text:
Q: problems with array and function and xml
Possible Duplicate:
How to make this array + function to work?

This is my function, what I'm trying to do is to post the array on XML file. I'm new on this.
// ------------------- Functions
static void XML_Array(Dictionary<string, string> Data_Array)
{
    foreach (KeyValuePair<string, string> kvp in Data_Array)
    {
        if (kvp.Key == "XML_File")
        {
            String xmlfile = kvp.Value;
        }

        XmlTextWriter xwriter = new XmlTextWriter(xmlfile, Encoding.Unicode);

        xwriter.WriteStartDocument();

        if (kvp.Key == "StartElement")
        {
            xwriter.WriteStartElement(kvp.Value);
        }

        foreach (KeyValuePair<string, string> kvp2 in Elements_Array)
        {
            String Element_Name = kvp2.Key;
            String Element_Value = kvp2.Value.ToString();

            xwriter.WriteStartElement(Element_Name);
            xwriter.WriteString(Element_Value);
            xwriter.WriteEndElement();
        }

        xwriter.WriteEndDocument();
        xwriter.Close();
    }

}

My array code is this, when I press the button2 the array is going to the function
    private void button2_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
    {
        Dictionary<string, string> Data_Array = new Dictionary<string, string>();
        Data_Array.Add("XML_File", "Settings_Data.xml");
        Data_Array.Add("StartElement", "XMLFILE");

        Dictionary<string, string> Elements_Array = new Dictionary<string, string>();
        Elements_Array.Add("Name", textBox3.Text);
        Elements_Array.Add("Age", textBox4.Text);
        Elements_Array.Add("Gentle", comboBox6.SelectedIndex);

        Data_Array.Add("Elements_Array", Elements_Array);

        XML_Array(Data_Array);
    }

Update
The problem is and of course the question is how I can make on function
where is String xmlfile = to show me the XML_File value = Settings_Data.xml.
And one more problem is Data_Array.Add("Elements_Array", Elements_Array), I get error on this part.

A: Why even bother with the dictionary phase?
private void button2_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
    {

        XDocument doc = new XDocument()
        XElement root = new XElement("XML_File");
        root.Add(new XElement("name",textBox3.text));

        ... blah blah

}

A: If I've understood your requirements then it is possible that this is all you need:
private void button2_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
    var data = new XDocument(new XElement("XMLFILE", new []
    {
        new XElement("Name", textBox3.Text),
        new XElement("Age", textBox4.Text),
        new XElement("Gentle", comboBox6.SelectedIndex),
    }));

    XML_Array("Settings_Data.xml", data);
}

And then have this:
static void XML_Array(string fileName, XDocument data)
{
    data.Save(fileName);
}

The file that results from this code would look something like this:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<XMLFILE>
  <Name>James</Name>
  <Age>42</Age>
  <Gentle>1</Gentle>
</XMLFILE>


