Don Curzio Nitoglia - Jesus and malediction of Judaism

Don Curzio Nitoglia - Jesus and malediction of Judaism

The Lord Jesus cursed some cities of Galilee (Mt., XI, 20-24; Luke, X, 10-16) for their unbelief; as then in Judea, shortly before being killed, he also cursed Jerusalem as unfaithful and ready for Deicide (Mt., XXIV, 15; Luke, XIX, 43).
Certainly Jesus did not desire the supreme spiritual evil, that is, the eternal damnation, of the unbelieving Jews of Galilee and Judea; in fact, it would have been seriously illicit and sinful; however, He asked for a certain material evil for them, but always for their conversion; as well as even asked for a punishment or a certain temporary and initial – spiritual evil of unfaithful Judaism, as long as it was not definitive and absolute, but rather so that it would serve as a moral lesson to him and spur him on to a greater spiritual good and true conversion (S. THOMAS AQUINAS, S. Th., II-II, q. 76).
In the Gospel (Mt., both objectively and materially, exclaiming: “Woe to you ...!”.
This is the objective or material curse.
Furthermore, Jesus did not stop here, but also hurled a formal or subjective curse, that is, he explicitly invoked or wished evil to unfaithful Judaism (1) (F). ROBERTI – P. PALAZZINI, Dictionary of Moral Theology, Rome, Studium, 1955, p. 627, entry “Imprecation”), which had violated the Law of the Lord; so that – first of all – the divine and natural order were repaired (vindictive punishment) and – secondly – so that the unbelieving Jews, formally cursed, corrected themselves (medicinal punishment).
The Angelic Doctor in the Summa Theologica explains that it is permissible to formally curse someone (II-II, q. 76, a. 1); in fact, the prophet Elisha (II Kings, II, 24) cursed the children who mocked him as a prophet and they were mauled by a bear.
Furthermore, Jesus “maledixit ficulneae” (Mt., XXI, 19), since “the fig was figuration of Judaism incredulity”, therefore they (fig and Judaism) were cursed by Jesus not only objectively (with the observation of their fruitlessness and deviant faith), but also formally, through anathema, which the Lord addressed to the plant and – figuratively – to the deicidal people, so that they would dry as they were fruitless – in the first case – of figs and – in the second case – of righteous faith accompanied by good works; finally, God himself after the sin of Adam cursed the earth, so that it would no longer bear fruit without having first been hard worked by man, saying: “Cursed be the soil because of tua” (Gen., III, 17), that is, because of the sin of the first man (S. Th., II-II, q. 76, a. 2).
Finally, in the 4° and last article of the same question, Saint Thomas explains to us that it is permissible to curse even formally (i.e. wish evil as a punishment due to guilt) someone so that, first of all, the violated moral order is repaired (for example, the judge who pronounces the sentence on a murderer: “I condemn you to the sentence of life imprisonment”); in secundis, discourage the wicked from repeating the faults (at the sight of the life imprisonment imposed on the murderer, the others will probably abstain from committing the evil); in tertiis, compensate the offended person or his family (the children of the murdered person must be able to see the murderer of their father sentenced to imprisonment and not rewarded) and, only finally, can the criminal (the murderer, be treated and corrected in prison he could come to his senses and repent of the harm done; as Alessandro Serenelli, the killer of Santa Maria Goretti, did for example).
Father Antonio Royo Marin, commenting on the Summa Theologica (II-II, q.108, aa.1-4), wrote: «The instinct to avenge an evil, as a movement of repulsion towards it, is good; therefore just revenge, which wants – first of all – repair the order violated by the criminal by doing evil and – secondarily – amend the guilty, is good and right; therefore, the primary element of punishment is vindictive (restoring order and punishing evil), while the secondary element is medicinal (helping the guilty to redeem themselves). Instead, today punishment is seen only as a medicine and its afflictive, corrective, reparative or “vengeful”» side is ignored (2).

