conversion of the Gentiles Will be Followed by That of the
“God’s final purpose is to save both Gentiles and Jews….It is according to
the divine plan that Israel and the pagans should mutually help each other,
and that both in the end should be objects of the divine mercy.”
“Verse 25: He is speaking to the Gentile Christians, and he wishes
to remind them of doctrines already familiar to the Church in general, namely,
that the Jews were to be hardened (Mat xii 38-48, xiii11-16, xiii 29-36), that
the failure of Israel would bring the Gentiles (Matt xx 7 ff; xxiv 14) and that the
Jews themselves would at last turn to Christ (Matt xxiii, Luke xiii 35).”
“This Mystery, i.e. the final conversion of Israel to Christianity …It is to be noted that this fullness of the Gentiles related to peoples, not
to individuals: all the nations of peoples of the earth will be converted to
Christ before the end of the world, but not all the individuals of each nation
(St. Thomas, Cornely, Lagrange, etc).”
D) The Epistles of St. Paul, 1922, Page 189-190:
“Verse 26: “All Israel” does not mean
the predestined nor all the Jews taken individually, but the mass of the people,
as opposed to the individuals who are converted during the time that intervenes
before the last days come. Israel then as a nation, like the other nations of the
world, will finally embrace the faith; but it will not be until after all those others
have been gathered in that she shall enter the fold of Christ.” “ ‘Out of Sion…’
In the best MSS the quotation is read as follows: ‘There shall come out of Sion
the deliverer; he shall turn away impieties from Jacob.’ St. Paul seems to make
the citation refer in a general way to the Second Coming of Christ, although the
conversion of the Jews will just precede that Second Coming, and will be a
consequence of the first advent of the Savior.”
E) The Four Gospels, 1917, page 379:
“(Luke 21:24): There is an intimation in this verse, that just before the end of
the world the Jews shall be aggregated to the church…”
Moffat New Testament Commentary: 1932
A) Page 176:
“Paul…proceeds to show a) that the rejection (of the Jews) is not final,
b) that it has immediately beneficent results in the conversion of the Gentiles and
c) that in the long run the rejected Jews will share in the universal salvation of
mankind towards which the divine purpose is moving…”
B) Page 178:
“…the universe must wait for its final destiny of blessedness until Israel has been
brought to God.”
C) Page 183:
“It has been thought incredible that Paul should have committed himself to absolute
‘universalism’. Accordingly, it has been pointed out that the Greek expression for “all”
has a form which need not imply a “numerical universal’; that is, it means primarily
‘mankind as a whole’ rather than ‘all individual men” and, it is urged, would not be
inconsistent with individual exceptions.”
Jean Cantinat, C.M., The Epistles of St. Paul Explained, 1966
A) Page 128:
“XI: The rejection or unbelief of Israel is only partial and provisional…
(St. Paul) reveals the mystery of the future conversion of Israel.”
B) Pages 128 and 129
“(2) XI, 11-24: The present rejection, from which the Gentiles have profited,
will be followed by a yet more profitable restoration…..” “by exciting the jealousy of
Israel, the conversion of the Gentiles will convert the Jews.”
C) Page 129:
“(3) XI, 25-32: The mystery of the future conversion of Israel…The rejection of
Israel will be ended when the ‘full number of the gentiles’ have been converted.”
Joseph Dillersberger, The Gospel of St. Luke,1958:
A) Regarding Luke 13:35 (page 354):
“The remark is...a last sign of grace promised to the City and the people.
The time will come when Israel, too, will greet Him as the Messiah….in the
distant future which Our Lord here beholds, this desolation is removed, and
Israel greets Him as He Who comes in the name of the Lord. Then the
punishment is removed and the time of grace begins for Israel.”
B) Regarding Luke 21:24 (page 497):
“From other passages the conclusion may be safely drawn that the
expression ‘times of the nations’ is chosen to purposely suggest that these
times represent a provisional and transitional stage in the process of redemption…
The term is used, therefore, to indicate that there remains something yet in the
future which brings with it promise for Israel…”
Sacra Pagina by Fr. Daniel J. Harrington, page 329 Regarding Mat: 23:39:
"until you say: The quotation of PS 118:26 already appears in Matt 21;9, therefore
the subject is not Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. It must be his return as Son of Man
(a major topic in chapters 24-25). The preposition heos ('until') seems to have a
conditional sense: Only if and when Jerusalem recites Ps. 118:26, will the Son of
Ancient Christian Commentary on Scipture (Bray):
A) Vol VI, p. 297:
"Overview: the hardening of Israel is partial and temporary. When the
full number of the Gentiles has been saved, the Jews who have been
chosen will repent and believe. All the elect faithful of Israel will be
B) Commentary on Hosea, p.17:
"Overview: The stumbling of the (Jews) is like one in the darkness
(Theodore of Mopseustia). Yet their judgment is temporary
(Cyril of Alexandria)."
The Interpreter's Bible, 1954, Volume #9: Page 568-571:
A) "11: But is this blindness and failure final in this case?...Paul
answers this question with a vigorous 'No' and goes on to adumbrate
in a single sentence the amazing doctrine with which the entire
argument is to end: through their trespass salvation has come to the
Gentiles, so as to make Israel (so) jealous... at seeing its own
possession in the hands of the Gentiles as to accept what it now
B) "12,15: Paul's feeling, expressing in vs. 12, that if the failure of
Israel has resulted in so much good for the Gentiles, its full inclusion
will mean much more, is expressed with greater clarity and specificity
in vs. 15. The riches for the gentiles (vs. 12), which have already
accrued, are now defined as reconciliation (vs. 15), and the much
more (vs. 12) is life from the dead (vs. 15), i.e., the final salvation.
(See on 5:10 where the same two terms, 'reconciliation' and 'life'
appear in somewhat the same relationship to each other.) Paul
believes that the final consummation of history and the full
inauguration of the age to come waits upon the acceptance of the
Jews (again, of course, God's acceptance of them)."
C) "13-15: The Salvation of the Gentiles and the Ultimate Redemption
of the Jews...."