text:
MEDevEcon
Stata Code
Markus Eberhardt
Associate Professor, School of Economics, University of Nottingham
Research Affiliate, Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)
Associate Editor, Empirical Economics
CV, Google Scholar, RePEc, ORCID, Nottingham
School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Sir Clive Granger Building, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK
markus.eberhardt@nottingham.ac.uk; @MEDevEcon
RESEARCH My current research interests include financial and debt crises, Qing China in the 18th and 19th centuries, Matthew Perry (this one, not that one) as a natural experiment to analyse trade and international integration, growth empirics, and knowledge spillovers/absorptive capacity. For some of this work there is a common denominator, namely 'second generation' macro panel econometrics in linear and more recently nonlinear models. My recent research on early modern China is a happy return to university studies of Sinology during the mid-1990s.
NEWS April/May 2019: I've completed a comment on a recent JPE paper by Acemoglu, Naidu, Restrepo and Robinson: 'Democracy does cause growth: comment'. A write-up is featured on VoxEU and reposted on The Replication Network (TRN). I took the opportunity of my exchanges with Bob Reed, who runs this initiative, to become a member of TRN - you should consider joining, too.
NEWS November 2018: Starting from the current academic year 2018/19 I'll be External Examiner for the MSc in Economics for Development at Oxford (jointly run by the Department of Economics and DOID/QEH).
NEWS July 2018: I have been asked to act as one of the Associate Editors for Empirical Economics. As the title suggests the journal focuses on research employing empirics to data in order to answer important questions arising from theory and stylised facts. It has seen a jump in its impact factor from 0.65 in 2016 to 0.97 in 2017 and here's hoping I'll be able to contribute to the continued improvement of the journal and also the publication process.
NEWS July 2018: Roughly ten years after I first sent a version of my second DPhil chapter to a (different) journal, I am now pleased to have 'The Magnitude of the Task Ahead: Macro Implications of Heterogeneous Technology' (co-authored with Francis Teal) conditionally accepted for publication in The Review of Income and Wealth. The paper allows for different technology coefficients (betas) in a Cobb-Douglas production function and demonstrates the implications in a sample of 48 countries using manufacturing sector data from UNIDO. The paper also informally introduces the 'Augmented Mean Group' estimator, which akin to the Pesaran (2006) Common Correlated Effects estimator, deals with cross-section dependence of the strong kind. The paper appendix is available here. The xtmg Stata command can be downloaded here and further information on command and estimator (including extensive simulations) are available here, here, and here.
NEWS July 2018: I've just completed the draft of a paper on sovereign default where I run empirical horse races for the four most prominent theory strands trying to explain why some countries default and others don't in a sample of developing and emerging economies. I show that reputation and spillover effects dominate punishment and domestic politics in terms of economic significance for crisis prediction. I confirm the robustness of these findings using alternative measures for debt (total debt, private debt, NPV external debt) and including additional proxies for commodity price movements and capital controls, among others, as well as running split sample regressions by political regime, ER arrangement, level of financial development and time period. The paper is also available as a CEPR Discussion paper: CEPR DP 13084.
NEWS June 2018: With my collaborators Daniel Bernhofen (American University), Jianan Li (Xiamen) and Stephen Morgan (UNNC) I have completed a new draft of our study on market integration in early modern China. This paper now combines the presentation of the pairwise cointegration analysis results with those from panel convergence regressions. Both methods highlight a secular decline in market integration in Qing China as a whole as well as in prominent macro-regions such as the Lower Yangtze and Middle Yangtze regions. The reversal indicative of the 'Jiaqing Restoration' is much more pronounced in the cointegration results than in the convergence analysis. There are some new stats on data quality in the Appendix which I think highlight that the sample end date of 1820 is not yet afflicted by the serious issues arising as the 19th century progresses. In follow-on research we investigate one possible source of disintegration (the population explosion) which manifests itself through three channels: direct effects on the grain trade, effects on the environment (transport), and effects on local bureaucracy (protectionism).
Last changed: May 3, 2019

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
© 2022 Flinn Scientific, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Potassium Permanganate Safety Data Sheet (SDS)
SDS #: 645
Revision Date: March 21, 2014
SECTION 1 — CHEMICAL PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION
Flinn Scientific, Inc. P.O. Box 219, Batavia, IL 60510 (800) 452-1261
Chemtrec Emergency Phone Number: (800) 424-10177
SECTION 2 — HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
Hazard class: Oxidizing solids (Category 2). May intensify fire; oxidizer (H272). Keep away from heat, sparks, open flames, and hot surfaces. No smoking (P210).
Hazard class: Acute toxicity, oral (Category 4). Harmful if swallowed (H302). Do not eat, drink, or smoke when using this product (P270).
SECTION 3 — COMPOSITION, INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS
7722-64-7 KMnO4 158.04
SECTION 4 — FIRST AID MEASURES
If exposed or concerned: Get medical advice or attention (P308+P313).
If inhaled: Remove victim to fresh air in a position comfortable for breathing.
If in eyes: Rinse cautiously with water for several minutes. Remove contact lenses if present and easy to do so. Continue rinsing.
If on skin: Rinse cautiously with water for several minutes.
If swallowed: Rinse mouth (P330). Call a POISON CENTER or physician if you feel unwell (P301+P312).
SECTION 5 — FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES
Nonflammable solid.
Powerful oxidizing agent; dangerous fire and explosion risk. When heated in contact with organic or combustible materials, can explode. When heated to decomposition, may emit toxic fumes.
In case of fire: Use a tri-class dry chemical fire extinguisher (P370+P378).
NFPA Code
None established
SECTION 6 — ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES
Sweep up, place in sealed bag or container and dispose. Ventilate area and wash spill site after material pickup is complete. See Sections 8 and 13 for further information.
SECTION 7 — HANDLING AND STORAGE
Flinn Suggested Chemical Storage Pattern: Inorganic #8. Store with borates, chromates, manganates and permanganates.
Keep away from combustible materials (P220). Take any precautions to avoid mixing with combustibles (P221).
SECTION 8 — EXPOSURE CONTROLS, PERSONAL PROTECTION
Wear protective gloves, protective clothing, and eye protection (P280). Wash hands thoroughly after handling (P264).
SECTION 9 — PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Dark purple to blue crystals with a metallic sheen. Odorless.
Soluble: Water, acetone and methyl alcohol
Melting point: 240 °C (decomposes)
Specific gravity: 2.7032
SECTION 10 — STABILITY AND REACTIVITY
Avoid contact with strong reducers, organic and combustible materials, finely powdered metals, peroxides, aluminum, zinc, lead, copper, and their alloys.
Shelf life: Indefinite, if stored properly.
SECTION 11 — TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Acute effects: Toxic, corrosive. Overexposure may produce anemia, swelling of the throat with possible suffocation, kidney damage and infertility in men. Chronic effects: N.A.
Target organs: Central nervous system, blood, kidneys, lungs
ORL-RAT LD50: 1090 mg/kg
IHL-RAT LC50: N.A.
SKN-RBT LD50: N.A.
SECTION 12 — ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Data not yet available.
SECTION 13 — DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS
Please review all federal, state and local regulations that may apply before proceeding.
Flinn Suggested Disposal Method #12a is one option.
SECTION 14 — TRANSPORT INFORMATION
Shipping name: Potassium Permanganate; UN number: UN1490. Hazard class: 5.1, Oxidizer.
SECTION 15 — REGULATORY INFORMATION
TSCA-listed, EINECS-listed (231-760-3), RCRA code D001.
SECTION 16 — OTHER INFORMATION
This Safety Data Sheet (SDS) is for guidance and is based upon information and tests believed to be reliable. Flinn Scientific, Inc. makes no guarantee of the accuracy or completeness of the data and shall not be liable for any damages relating thereto. The data is offered solely for your consideration, investigation, and verification. The data should not be confused with local, state, federal or insurance mandates, regulations, or requirements and CONSTITUTE NO WARRANTY. Any use of this data and information must be determined by the science instructor to be in accordance with applicable local, state or federal laws and regulations. The conditions or methods of handling, storage, use and disposal of the product(s) described are beyond the control of Flinn Scientific, Inc. and may be beyond our knowledge. FOR THIS AND OTHER REASONS, WE DO NOT ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM LIABILITY FOR LOSS, DAMAGE OR EXPENSE ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THE HANDLING, STORAGE, USE OR DISPOSAL OF THIS PRODUCT(S).
N.A. = Not available, not all health aspects of this substance have been fully investigated.
N/A = Not applicable
Consult your copy of the Flinn Science Catalog/Reference Manual for additional information about laboratory chemicals.