Talmudic Judaism is rejected by God
First of all, it must be specified that here we are talking about Judaism, the post-biblical religion and its faithful as faithful, the Jews who follow the Kabbalah and the Talmud (3), not the Jewish ethnic group.
Then, the theological and biblical terms of reprobation and curse must be specified; (a) to try again means to reject, to consider useless, to disapprove, to break a friendship. Now, the Talmudic Synagogue, which the Apostle Saint John twice calls “Synagogue of Satana” (Rev., II, 9; III, 9), after the killing of Christ, has been disapproved, rejected by God, who noted its infidelity to the Old Covenant made by Him with Abraham/Moses and repudiated it to make a New Covenant with the “piccolo resto” or “reliquia” (Rom., XI, 5-7) of Israel remained faithful to Christ and Moses, and with all the Gentiles ready to welcome the Gospel (who mostly corresponded to the gift of God, while only one of their “reliquia” rejected it, to narcissistically adore herself through the idols she had built for herself in a mirror mo’). God disavowed those who denied His only begotten and consubstantial Son, “True God from God vero”. So, sound theology has interpreted Scripture and taught that postbiblical Judaism is reprobated or disapproved of by God, that is, as long as it remains in the obstinate rejection of Christ, is not spiritually united with God, is not dear to Him, is not in grace of God.
Furthermore, (b) cursing means condemning and this is (α) is an objective curse“”, i.e. a situation that has cost as messy and, therefore, condemned by God, of which He says badly or “male/dice”. In fact, God cannot objectively approve, say well or “well/dire” the rejection of Christ.
However, β) it is also a subjective or formal curse; in fact, the Father, after having noted the sterility of Pharisaic and rabbinic Judaism, which killed the Prophets, his Son and finally the Apostles, formally condemns and curses it. Like Jesus who, having noted the sterility of a fig tree, formally cursed it (“you can be dried!”), that is, he did not appreciate it, but formally condemned it – after having objectively or materially noted its fruitlessness – precisely because it was fruitless (4).
I report here what a converted Jew and talented scholar of Patrology, Denise Judant, wrote: «We must distinguish Old Testament Judaism from post-Christian Judaism. The first (Old Testament) is a preparation of Christianity; the second instead (post-Christian or Talmudic Judaism), denied the messianicity of Jesus and continues to reject the Messiah Jesus Christ. In this sense there is an opposition of contradiction between Christianity and current Judaism. The Old Covenant is based not only on free divine choice and election, but also on the cooperation of men. Moses receives God's declaration, containing the conditions of the Bilateral Covenant. Indeed, the Covenant is not unconditional (Dt., XI, 1-28), but is subjected to the obedience of the people of Israel: “I offer you blessings and curses. Blessings if you obey the divine commandments ... curses if you disobey” (Dt., XI, 28).
The Ancient Covenant is not one-sided, but is revocable and also depends on the behavior of Israel and God threatens to break it several times due to the infidelities of the Jewish people, which He would also like to destroy completely (Dt., XXVIII; Lev., XXVI, 14 ff.; Jer., XXVI, 4-6; Hos., VII, 8 and IX, 6).
After the death of Christ, God's forgiveness is not granted to all Israel, but only to “a small resto” faithful to Christ and Moses, which foretold Jesus. Following the infidelity of the people of Israel, as a whole, towards Christ and the Old Testament that announced Him, God's forgiveness was restricted only to “a small resto”.
On the part of God, unlike on the part of man, there is no rupture of His plan, (which is withdrawn only after having noted his rejection by man: “Deus non deserit, nisi prius deseratur”), but only development and refinement of the Ancient Covenant, in the New and definitive Covenant, which will give the “little resto” of Jews loyal to the Messiah a “new heart” and open up to all humanity ... Jesus did not establish a new religion, he taught that God wanted the salvation of all humanity and that the coming of Christ was the condition of such salvation... The Christian community remained faithful to the Old Testament Tradition, recognizing in Jesus the Christ-Messiah announced by the Prophets. For Christians, it is post-biblical Judaism that is unfaithful to the Old Testament, but there is a faithful “piccolo resto”, which upon entering the Church of Christ guarantees the continuity of the Covenant (Old/New), in view of Christ coming and coming. He is the “corner stone” that “he made two [peoples: Jews and Gentiles] one thing” [Christians]» (5).