D) "(St. Paul) looks forward to the day when Israel, chastened in mind
and humbled in spirit, will turn unto him whom they rejected and in his
worship will find their peace."
E) "the root: (cf Jef 11:16-17) can refer only to the patriarchs in the
covenant- making period in the life of the Hebrew nation (cf 9:5 and
11:28), and this is the idea developed in vs. 17-24; we can hardly
interpret the 'dough' metaphor, therefore, in any other way. The 'first
dough', like the 'root', is the fathers of Israel, through whom the whole
nation is consecrated. Thus it appears that the argument of 9:6-29
was almost entirely hypothetical, since the origins of Israel and God's promises to the fathers are now represented as assuring in fact the eventual salvation of the entire nation."
Fr. William G. Most (http://www.mindspring.com/~jdarcy/files/mostromans.html):
“Paul does not say when this conversion will happen, except that the blindness will last, ‘until the fullness of the gentiles enter.’ In commenting on 2 Thessalonians 2 we compared this line with Luke 21:24: ‘Jerusalem will be trodden by the gentiles until the fullness of the gentiles enter.’ And we had to wonder if we may be near that point, since Jerusalem has again become a Jewish city, after so many centuries since 135 A.D.”
I tell you (speaking to the inhabitants of Jerusalem), you will not see me until the
time comes when you say,
'blessings be on him who comes in the name of the Lord.
B) Luke 21:24.....
"Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles
C) Matthew 21: 1-7:
“Go ye into the village that is over against you and immediate you shall find an ass
tied, and a colt with her:loose them and bring them to me….Now all this was done
that what was spoken by the prophet might be fulfilled, saying: “Tell ye the daughter of
Sion:Behold, thy king cometh to thee, meek and sitting upon an ass and a colt, the
foal of her that is used to the yoke….And they brought the ass and the colt:and
laid their garments upon them, and made him sit thereon.” (Read the Fr. Haydock commentary above to understand the import of this
passage as well as that of St. John Chysostom).
“Now if the offense of them be the riches of the world and the diminution of
them the riches of the Gentiles: how much more the fullness of them?.....”
“For if the loss of them be the reconciliation of the world, what shall the
receiving of them be, but life from the dead?”
E) Romans 11:25:
“For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery (lest you should be
wise in your own conceits) that blindness in part has happened in Israel,
until the fullness of the Gentiles should come in, and thus all Israel will be saved,
as it is written….”
F) Hosea 3:5:
“Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God, and David
their king, and they shall come in fear to the Lord and to his goodness in the latter days.”
(Note:this passage was cited by Blessed Pope Pius IX as referring to the conversion
of the Jews to Christ.Fr. Leo Haydock also expresses that this ultimately refers to
belief in Christ as well).
G) Deuteronomy 4:30:
“After all the things aforesaid shall find thee:in the latter time thou shalt return to the
Lord thy God and shalt hear His voice.”
H) Isaiah 59:20:
“And there shall come a redeemer to Sion and to them that return from iniquity in
Jacob, saith the Lord.”
“At that time, saith the Lord, I will be the God of all the families of Israel: and
they shall be my people.Thus saith the Lord:The people that were left and escaped
from the sword found grace in the desert:Israel shall go to his rest.”
J) Micheas 2:12:
“I will assemble and gather together all of thee, O Jacob:I will bring together the
remnant of Israel.I will put them together as a flock in the fold, as the sheep in the
midst of the sheepcotes:they shall make a tumult by reason of the multitude of men.”
K) On Malachi 4: 5-6:
“Behold, I will send you Elias the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful
day of the Lord.And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the
heart of the children to their fathers:lest I come and strike the earth with anathema.”
Final note on this section:Bob has on occasion claimed that a couple of the Fathers
contradict their own views and as such, we cannot take much of anything substantive
from them on this topic.However, to my knowledge, he has never proved and documented
these purportedly contradictory views that deny a future unusual conversion of the Jews,
either in context or not. It seems likely that if there is anything to his assertions at all, these few Fathers have merely expressed complementary views rather than views that contradict themselves.
As Bob has previously argued against Protestant apologist James White in regard to the
Holy Eucharist, a Father may at times speak only about the spiritual nature or symbolic
nature of the Eucharist without simultaneously intending to deny or contradict the physical
reality of Christ’s presence.
There are two similarities to the issue at hand.First, St. Paul and the Fathers do certainly
speak of “Israel” in the spiritual sense, referring to the Church.That the Church is “Israel”
is not in dispute.However, this does not preclude or contradict the more mundane, ethnic
meaning of the term which is also used at times.For instance, try to read Romans
through while systematically substituting “the Church” for “Israel” and all pronouns that
refer to Israel and determine if it makes sense.Second, in regard to the issue of the
conversion of the Jews, it is clear that St. Paul did speak of a remnant that continues to
be saved even in his day.Yet, this does not preclude or contradict the idea that he also
indicated a future, unusual conversion.There is a Catholic “both/and” readily available here.
As such, the interpretation would simply be:Jews have and will continue to come into the
Church, but in the future, there will also be an unusual, significant restoration of them to Christ.
Note: After writing the section directly above, I discovered the following reference by Bob to this purportedly contradictory view expressed by Augustine.Bob wrote:
This is what I had suspected above.It is not contradictory, it is complementary.There is
nothing in this that precludes a future unusual conversion of the Jews.In light of the quotes
provided above, Augustine certainly expected a future unusual restoration of the Jews. It is noteworthy that in other venues Bob has rightly expended considerable energy reconciling Augustine’s thought and teaching against those who preferred to see contradiction and inconsistency (James White, in particular).A similar effort on this issue would be useful.
In regard to St. John Chrysostom, Bob wrote:
Sungenis: “Chrysostom refers to the Jews, but does not specify a future restoration, at least in the following quote: "God
's covenant will be fulfilled not when they are circumcised...but when they obtain the forgiveness of sins...it will certainly come to pass" (Homily on Romans, 1
First, it would seem that St. Chrysostom’s choice of “will” clearly conveys “future”.
Precisely when in the future is not specified in this quote.Why Bob sees this as a
significant problem for the interpretation of a future conversion is unclear.Fortunately,
there are several other citations that clarify any possible ambiguity.