Homeowners could adapt their existing homes to incorporate a service that is open to the public. Here are some examples which were presented by Charles Renfro at the Open house symposium on Saturday, April 23rd.
Extended living and dining rooms.
An extension for bed time stories.
Dog sitting and backyard walking.
And anyone can become a service provider. Here are some of the service providers the team met with during the research phase of the Open house project, ranging from image consultants and luv coaches to a service that cuts and reassembles your sofa if it doesn't fit going up your stairwell.
Read the original project brief and see the full list of service providers who shared insights with the team here.
Studio-X New York hosted the Open house symposium on Saturday, April 23rd, which was fully booked.
Co-founder and director of Droog, Renny Ramakers presented the goals of Droog Lab's series of projects, each inspired by a different location.
Charles Renfro of Diller Scofidio + Renfro presented an overview of the design process and potential outcomes for Open house.
Mark Wasiuta presented an overview of suburban developments.
Economist Heleen Mees talked about the benefits of a service economy, comparing the situation in New York to that of Amsterdam.
Author Roo Rogers discussed the rising trend in collaborative consumption.
Artist Mary Ellen Carroll discussed her experience in working in suburban areas, including her project prototype 180.
On Friday, April 22nd we went by the houses to see work in progress.
Open house #1: House Dress: not quite the same without the curtain.
Open house #5: PS 72: a preview of the lesson on photo book making.
Meet the homeowners who participated in the Open house event on Saturday, April 23rd, 2011 in Levittown, New York. Thank you to each of you!
Since we ran a store in Manhattan, I have been travelling a lot to New York in the past two years. It was an exciting time, not only to have a store over there but also to get to know this fantastic city and its inhabitants better. One of the first things that struck me was the enormous amount of outsourcing and the variety of services I had not seen before. On the street I saw people walking ten dogs, in restaurants I noticed that some servants did not do anything but pour water in your glass and at the hairdresser's I noticed a multitude of separated tasks. Reading the book "Between Greed and Desire – The World between Wall Street and Main Street" by Heleen Mees, I learnt how typical this attitude is in New York and how many jobs it creates for people who otherwise might be unemployed.
These experiences inspired me to start a Droog Lab project in New York with the theme of the service economy. Led by Diller Scofidio + Renfro, our team investigated the theme on the spot and they discovered that providing service also has a psychological dimension. They came up with a proposal to help people discover their inner service provider. Since Manhattan is already saturated with these kind of services, they wanted to find a different context for the same dynamics. And they found the suburbs, which are desperately hit by the economic crisis and where emptiness and boredom are omnipresent. By stimulating a network of personal services, they wanted to bring new life into these dying neighbourhoods, bringing in more density and encouraging cohesion among the inhabitants.
They went to Levittown, the archetypical post-war US suburb, and found Ann, a very enthusiastic homeowner who activated a number of neighbours to create businesses in their homes. These businesses will be revealed in a one-day event on Saturday, April 23rd. We have organized a symposium at Studio-X New York in collaboration with Columbia University followed by a bus trip to Levittown. I can't wait to see the businesses the homeowners have created.
I see this as a model for suburbs worldwide, especially in the sprawling suburbs. A range of personal businesses can bring more capital and density to the neighbourhood. It also encourages social cohesion and can have a strong psychological impact. It also can have a sustainable dimension because it means less commuting. No big investments are necessary to revive the suburbs—in this model, the people can generate earnings. Just let them do it themselves.
If we really take this seriously we definitely have to refresh the architecture of suburban housing. We'll have to find a new balance between the public and the private spaces of the house. A prerequisite is an adaptation of regulations. Therefore we invited a number of New York architects to come up with proposals for new housing configurations and regulatory modifications. Their concepts will also be on show in Levittown.
This house in Levittown, owned by Phyllis Dalton, will soon become an Open house.
Phillis is collaborating with architectural design studio Austin + Mergold. Stay tuned to find out more, or join us on April 23rd.
You are currently browsing the News | Droog.com blog archives for April, 2011.