Our hour and our judgment are approaching
Starting from what was revealed to us in the punishment of Sodom, Tyre, Capernaum and Jerusalem, how can we not think of the fate that looms over our leader? Indeed, today a sin similar to that of the unbelief that Jesus reproaches the cities of Galilee, we too are committing.
Mind 1° serenely and objectively (1°) to the obligation of universal vaccination with serum containing aborted fetuses, even to go to Mass or enter a church; 2°) to propaganda and above all to the abominable compulsory practice of Gender in schools, starting from three years; 3 (a) prohibition of the Apostolic Tradition Mass, compulsorily replaced (even if arbitrarily) with a rite that is at least ambiguous and ambivalent like the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI, with Communion on the hands β) possible imminent suppression of the Institutes Eccelsia Dei, γ) accompanied by the closure of churches and the suspension of public worship even at Christmas and Easter.
Well, of these acts of doctrinal apostasy and moral degeneration – unfortunately illicitly and tyrannically imposed from above, but largely though not totally accepted by most men – we will have to account to God just like Corrupt Sodom (≈ Gender), Capernaum in disbelief (≈ Novus Ordo Missae obligatory with Eucharist on his hands) and deicidal Jerusalem (≈ vaccines with aborted fetuses) had to account to God for their misdeeds.
Now Revelation and sacred history (corroborated by archaeological studies and profane history) teach us that Sodom was annihilated by fire, that not even a trace of Capernaum remains and that Jerusalem was totally destroyed by Titus in 70.
How can we escape divine wrath?
The remedy is always there, in fact “God does not abandon unless he was first abandoned”, it is that of Mary, compared by the Fathers to Noah's Ark, “Ark in qua naufragium evadimus”.
“Adeamus ergo cum fiducia ad thronum gratiae ut misericordiam consequamur”.

NOTES
1 – So Saint Paul, shortly before setting sail for Rome and being judged as “civis romanus” by Caesar, formally cursed the High Priest, Ananias, who had had him slapped by one of his servants, wishing him: “God strike you, whitewashed tomb!” (Acts, XXIII, 3). In reality Ananias was murdered about 6 years later by a hitman in 66 (JOSEPH FLAVIUS, Jewish War, II, 7, 9). Therefore the curse of the Apostle of the Gentiles was fully realized almost simultaneously with the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple (year 70), prophesied by Jesus shortly before being crucified, as a punishment for Jewish disbelief and Deicide (Mt., XXIV, 15; Luke, XIX, 43), which had been formally cursed on Holy Monday when Jesus cursed the fruitless fig tree (Mt., XXI, 19).
2 – A. ROYO MARIN, Theology of Christian Perfection, Rome, Edizioni Paoline, 6th ed., 1965, p. 69 8.
3 – The major Catechism of Saint Pius X explains that “the Jews are those who still profess the Law of Moses today; they did not receive Baptism and do not believe in Jesus Christ” (n. 227). As can be seen, it is not so much a question of ethnicity, but above all a problem of deviant faith.
4 – D. JUDANT, Judaisme et Christianisme, éd. du Cèdre, Paris, 1969, pp. 88-91; ID., Jalons pour une théologie chrétienne d'Israel, éd. du Cèdre, Paris, 1975, pp. 7-15 ; pp. 33-83, passim.
5 – LM CARLI, The Jewish question before the Second Vatican Council, in «Clero» Gym, n. 4, 15 February 1965, pp. 192-203.

source:
doncurzionitoglia.wordpress.com