St. Chrysostom repeatedly expresses that their conversion will occur after the fullness of the
gentiles have come in to the Church (see the multiple quotes from him above).
Also, one should note that Bob’s quote of Chrysostom is heavily excerpted. A more complete quote is:
“‘For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins’. Not when they are
circumcised….but when they attain to the forgiveness of sins. If then this hath been
promised, but has never yet happened in their case, nor have they ever enjoyed the
remission of sins by baptism, certainly it will come to pass.
The fuller context makes clear that what had been promised had not come to pass (the
forgiveness of their sins) but that it will certainly come to pass in the future.
Finally, St. Chysostom’s work is especially significant in that he is generally viewed as
being particularly critical of the Jews.He certainly could not reasonably be viewed
as an apologist for Jewish or Zionist causes.
Dialogue with a CAI questioner
The following excerpted dialogue occurred in late December 2005/early January 2006
through March 2006 and is mostly posted as a Q and A at CAI between Stefan Trottel
and Bob Sungenis.Ben Douglass also intervenes later in the dialogue. Anything marked
with ** was never posted by Bob at CAI.
I believe these Q & A’s highlight many of the issues I have enumerated.I also find
it noteworthy that Ben Douglass (CAI’s current VP) expressed discomfort with at least
some of what Bob and CAI have been posting. I do not see clear evidence that he
espouses all of the same problematic views and predispositions as Bob.He seems to
at least make an effort to be fair and objective.
1) Stefan Trottel:
Dear Mr. Sungenis,
In one of your Q & A
's you mentioned that you believe the Muslims are really only reacting
defensively because the USA and the Jews are on their lands....that if we left, they would
leave us alone. Have you ever read the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the
Crusades)? Have you read The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq
Rasul Allah (written by an observant, pious Muslim)? Both show pretty conclusively that
historically, Islamists will use any excuse, even bogus ones, to attack and spread....but
only when they have the strength to do so. Pretty much anything and everything is
considered "defensive" to them.
Muslims have been attacking and finding excuses to attack since long before the
existence of the USA or Israel, so I think you might be naive in your answer. If you
read what Al Qaeda and other sympathetic groups have been writing and saying
(which constitutes most of the Muslims outside of the United States), you will notice
that they keep referring to us as "the Crusaders". They really consider this a
continuance of the Crusades, which were truly defensive, but they considered
OFFENSIVE. They have very, very long memories. They also cointinue to express
the desire to re-establish the glory days of their empire. To them, anything that stands
in the way of the spread of Islam is an offense worthy of severe retribution.
American liberal Muslims are either hiding this fact or are innocently ignorant of it.
Islam is not a religion of peace, as we understand peace. If the U.S. and Israel did
everything they were asked by Muslims, they would simply find another excuse
to attack. History tells us this clearly enough.
Also, in another recent answer you gave regarding Islam, the New and Old
Testaments (a guy wrote in complaining about an article on Islam at CAI), I
totally disagree with how he tried to suggest that at least the Old Testament is
as bad as the Koran in regard to violence. In the Old Testament, God only
directed the Israelites to attack at very specific times and places, for His particular
reasons. Conversely, the Koran gives blanket permission for Muslims to attack
whenever and however in the service of spreading Islam....at their own
discretion. This is completely different and explains very well what we have seen
in history from Islam, including the current terrorist attacks.
If you read the amount of passages that exhort Islamists to violence in the
Koran, there is no valid comparison at all to be made.
2) Sungenis response:
R. Sungenis: Stefan, we make no apologies for the Muslims. At times they are as ruthless
as their Israeli counterparts (and I'm assuming you are aware of the ruthless tactics the Israelis
have used against the Arabs since 1948. If not, you can consult my essay on this subject).
For every modern day threat the Muslims have given of imposing their will on the rest of the
world, the Israelis and other Jews have outpaced them.
But since the modern age of weaponry, the Muslims have been contained by the western
powers, and they know it. Except for their SCUDS and dirty bombs, they are severely
outmatched in conventional warfare. Unless their technology vastly increases between now
and then, they have resigned themselves to a subordinate role in world affairs. The only other
"weapon" they have is most of the world's oil supply.
But when this subordinate role is then further digressed into them being categorized as
"in the way" of American and Israeli imperialism (seeking to force "democracy" and western
lifestyle on the whole Middle East, as well as take over their traditional land), then the history
from 1980 shows that they will fight back with whatever is at their disposal, including terrorism.
Are they right in doing this? No, but neither are we right for infringing on their land.
3) Stefan Trottel:
Dear Mr. Sungenis,
I thank you for your reply. There are a couple of things you did not address and I am not
sure if it is because you agree and therefore saw no reason to respond or simply because
you missed them:
1) Unlike Christianity and Judaism, the religion of Islam itself is inherently violent.
2) Comparisons between the Koran and the New Testament or even the Old Testament are
invalid as only the Koran gives a blanket permission to attack anyone who is not Muslim.
The Koran is also relatively LOADED with calls for violence compared to either the
New Testament or the Old Testament.
Do you agree or disagree with these statements? …..
I am interested in your response.
P.S. I would highly recommend the books I mentioned (Politically Incorrect Guide to
Islam and The Life of Muhammed, written by an observant, pious Muslim).
Additionally, the Politically Incorrect Guide to Science may be very interesting to
you in light of your scientific bent (with which I agree, I would add).
4) Sungenis response:
Dear Mr. Sungenis,
I thank you for your reply. There are a couple of things you did not
address and I am not sure if it is because you agree and therefore saw no
reason to respond or simply because you missed them:
1) Unlike Christianity and Judaism, the religion of Islam itself is
inherently violent. 2) Comparisons between the Koran and the New Testament or even the
Old Testament are invalid as only the Koran gives a blanket permission to attack anyone
who is not Muslim. The Koran is also relatively LOADED with calls
for violence compared to either the New Testament or the Old Testament.
Sungenis: Christianity is certainly not inherently violent, but unfortunately, Judaism tends to
be, because real Judaism considers all non-Jews goyim that are less than animals,
and this precipitates a loathing and violence against non-Jews. You can read all about
this in the Babylonian Talmud and the Encyclopedia Judaica. Fortunately, Judaism is
such a small enterprise today that they neither have the power or will to exercise these
ideas in large part, and most of today's Jews are quite liberal and could care less about Judaism.