text:
Q: Dismiss Outlook reminder I am having no luck dismissing an Outlook alert programmatically before it displays.
Private Sub Application_Reminder(ByVal Item As Object)
    Dim objRem As Reminder
    Dim objRems As Reminders
    If Item.Subject = "TESTING" Then
        'downloadAndSendSpreadReport
        Set objRems = Application.Reminders
        i = 0
        For Each objRem In objRems
            i = i + 1
            If objRem.Caption = "TESTING" Then
                objRems.Remove i
                If objRem.IsVisible Then
                    objRem.Dismiss
                End If
                Exit For
            End If
        Next objRem
        Item.ReminderSet = False
        Item.Delete
        'Item.Dismiss
    End If
End Sub

I want to use this appointment Item as a trigger to some macro without needing users to manually dismiss the reminder.
Seems to me, when this event is triggered, the reminder item is NOT visible, thus cannot be dismissed
I tried to remove it from the reminders set but this seems to delete the whole event from my calendar. Also, it will still display a STRANGE TITLE reminder not in ASCII.
I tried to set the reminderSet property of the appointment item to false, the reminder property still pops up.
So I am looking for a way to a) dismiss the reminder before it pops automatically/  b). dismiss the reminder after it pops automatically....or any workaround to do a scheduled MACRO in Outlook.
(Please note that I do not have permission to use scheduled job in Windows nor VBS.)
Updates:
Now I have the following code. The reminder is being removed, but it will still pop out a reminder window with a caption like "There is no appointment/reminder" something like this.
The beforeReminderShow event is useful in the sense the Reminder Object isVisible = true
so I can dismiss out.. but the reminders windows will continue to pop up even if there's 0 event.
Private WithEvents olRemind As Outlook.Reminders
Private Sub olRemind_BeforeReminderShow(Cancel As Boolean)
Set objRems = Application.Reminders
    For Each objRem In objRems
        If objRem.Caption = "TESTING" Then
            If objRem.IsVisible Then
                objRem.Dismiss
            End If
            Exit For
        End If
    Next objRem

End Sub

[Solved] - final edit
The final solution workable (I placed in "ThisOutlookSession" Module).
Hope this helps others.
' declare this object withEvents displaying all the events
Private WithEvents olRemind As Outlook.Reminders
Private Sub Application_Reminder(ByVal Item As Object)
    Set olRemind = Outlook.Reminders
    ' RUN OTHER MACRO HERE
End Sub

Private Sub olRemind_BeforeReminderShow(Cancel As Boolean)

    For Each objRem In olRemind
        If objRem.Caption = "TESTING" Then
            If objRem.IsVisible Then
                objRem.Dismiss
                Cancel = True
            End If
            Exit For
        End If
    Next objRem

End Sub

A: The only way I know how to do this is as follows.
You need this at the top of your module/class:
Private WithEvents olRemind As Outlook.Reminders

Then when you get your Outlook object you need to do this:
Set olRemind = olApp.Reminders

Where olApp is your Outlook Application object.
Now in your code you need to have this event:
Private Sub olRemind_BeforeReminderShow(Cancel As Boolean)

Once you put the WithEvents at the top then you will be able to see all the events you can use.
Now you can cancel this event and thus not see the reminder window.

A: If you want to dismiss all the reminders, you can simply implement the following code (declare this object WithEvents displaying all the events):
Private WithEvents olRemind As Outlook.Reminders

Private Sub Application_Reminder(ByVal Item As Object)
    Set olRemind = Outlook.Reminders
    ' RUN OTHER MACRO HERE
End Sub

Private Sub olRemind_BeforeReminderShow(Cancel As Boolean)
    Cancel = True
End Sub

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


hey... if i got a multi vita tablets that includes alota vitamin b stuff and e. I was just wonders...is it possible for these vitamins to cancel out and or weaken effects of other vitamins. ie. i mainly wanna take b5 and the other b's just weaken it. yea...something like that...ne wayz, i got two other questions. 1. what is a recommended dose of b5 (the multi vita tablets had 30 mg) 2. should is consider getting a perscription from my derm and go under his guidance?


We believe that ALL people are called to ministry.
Equips lay people to provide one-to-one Christian care to people who are experiencing difficulties in their lives.
A ten week course that explores Christianity in a relaxed, engaging, and non-threatening way.
Includes Mary's Kitchen, which serves a hot meal Every Wednesday night to those less fortunate, and our Thrift Store which for every dollar raised, goes directly toward ministry.
A group of students in middle and high school who get together on a weekly basis to meet, learn & participate.
St. Mary's has a wonderful Library and Bookstore with a wide selection of books for all readers or learners delight!
This powerful outreach is more than just a hot meal; it is about dignity and compassion toward those who need a helping hand.
Every dollar raised through our thrift store goes directly toward ministry, especially local outreach.
St. Mary's Videos include the Tease, A sneak peek of Sundays Sermon, The T3T, Top 3 Things and Your Favorite Christian Blogs, life of a Preast.


The company was founded 1978 and has held auctions since 1988. They also perform private treaty. Public Auction. Mail Bids Accepted. Telephone Bids Accepted. Fax Bids Accepted. Agents Names Available. Limit Bids. Or Bids. Custom Prices Realized. Prices Realized. 100% of lots are illustrated. Bid Method: First Advance/Increment over 2nd highest bid. Listed in Catalog: Catalog Values. Estimates. We accept Consignments. The Minimum is $1,000. We do give cash advances. Auction Agents: Purser, Peters, Mandel, Vogt, many others are represented.


text:
madaroad
Advertise / Contact
Trending A Road: A Guide To What's Trending In Dancehall This Week
Posted by madaroad on August 21, 2020 at 2:43pm in News
#1. Shenseea - Sure Sure (Official Music Video)
Cementing her place in the Youtube #1 on Trending spot is dancehall princess Shenseea with 'Sure Sure'. The song produced by platinum-selling producer Rvssian and video shot by Ruption of RD Studios has racked up over 1.6 million views since its release on August 13. It has been holding the number one spot for the past 4 days. We are 'Sure Sure' that Shenseea may be holding the #1 spot for at least another week.
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WluJtsQEPs
#3. Squash - Skillful (Remix) ft. Vybz Kartel
The 'Skillful' (Remix) released August 19 is holding down the #3 on Youtube Trending spot this week. The 6ixReal Records / Attomatic Records produced track has a powerful message from the Exiled Pharaoh of Dancehall, Vybz Kartel. It's currently trending with 250,000 views and climbing.
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRKkghO8Cd4
#4. Jada Kingdom ft Skillibeng ~ Tek It
Airplane, so dah track yah liff up! LOL! Tanesha first daughter and Skillibeng is all the way up with this one. The Mathsofmind Production was holding the #3 spot for a while but is currently at #4 with 968,639 views. Trust that this one is worth the watch, so check it out. The only problem is, the song is too short lol… like a little teaser… 2:20. To be honest, it's really 2:20 worth of dancehall ecstasy.
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOMagxIVF5k
#5. Intence - Authentic (Official Video)
Intence is his 'Authentic' self on his new track produced by Zimi Ent. The video directed by KD Visuals is currently trending #5 since its release on August 18 with almost 230,000 views. The video isn't any significant production, but the song is one to talk about.
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgAS9kql9T8
#8. Jahmiel - All The Girls (Official Music Video) | Dancehall 2020
We love this fresh take on love by reggae/dancehall artiste Jahmiel. 'All The Girls' follows a trendy couple Gio & Ken through a series of cute date type scenes. The chemistry is the video is fantastic, and it suits the song. The Zimi Ent produced track has racked up almost 300,000 views since its release on August 14, 2020.
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8DoPAn-fZ8
Check out the videos and like, share, leave a comment. Support our local artistes in any way you can. Below is the list of other videos rounding out the YOUTUBE ON TRENDING TOP 20 LIST.
#14. Intence – Wounded (Official Video) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdI2afCClz4
#16. Squash – Different Rankin | Official Music Video | Reggae Gold 2020 Exclusive – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1J4xzpDEAU
#17. Jafrass – Loyalty (Official Music Video) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHE0kxzgxXM
Note that this is a list of On Trending Reggae/Dancehall Music Videos ONLY. This list does not take into consideration, official audio releases, news items, rap videos, etc. which may also populate the list based on our location.
Toni-Ann Kelly
Instagram: @madaroad_com
Instagram: @Miss_TKelly
Tags: jahmiel, intence, jada kingdom, skillibeng, squash, shenseea, trending
© 2021 madaroad Powered by
Hello, you need to enable JavaScript to use madaroad.