But when they come into power, as they did in the communist regime under Lenin and
Trotsky, they can be some of the most ruthless people on the face of the earth. Islam
tends to be the same way. Neither of them can be trusted, but that's not surprising since neither
of them have the true religion. (emphasis added) END
5) Stefan Trottel:** (Note: Sungenis never responded to this email)
Dear Mr. Sungenis,
Sungenis: Christianity is certainly not inherently violent, but unfortunately, Judaism tends to be,
because real Judaism considers all non-Jews goyim that are less than animals, and this
precipitates a loathing and violence against non-Jews. You can read all about this in the
Babylonian Talmud and the Encyclopedia Judaica. Fortunately, Judaism is such a small
enterprise today that they neither have the power or will to exercise these ideas in large part,
and most of today's Jews are quite liberal and could care less about Judaism. But when they
come into power, as they did in the communist regime under Lenin and Trotsky, they can be
some of the most ruthless people on the face of the earth. Islam tends to be the same way.
Neither of them can be trusted, but that's not surprising since neither of them have the
true religion. >>
1) In my original point, I focused on the Old and New Testaments vs. the Koran.
I am glad we agree that the New Testament and the religion of the New Testament is not
violent like Islam. I think this is the most important point. However, are you saying that the
Old Testament and Orthodox Judaism are just as violent as the Koran and orthodox Islam?
Have you ever read the Koran? Have you ever read Hadith? Have you ever read
the writings of modern, orthodox Sunni and Shiite imams and mullahs? I
'm not an expert,
but I have read enough to be fairly confident that this characterization is not accurate.
2) The second part of my point related to the Old Testament/Orthodox Judaism
(Reform Judaism is like liberal Protestantism, Judaism in name only for the most part....
so I don't even really think of it as "Judaism"). But your answer focused on the evil doings
of Jews who were secular (i.e. they were not following Judaism). I wrote nothing about
such individuals as they have little or nothing to do with the Old Testament or the religion
of the Jews (my original point). In the context of my point and questions, how is it relevant
to compare the deeds of orthodox Islamists with non-believing Jews? Would we each
not vehemently object if non-Christians were to say that "those Christians are just ruthless
when they get power, just look at Stalin or Hitler (both baptized Christians)"? Then
why should we draw such conclusions based upon Jews who do not even make a
pretense at following orthodox Judaism? That's apples and oranges, don't you think?
Can you provide evidence from the Old Testament or from even modern Orthodox
Judaism that gives a blank check to kill those who are not orthodox Jews like Islam does?
If you can provide such evidence, that would be a true comparison.
3) You have stated things about the Talmud that I am not certain are true. Are you an
expert in the Talmud (I ask this seriously)? I
'm certainly not. But I do know that
people may take certain verses of the Bible or the Fathers of the Church regarding the
Jews, women or others and come away with some very ugly (and mistaken) ideas, true?
Have you ever checked some of these sites that claim to "debunk" the very kinds of things
you are saying about Judaism?
I did a very quick search and it appears the kinds of things you are claiming may have
originated from anti-Semitic sources. Are you aware of this?
Here are some of the sites that deal with the kinds of criticisms you make about Judaism:
RS: If we are talking about radical Muslims, yes, I would agree with you. But if we are
talking about the general Arab/Muslim world, I would say no. They have matured to the point
that they also seek peace, and most have divested themselves of the radical elements of
their religion. Unfortunately, a large enough contingent of radicals still exist, and they will
probably never go away. >>
Stefan: I'm curious what you base this opinion on. Is this true in the United States?
Probably, but I tend to think mostly because a) your society has watered down Islam,
like it does to most religions. Great wealth has that effect and b) Islam is a tiny minority
religion in the U.S. and Koranic teaching is to basically "lay low" and be cautious until
they are in a strategic position to be more forceful. This is exactly what even Mohammed did.
However, whether I look at the Middle East, Indonesia, Pakistan/India or increasingly Muslim
areas of Europe (like France), I read of directed violence toward non-Muslims (including
people of all faiths, like the Hindus, I would add) and increasing attempts to enforce
Sharia and/or Dhimmitude wherever possible (dhimmitude is second class status reserved
for non-Muslims who agree to pay what amounts to a bribery tax). How many Muslim leaders,
imams and mullahs have actually denounced the terrorist violence and done anything
concrete to stop it? Did you see the streets of Jordan and other Muslim countries that
are supposed allies of the U.S., after 9-11? They were delirious with joy, cheering at your
fate, Mr. Sungenis. It was shocking…
…However, again, my main point has to do with the nature of Islam and distinguishing
it from the New Testament/Orthodox Christianty and secondarily, the
Old Testament/Orthdox Judaism.
Dear Mr. Sungenis,
In light of the "cartoon controversy" and the widespread violence in the Muslim world
stemming from it, do you still believe that Islam is peaceful and that it is only a "few extremists"
who are creating the problem? So-called "moderate" clerics are actively calling for the death
of the cartoonist or at least having hands cut off. We don't see this from followers of
Christianity or Judaism.
Here is a humorous article I saw today from Jackie Mason. He's being funny in his
exaggeration but I think he has a point. And also, do you have any evidence of Jews
calling Muslims rodents, rats, animals, etc? I cannot even find the evidence you spoke
of in more ancient writings regarding "cattle". Conversely there evidence of just the
opposite in the very current press of Muslims. So, I do wonder exactly who considers
whom less than human, really.