The poll is up. Head over there to read the fight scene featuring Ray Lilly, and see him take damage like never before (and of course he has no idea he's in a cage match).
If he wins I get to write another one, so why not drop a vote for him?
added later: Hey, be aware that this one gets a little… intense. Don't click through if you don't want to read a scene that's very physical and a little over-the-top.
I did my part; I voted for Ray and (while I don't want to jinx it) he has a slight lead… I say if he beats Tyrion too, you'll be convinced to right the next book in Ray's story!
I hope you get some much needed publicity with this and get some more traction on your books. I'm a fan of Twenty Palaces and would love to see it live on!
You'd think I'd be able to write with coherently and with proper spelling by now.
Heh. I do the same thing when I revise too much.
I really think its going to come down to, is the question "who do you THINK will win" vs "who do you WANT to win." Anyone who knows about both characters would imagine kellhus winning. I mean good lord, have you seen some of the powers he has beyond magic? Super human reflexes, amazing logic, its personally the type of character that doesn"t have any flaws).
Anyone who knows about both characters would imagine kellhus winning. I mean good lord, have you seen some of the powers he has beyond magic? Super human reflexes, amazing logic, its personally the type of character that doesn"t have any flaws).
On the flipside lilly is just soooo much more likeable as a character, hes a real and flawed human, totally the guy you'd root for even though he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.
In the end, I totally voted for ray.
That was…eugh. Ray's looking more and more like the peers, isn't he? This is the sort of slide-into-darkness I'd love to watch.
How does this cage match thing work? I thought there's be two scenes written, one for each opponent, but it looks more like there's one scene written and then people vote on whether they like/agree with it.
I'm not sure how the cage matches are run. Some battles have two writeups in them, some have only one. Some are written by the authors involved, some by editors of the site.
I don't know that there is a standard.


The zipper is a marvel of the textile industry. It is often used as a fastener in pants, shorts and on the top of pockets and bags. Zippers or zips as they are commonly known are also used on sporting goods and camping accessories. Zippers come in all different shapes, colors and lengths and are a wonderful way to securely fasten two pieces of material together. The zipper was made popular by the fashion industry, but that was some eighty years after its original invention. So who invented the zipper? Read on to find out.
The first mention of an object that is similar to today's zippers was a patent in 1851. Elias Howe, the inventor of the sewing machine was given a patent for an idea that he called an 'Automatic, Continuous Clothing Closure.' This invention was never marketed and as such Howe is not credited with the invention of the zipper. It was not until forty-four years later that an actual working device that looks something like today's zipper was marketed by Mr. Whitcomb Judson. He called his invention a clasp locker and it was designed to fasten shoes. It was a very complicated hook and eye system and did not meet with much commercial success. However, Mr. Whitcomb Judson is credited with the invention of the zipper, but he did not call it this. Mr. Judson along with a businessman Colonel Lewis Walker launched the Universal Fastener Company. Later on down the track a man named Gideon Sundback, an electrical engineer, was hired to work for the Universal Fastener Company. His job was to improve upon the clasp locker. By 1913 he had created what is now known as the zipper. The zipper got its name when it was used by the B. F. Goodrich Company when they used it as part of their design for a new type of shoe. The name zipper stuck and it is now the name commonly used for the device.