R. Sungenis: Stefan, why do you persist in this line of questioning? I've already told you
what I believe. If your attempt is to try to elevate the Israeli side of this equation because
the Muslims are now forming uprisings only because we have invaded their land and they
want us out, your perspective is misplaced. I suggest you examine, in fine detail, the notorius
history of the Israeli incursions into Palestinian territory beginning from 1948 through the
present if you want to see some real peace-hating. If you would like, I can supply you with
a long list of butchery. Or are you a historical revisionist like the rest of the
neo-con/Zionist crowd? Even Steven Speilberg is sensing that the Israelis have brought
this hatred upon themselves, in his latest movie Munich, as he implies that the indiscriminate
Israeli killing of Palestinians is one of the most dispicable acts in history. That's why
Speilberg's movie was denigrated by a lot of Jewish groups, and why his movie has
been quickly removed from our theaters. The only thing Speilberg forgot to tell his
viewers is that, seven months before the massacre of the Israeli athletes, the Israeli
commandos slaughtered several whole villages in Palestine, and the killing of the
athletes was a reprisal from the Palestinians. So you want to talk peace, Stefan?
You'll find that neither Islam or Judaism seeks peace, and Christianity is now too
weak to do anything about either of them, except hope that it all goes away by the
grace of God someday.
Note:Bob’s comment about whether the questioner is “a historical revisionist” is ironic
considering his own writings on the Holocaust and the admitted historical revisionists
he cites in his own articles at CAI.
The reason I continue this line of discussion is simply because you continue to equate
Jewish ethnicity, Judaism, Zionism and Israeli citizenship, not recognizing any
distinctions, including your last letter. While I write about Judaism, you reply by
attacking people like Lenin and Trotsky who were not followers of Judaism. I raised the
comparison of attacking Christianity by blaming it for Stalin and Hitler as baptized Christians
and you do not acknowledge or understand that this is exactly what you are doing with Judaism.
I believe that Christianity is no more to blame for the atrocities of Stalin and Hitler
than Judaism is to blame for Lenin and Trotsky. Do you agree with this or not?
Conversely, these acts of Muslims stem very directly from their religion and their religious
leaders, even the so-called "moderates".
Is my point clearer now?
I also wrote that I have found no credible evidence that Judaism calls others
"less than animals" or "cattle"... or rodents. And I provided evidence. Can you give
me the exact quotes and references as proof? However, while you believe that ancient
Judaic texts teach such things, I have had no problem at all finding living Muslims who
do these kinds of things, currently in their press:
Also, I mentioned previously that I found no evidence of your beliefs about Judaism
teaching that non-Jews are less than animals, even in the Encyclopedia Judaica, as you
directed. Can you provide exact quotes and citations?
I have made no claims about what ethnic Jews or ethnic Arabs have or have not done.
My interest is in the religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam and those who actually
follow these religions.
I assumed because of your conversion to Catholicism and your willingness to consider
the truth or error of modern science openly that you were a man open to examining
differing views. Why are you getting angry and insulting about this? I do not understand
and certainly intended no insult to you. I appreciate your good work.
Surely you do not expect me to simply believe you without hard evidence, especially
when I have evidence to the contrary, yes?
Separately, I am somewhat curious about your strong views on the Palestinians, however.
Apparently, they were driven out of Arab countries like Jordan, Kuwait and Egypt,
sometimes being slaughtered along the way because they were deemed dangerous and
subversive. Do you disagree with this? However, I do not want the discussion to
move heavily in this direction. It is not what I was discussing...just a minor, secondary
point of curiosity.
Bob excised part of Mr. Trottel’s response, including the part about the Palestinians
and he included only what is below:
Dear Mr. Sungenis,
The reason I continue this line of discussion is simply because you continue to equate Jewish
ethnicity, Judaism, Zionism and Israeli citizenship, not recognizing any distinctions, including
your last letter. While I write about Judaism, you reply by attacking people like Lenin and
Trotsky who were not followers of Judaism. I raised the comparison of attacking
Christianity by blaming it for Stalin and Hitler as baptized Christians and you do not
acknowledge or understand that this is exactly what you are doing with Judaism.
I believe that Christianity is no more to blame for the atrocities of Stalin and Hitler than
Judaism is to blame for Lenin and Trotsky. Do you agree with this or not?
Conversely, these acts of Muslims stem very directly from their religion and their
religious leaders, even the so-called "moderates".
Is my point clearer now?
I also wrote that I have found no credible evidence that Judaism calls others
"less than animals" or "cattle"... or rodents. And I provided evidence.
Can you give me the exact quotes and references as proof?
However, while you believe that ancient Judaic texts teach such things,
I have had no problem at all finding living Muslims who do these kinds of things,
currently in their press:
Then he wrote:
R. Sungenis: The Soncino edition of the Babylonian Talmud has all the references. I included the references in a paper I wrote about three years ago.
As for the comparison between Judaism and Islam, no, I would not agree that Judaism
has its hands clean regarding the philosophy of violence and revenge. What you need to
understand is that the Israelis who started the "take back Palestine" campaign back in 1948
did so on the basis that the Palestinians were to be compared to the Amalekites of Joshua's
day, and that just as Joshua went in and killed every man, woman and child in the Canaanite
cities, so Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon and their cadre of Israelis who think that God is
still giving such orders, do to the Palestinians today. These are not my opinions. They are the
very words of these Israeli leaders. I've quoted them several times in my essays. They think
they have divine right to the land of Palestine just like Joshua did, and they think that God is
finally moving them to take it over by the same divine judgment that God allowed Joshua to
administer. We even have Jewish converts to Catholicism today, like Roy Schoeman
and David Moss, who propagate these same sentiments by claiming that the Old
Covenant is still in force, and that the Jews are going to take over Palestine under
divine mandate and offer sacrifices in Jerusalem again, and all this in fulfillment,
they claim, by the words of Jesus Christ. This is total nonsense, and it is one of
the most pernicious and nefarious heresies the Church has ever faced. Granted, there
are many Jewish people who don't have these same Zionist aspirations, and I have many
Jewish friends who think the Zionists are absolutely insane. I'm not worried about them. They have enough sense to know their place,and I love them for it. But the Zionists are
another breed altogether. And I can tell you this: no Muslim will ever allow the Zionists to
accomplish their goal to take over a significant portion of the Middle East. If you want to
see how unpeaceful a Muslim can be, destroy his people and take his land. The Bush
administration is getting a lesson in how great the resolve is of these people, and as a result, Iraq is turning into another Vietnam. Bush is so preoccupied with Iraq that he has forgotten
his own American people, since many of them are still languishing in New Orleans (and
we found out today on the evening news that Bush knew of the coming devastation of
hurricane Katrina the day before it hit, not days later that he claimed back in August).
This is a president that can't even take care of his own country, yet he keeps sending
billions of dollars and witnesses his soldiers coming back in body bags every day from Iraq.
But he was already warned by the pope that this was an unjust war, and now he is
paying the price for it.
(Note: emphasis added.Again, aside from his remarkable comment about loving Jews
“who have enough sense to know their place”, note the continued failure to make
distinctions between secular Jews vs. followers of Judaism.The continuing refusal or
carelessness regarding these important distinctions over the years tends to undermine
Bob’s contention that he is only against Zionists.In fact, as I have indicated, I
personally cautioned Bob long ago that he needed to be more careful about this,
it is part of a pattern.)
Where can I find the paper you reference regarding the quotes from the Soncino
of the Babylonian Talmud? Did you find these quotes yourself in the Talmud or did you
find them in another book that referenced the Talmud? I would very much like to read
them myself in context. If your understanding is correct, then this is worth knowing.
Also, you said I could find these things in the Encyclopedia Judaica. But I did not
find them and no one I have asked is able to find them, either. Where are these things
in the Encyclopedia Judaica, exactly?
Also, who are the Jewish friends you mention who agree with your views? Have they
written anything I could access? I would be very interested to read what they have to say.
Regarding the Jewish converts to Catholicism you mention: you are saying that
these men believe that modern Judaism is salvific for Jews, that Jews need not convert to
Catholicism? This is very, very strange. They believe that God wants the Jewish temple to
be rebuilt and the sacrifice there will be efficacious for them? This is also very odd.
Where can I find their writings? What you describe is certainly very serious.
Note: Reportedly, there was no response from Bob to this email from Mr. Trottel
(I have verified that at least it is not on the CAI website), but
Ben Douglass (Sungenis’ VP)
did respond to him with something very noteworthy, excerpted below:
**From: "BEN DOUGLASS" <email@example.com> To: Stefan Trottel
CC: CAIRomeo@aol.com(Bob’s email address)
Subject: Re: QA: Is Islam a religion of peace?
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006
Robert and Stephan,
1903 Jewish Encyclopedia contains a lengthy discussion of the Talmudic view of
gentiles. It notes diversity of opinion, with some rabbis being quite racist and others
somewhat more egalitarian, and states that "it is essential that...the opinions of one
tanna not be taken as those of the Talmud." …. The Encyclopedia
actually cites the most extremely negative views of the gentiles quite
It is important to have the utmost balance and restraint when critiquing the
Talmud, since Judaism is such a sensitive subject. So, I would strongly urge
you (note: Bob Sungenis) not to make any strong claims about the Talmud
without thorough documentation and careful study of context and commentary….
… In order to accurately
represent the Talmud in one
's critique, one must present both the monstrous
saying, the sensible objection, and lastly the synthesis at which the rabbis
arrive, in which the monstrosity of the original saying is slightly mitigated…
…In general, the impression I get from the Talmud is that gentiles are people,
descended from Adam and Eve just like Jews….
Note:Bob did not to post this answer from his VP,
Ben Douglass, at CAI. Clearly,
Ben Douglass at least departs from the most extreme views expressed
**Stefan responds to
Dear Mr. Douglass,
Thank you for this candid, more in-depth commentary. It strikes me as more in line with my
recollection of the Encyclopedia Judaica. I would like to forward it on to some students of
Judaism and see what their reaction is. If I get a response, I will certainly forward it to you.
I assume by what you have written that you would be interested, yes?
Have you visited any of the links I provided previously? If so, what is your evaluation of them?
After doing some additional research on the internet, I came across more information as to
's position on Judaism and the Talmud, etc. What is your view of these opinions of CAI
(below)? From what I have read, these positions were never publicly retracted.
Mr. Sungenis only indicated regret for upsetting certain people with some of what he wrote,
while still standing by the correctness of what he wrote. He has restated some of these
opinions even recently.
Do you agree with these things?
I am also compiling additional information regarding the Talmud and the views you expressed
in your last email. I look forward to presenting it to you and also to your reactions/responses.
I have excerpted from Mr. Sungenis
' article of 2002. You can find it still posted at
My preliminary conclusion about the Talmud is that it expresses a diverse range
of opinions on the gentiles, ranging from the fanatically hateful (Simon ben
Yohai) to the basically decent (Rabbi Meir). The main thrust of Talmudic
thought seems to be somewhere between the two, perhaps similar to the way
blacks were regarded in the old American South. I think Robert has a tendency
to treat the Simon ben Yohai extreme as representative of the Talmud, perhaps because he is following references from secondary sources which make it a point
to highlight all the worst.(Note:CAI’s Ben Douglass here has expressed two of the
primary points made in my article:Bob tends to reflexively accept the most negative about
Jews and he gets his information from secondary sources that are highly biased against Jews,
rather than primary ones.)
I'm not sure where Robert's statement "Actually, the word "goyim" is the Hebrew
word for "animal" or "cattle," since that is what Jews have traditionally
understood Gentiles to be next to" comes from. It seems to me to be an
indictment of the Old Testament and biblical inerrancy, since as far as I know
this is what the Old Testament calls gentiles.
I cannot comment on the accuracy of the figures regarding how many Bolsheviks
were Jews, though I can see how the cultural influence of Talmudic Judaism
might conduce secular Jews to such a position.
Much of what the Talmud teaches is legitimately awful. On the other hand, some
of the charges in Robert's essay may be inaccurate, and based on
misinterpretations. I need to investigate more.
Ben(Vice President of Sungenis’ Catholic Apologetics International)
Unlike you, Mr. Douglass sees things in a balanced way, and that's why I treasure his services
at CAI. I also tried to balance things four years ago when I first started to critique Judaism,
Zionism, the Talmud, and related issues, but people on your side of the fence weren't listening,
since it appears you are of the opinion that none of the aforementioned can do no wrong and
that the world's problems are everyone eles's fault. Well, I'm sorry, but I don't play the
"no-negative-news-about-the-Judaism/Jews" game that you wish to play. At CAI, we
tell it like it is, good or bad, or do you think it is appropriate, for example, for Abe
Foxman to teach Jews that the New Testament is antisemitic?