text:
Anno VI, Numero 2, luglio-dicembre 2017 >
Magdalena, Dziaczkowska, The origins of Nostra Aetate, with a special regard to the Jewish contributions
"Free Ebrei", VI, 2, agosto 2017
The origins of Nostra Aetate, with a special regard to the Jewis contributions
di Magdalena Dziaczkowska
Magdalena Dziaczkowska analyzes the process of drafting of the Nostra Aetate (1965), the declaration on the relation of the Church with non-Christian Religions of the Second Vatican Council. Her interest focuses particularly on the Jewish contributions to this document.
INTRODUCTION AND THE CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH
Nostra Aetate remains one of the favorite topics of research for those who study interreligious relations in the most recent, postwar history. This paper will concentrate on the origins of this famous document but specifically on the Jewish contributions to the process of its creation. It remains a very interesting phenomena per se because no other non-Christian faith adherents had such an impact on official Church documents and teaching.
As it was rightly observed by Fr. Thomas Stransky, an insider at Vatican II and a member of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, in its beginnings The Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, more commonly known as Nostra Aetate, was the shortest of the statements promulgated by Vatican II.[1] In spite of its brevity, it became one of the most influential documents of the Council and gave birth to the interreligious dialogue carried on in the following five decades. It was particularly meaningful in shaping and developing Catholic-Jewish dialogue and reflecting on the past attitudes of the Catholic Church to the Jewish people.
In spite of the fact that the document was widely known and was often a subject of scholarly publications, in the opinion of Fr. Stransky expressed ten years ago, the majority of readers was unaware of the complex history of its origins:
"For most readers forty years later, Nostra Aetate stands by itself, without a history. The end product is stripped of its unpredictable and threatened journey of surprises, setbacks and blessings along the way".[2]
In fact, by then there were hardly any publications focusing specifically on the preparation process of Nostra Aetate. One contribution, still quite recent, that deserves to be mentioned is Augusto Sartorelli's Il Concilio Vaticano II e la ridefinizione dei rapporti della Chiesa con il popolo ebraico published in 2003.[3] Obviously, the available publications did not lack information on the preparation process entirely but it was not one of the main research topics for forty years following the events. Now, over a decade after Fr. Stransky's complaint, readers have a wider choice of articles that concern the origins of Nostra Aetate and, at least for some of them, it might not be as stripped of the complicated story behind its promulgation as it seemed to be ten years ago.
In the volume containing the proceedings of the international conference held in Jerusalem in late October and early November 2005, published in 2007, there are four contributions, apart from the aforementioned article by Fr. Stansky, that attempt at shedding new light on the origins of Nostra Aetate. The first one, by Marco Morselli, is dedicated to Jules Isaac's influence and his role at the wake of the Council[4]; in another one, Annarita Caponera examines relevant documents available in the Vatican Archives[5]; and in the third one, Uri Bialer offers an interesting perspective on the Israeli political attempts to establish relations with the Holy See and their outcomes in relation to Nostra Aetate.[6] Apart from them it is worth to notice the ecumenical point of view highlighted in Marco Velati's The Debate on De Judaeis and Ecumenical Dialogue[7] which does not strictly focus on the origins but provides some interesting insight into this topic all the same.
The most extensive and thorough study, however, is a lengthy article by Mathijs Lamberigts and Leo Declerck,[8] published in the series of Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs in volume 40, edited by Marianne Moyaert and Didier Pollefeyt. It is very well structured and helps to understand the various dynamics active behind the scenes of the Council when the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity was working on the preparation of the document on Jews.
When it comes to the Jewish involvement and role in the preparatory stages of the work on Nostra Aetate, apart from the aforementioned article on Jules Isaac, there are several interesting publications on the engagement (or disengagement) of Rabbis A. J. Heschel and J. B. Soloveitchik in the work of Vatican II. The earliest one, penned by Reuven Kimelman, was published in 2004 and was dedicated to both figures.[9] In 2008 a non-academic paper on rabbi Heschel, "American Jewish Committee and Nostra Aetate" was published by Gary Spruch under the aegis of the AJC[10] and a year later a study on rabbi's Soloveitchik attitude towards the Council and theological dialogue Rushing in Where Angels Fear to Tread[11] was published by Yigal Sklarin. The most recent contribution,[12] a personal text by Susannah Heschel regarding A. J. Heschel's relation to Vatican II, came out on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the promulgation of the document.