At CAI we've come down on conservatives as well as traditionalists, on Republicans as
well as Democrats, on Catholics as well as Protestants, Jews as well as Muslims, and
many other such polarities in our day. I suggest for your own sanity and well being that
you take a more respectable look at your opponents and stop trying to pigeonhole
everyone into your little world, and stop spreading the calumny that you apprear to be
spreading in this present email regarding my former writings, as well as your attempt to
divide me and Mr. Douglass.
If you had stopped long enough to listen to what I actually say, and have said,
rather than your myopic interpretation of it, you would know that Mr. Douglass and
I see these issues on the same level. And our relationship and commradery goes much
deeper than what you know. So I suggest that if you have anything further to say, you
address BOTH of us, or don't address any of us. Neither I nor Mr. Douglass will be
underminded, and that is why he sends a copy of everything you write to me.
I do not know why you would think I have preconceptions about your relationship with Mr.
Douglass. I obviously know nothing about it and consider it irrelevant. As your
vice-president, one would certainly not find it particularly surprising that he would
communicate with you. If I really intended to do what you believe, would I not at least have
asked him to keep it private? I should hope that your vice president is closer to you than to me.
I barely know him.
I have sent you supporting things when I agreed with you and contrasting things when I
disagreed or was not sure. I try to test my thinking in order to come to a better understanding
and a good way to do that is by discussing with those of differing views (which, although I
obviously disagree with Judaism, I am also doing with your and Mr. Douglass
' views by
sending information to some students of Judaism). You have increasingly reacted defensively
when I have done this, insulting me, even in this last letter you sent. Can you show me
where I did the same to you?
My intention was not to come between you and Mr. Douglass. It was Mr. Douglass who drew the contrast between the two of you by his own email to me, which mildly and
respectfully asked you to be more thoughtful and careful in your criticisms of Judaism/the
Talmud. Afterward, I responded as I think most human beings naturally would. You showed
a decreasing openness to charitable discussion and instead began to insult me when I did
not accept your opinions readily enough. So, I tried to interact with a person at CAI who
seemed more willing, open and versed.
Your criticisms of me as completely one-sided are undermined by your acknowledgement that
your own Mr. Douglass sees things in a fair way. I already wrote that I thought Mr.
Douglass seemed more reasonable in my first reply to him. If I am trying to "pigeonhole"
or am completely one-sided, why would I write this? He is still critical of the Talmud, is he not?
If I was so one-sided, I would reflexively and completely reject even what he wrote, would I not?
I wrote to him personally afterwards exactly for this reason. And the article you referred me
to was even more controversial than what you wrote personally to me and I wanted to know
if Mr. Douglass concurred with what you wrote as it was very different than what he had just
I thought what you wrote, especially in the article you referred me to, was unnecessarily
controversial and not very difficult to disprove (or at least bring into serious question).
I am not a scholar but I was able to determine the doubtful, disputed nature of many of
the views expressed in your article without spending a great deal of time. Yet you
treated them (and continue to treat them) as established fact.In light of your conversion
and other good things you have done, I was truly surprised and disappointed.
As Mr. Douglass is the vice-president of CAI, don
't such strong views expressed by
CAI naturally tend to accrue to him as well? But it seemed to me there was an inconsistency
there and so I asked him plainly to clarify his views. I didn
't want to assume something if
it was not true. I also told him plainly that I intended to bring what was written to students
of Judaism and I have written the same to you.
Recall also that I asked other direct and plain questions of you, which you never
answered (although I found one of the answers myself:the article from 2002 you referenced to
me).I have pasted that email below this one and underlined the questions that have not
been answered yet.I am genuinely interested to know the answers.You made some
very serious charges.And if they are true, people ought to be warned.But we seem
to have least established that some of the things you have written are not entirely fair and
accurate about Judaism.So it is surely not unreasonable to ask for further, specific proof.
I am sure you are not claiming to be above question.
As to your criticism that I intend to "play the "no-negative-news-about-the-Judaism/Jews" game",
you continue to jump to too many negative conclusions.I find many things objectionable
about the ADL and Mr. Foxman. But I do not blame "the Jews", "Israel" or "Judaism" for
them. I blame Mr. Foxman and the ADL. And I agree that the "Reflections" document is
very bad. Jews need Christ as much as anyone. And if there are very bad things taught in
Judaism and the Talmud, I want to know…but I want to know with confidence and
I have sent what you have written and what Mr. Douglass has written to some students of
Judaism. And if there are no reasonable answers for specific criticisms either of you make
about the Talmud and Judaism then so be it.What is, is. I do not know for sure.
But surely you can understand that fairness dictates giving others a reasonable
opportunity to explain their side. You do this with Protestants don
As to your charge that I am not reading what you write and am misinterpreting it, it
was exactly what you wrote in answer to my questions that caused my reactions and
questions (including the article you referred me to from 2002), not my assumptions
about what you wrote. And Mr. Douglass has also expressed some of those concerns.
All I did was provide verbatim quotes of your own writing.And then I asked if he also
agreed with what you wrote.Please show me my exact misinterpretation.
Somewhat off topic, but I also noticed that you cut out a good deal of what I wrote to
you on your website this last time (even parts that were not of a personal nature),
including the links that contend against what you have written. Yet you posted the
entirety of what you wrote, including the personal parts that question my motives, insult.
Why? What about the remainder of my letter was so bad that it had to be omitted?
And last, calumny requires that one be lying about the other.Where exactly have I lied about
you?I have dealt with and referred to your own exact words.Conversely, you
have publicly and clearly inferred some untrue, personal things about me.
But more to the point, I would like to know the answer to these questions:
1) Do you now agree with Mr. Douglass that some of your interpretations of the
Talmud were incorrect or not (especially about gentiles being less than animals)?
2) Do you still agree with all the information you recently referred me to, in your article in
2002 or not?If not, what do you not believe any longer?
3) If I misinterpreted what you wrote about Judaism and the Talmud, how so?Here are
some of your own words:
a) “The fact is that these Noahide laws were created by the Talmudists as implements to
keep Gentiles in line, like animals, without a thought that through them the Gentiles
would be pleasing God.”Do you believe this or not?
b) “The Gentiles will be allowed to have their own religion, just as long as the Jews can
be superior to them and rule them.”Do you believe this or not?
c)“Again, the Talmud directs acts of kindness toward Jews, not Gentiles. Unlike the
Old Testament, which commanded the Jews to show mercy to Gentiles dwelling in their
midst, there is no such message in the Talmud. The Talmud was the religion of the
Pharisees, a leading group in Israel at the time of Christ who considered Gentiles unworthy
of respect.”Do you believe this or not?
d) “Talmudic laws discriminate against the non-Jew, ranking them as human animals.”
Do you believe this or not?
e)”The second lesson was that it was accepted for a Jew to cheat the Gentile goyim
as long as you weren
't caught at it because that would bring shame upon Judaism. The
Talmud declares that even the best of the goyim should be destroyed.”Do you believe
this or not?
f) “Christians are cursed six times on ordinary days and eight times on special Jewish days.”
Do you believe this or not?
g) “baby boys may be used as objects for sodomy by grown men (Exh. 54).
The Pharisaic reasoning is that until a child reaches sexual maturity, capable of
sexual intercourse, he or she does not rank as a person, hence Biblical law against
sodomy (pederasty) does not apply.”Do you believe this or not?
h)” As other books, the Seder Nezikin, which begins with the Babakamma volume of
19 pages, contains rabbinic ramblings on general Jewish law, has as its essence the
legal permission for Jews to harm Gentile property while asserting that Gentile
injury to Jewish property is like an assault on God, since only Jews are human beings.”
Do you believe this or not?
There are many more direct quotes.
3) Does Mr. Douglass also agree with all of these views or not?
4) If you do not still agree with your article, then why are you still referring people to it?
5) If you agree it is incorrect, then why have you not recanted it publicly and apologized for it?
(Or if you have publicly recanted the many charges made and apologized, where exactly may
one find this retraction and apology? But then, wouldn
't that make it even more confusing
as to why you are still referring people like me to it?)
As I have written previously, I write again: I appreciate the good work you do and
have gained by it. But I cannot help but question these things. And I am confused as to
why a man such as yourself who pursues the truth in the other areas of his life,
wherever it leads, would not welcome contrary information as an opportunity to more
firmly apprehend it.
Questions you did not respond to:
My previous letter and the questions you never responded to:
Where can I find the paper you reference regarding the quotes from the Soncino
Edition of the
Babylonian Talmud? Did you find these quotes yourself in the Talmud or did you find them in another book that referenced the Talmud? I would very much like to read them myself in context.
If your understanding is correct, then this is worth knowing. Also, you said I could find these things in the Encyclopedia Judaica. But I did not find them and no one I have asked is able to find them, either. Where are these things in the Encyclopedia Judaica, exactly?
Also, who are the Jewish friends you mention who agree with your views? Have they written anything I could access? I would be very interested to read what they have to say.
Regarding the Jewish converts to Catholicism you mention: are you saying that these men believe that modern Judaism is salvific for Jews, that Jews need not convert to Catholicism? This is very, very strange. They believe that God wants the Jewish temple to be rebuilt and the sacrifice there will be efficacious for them? This is also very odd.
Where can I find their writings? What you describe is certainly very serious.
**On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:10:02 +0000, "Stefan Trottel" wrote:
My emails are now bouncing from Mr. Sungenis' service. Could you please answer this or pass it along to him for me? Thank you.
Dear Mr. Sungenis and Mr. Douglass,
It is not clear who wrote your latest article on Reverend Falwell. Who wrote this article? The name Ilan Chaim is between two different writings and it is not clear which one he wrote. Also, why name the article "Jerry Falwell now says "Faith in Christ" is unnecessary for Jews" when Falwell strongly denies that he either said or believes this?
Is there any real proof he believes this wrong idea?
From: "BEN DOUGLASS"
To: Stefan Trottel
Subject: Re: Ben Douglass Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:47:44 -0500 (EST)
Note: Notice that Bob was first notified of the problematic nature of this racialist source by Ben Douglass on March 21, 2006. ******************************************************************
Thank you for the information. Have you ever looked that site over completely? If so, what do you think of their statement of purpose? http://www.nationalvanguard.org/nv/ Also, did you receive the information I sent you regarding the Talmud from some students of Judaism? (Michael Gruda being one)? Do you have any reaction to it?
TWO ARTICLES published at CAI in March 2006 are taken from the web site www.nationalvanguard.org:
1) http://www.catholicintl.com/noncatholicissues/jf.htm and
This was documented by Matthew Anger
**BEN DOUGLASS ,firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 6:09 PM
To: Stefan Trottel
Subject: Re: Ben Douglass
Stefan, I looked at the national vanguard site for a while. The group is a bit unsavory. If I were Robert I would not have picked up the article even though I thought it was informative.
I did get the message from Michael Gruda. I'm disinclined to think his interpretation of the Talmud is better than the scholars who created the Jewish Encyclopedia. But then again, I ask people to take my opinion over the opinions of Catholic biblical scholars with doctorates all the time, so I suppose I ought to consider his arguments on the merits.
When I have more time I hope to respond.
Note: In spite of the fact the Ben Douglass notified Sungenis (he was cc’d on this email), this article taken from an unsavory white-supremacist website remained at CAI for two weeks. As noted further above, it was removed after Matthew Anger printed a story revealing CAI’s racist sources. CAI quietly removed the piece. The point is: Bob tends to uncritically accept and repeat information that portrays Jews in a negative light and seems only motivated to remove it under pressure.
Michael Forrest is a contemporary Catholic writer, apologist, speaker. He has written for New Oxford Review, The Wanderer, The Remnant, The Catholic Observer, Seattle Catholic, Friends of La Nef and was also a contributing author to From Happy Hour to Holy Hour and the sequel, To Freedom. He is an active member of the Pro-life movement. Additionally, he has appeared on various radio and television programs, such as Fatima Today and Catholic Radio.