One may notice that in the publications focusing on the origins of Nostra Aetate Jewish contributions are mentioned. Frequently, Jules Isaac's role is highlighted; there are also mentions of Nahum Goldman, president of the World Jewish Congress, and of A. J. Heschel, but usually the main interest of the authors is drawn to inter-Vatican political and theological complexities as well as external tensions, mainly of political nature, such as the opposition of the Arab countries etc. This paper aims at presenting a slightly diverging perspective: a concise and clear history of Nostra Aetate's origins with a special attention directed to the Jewish contributions to the creation of the document.
PREHISTORY OF NOSTRA AETATE
Even if in the preconciliar consilia et vota[13] solicited in 1959 there was no mention of the Jewish question and one could have an impression that it is not the will nor interest of the Church to work on a theological clarification of Catholic-Jewish relations and the issue of anti-Semitism, there was a silent work done in this field even before Pope John XXIII established the Secretariatus ad christianorum unitatem fovendam[14] (SCUF) and gave it the mandate to work also in the field of Catholic-Jewish relations. This period, called here the prehistory of Nostra Aetate,[15] will be shortly described below.
Catholic-Jewish or Christian-Jewish relations were not in a good condition for almost two thousand years and, undoubtedly, the Holocaust was a peak of all the anti-Jewish superventions in the history of the world. In light of that, it might seem very surprising that there was almost no reaction and self-reflection regarding anti-Semitism within the Church. Taking that into account, one may not be astonished that the mere fact that the Jewish question became one of the responsibilities of the SCUF, reflecting to some extent the ambiguous attitude of the Church towards the Jewish people, was a source of concern for many Jews who feared Catholic attempts at conversion.[16]
In spite of the lack of interest in this matter among the majority of the Church's clergy, Nostra Aetate was not an incident and few initiatives preceded and paved the way for this document. One of them, an early reaction to the tragedy of the Shoah, was the interreligious (ecumenical on Christian side) Seelisberg Conference in 1947, where German Catholic bishops were present as well.[17] The Conference's aim was to reflect on the sources of anti-Semitism and the ways to combat this destructive attitude. Its outcome – the document known as the Ten Points of Seelisberg – proved to be one of the cornerstones of the later conciliar work on the document describing the Catholic view on the Jews.
One of the conference's participants was a French Holocaust survivor, Jules Isaac, who would later play a very significant role in convincing the pope to include the Jewish question into the conciliar area of interest.[18] He was a renown historian who lost his wife and daughter in Auschwitz and already during the war started to investigate Christian writings (starting with the New Testament) in search for the sources of anti-Semitism in Christian Europe.[19] In the postwar period, not only did he publish several books on that topic, (such as, for example, Jèsus et Israël, Genèse de l'antsémitisme or the most famous L'enseignement du mépris) but also founded the Paris-based group Amitié judéo-chrétienne,[20] in view of "improving the exchange of information between both religions".[21] In that period Isaac also participated in a ICCJ meeting in 1948 and followed the work of the World Council of Churches closely.[22] In 1949 he had a chance to briefly meet Pius XII during a public audience in Castel Gandolfo. He used that opportunity to hand him the Ten Points of Seelisberg but there was no possibility of a longer conversation.[23] In 1960 he met another pope – John XXIII – and that meeting bore much more fruit.
The dynamics on the Catholic side were unfolding slowly, which is a very interesting subject in itself, but unfortunately not researched extensively. On the one hand, there were Catholics who participated in the Seelisberg Conference, were involved in the work of Amitié judéo-chrétienne and other similar organizations, and in consequence -- felt personally responsible for the betterment of the Catholic-Jewish relations, concentrating on the exclusion of anti-Semitic attitudes. On the other hand, there was also a small group of scholars who wanted to clarify the relation between the Church and Jews from a theological standpoint. Among them, there was a group of European scholars, gathered by a Dutch priest -- Anton Ramselaar, who started to work on a statement on Jews in 1958, before John XXIII's conciliar plans were revealed.[24] They handed the document to Cardinal Bea in August 1960, a month before he knew of the papal mandate.[25] Another report came from the Seton Hall University, New Jersey, from the Institute for Judeo-Christian Studies founded and directed by John Osterreicher. In 1959, in consilia et vota, we also find a carefully worded contribution on the avoidance of anti-Semitism submitted by nineteen Jesuits of the faculty of Rome's Pontifical Biblical Institute.[26]
One particularly curious phenomenon on the Catholic side was also the activity of the congregation of the Sisters of Sion who played a significant yet silent role in the dialogue with Judaism. Established in 1842 by two Jewish brothers, Marie-Theodore and Marie-Alphonse Ratisbonne, who converted to Catholicism, the congregation was to raise poor young Jewish girls and help them become Christian, which judged according with the contemporary view of Christian-Jewish relations might seem a dubious goal. Nevertheless, it was not the only objective, as Emma Green writes:
"As former Jews, both Theodore and Alphonse felt that they had a unique understanding of the historical oppression of the Jewish people. While conversion was certainly part of their overall mission in the Church, in their schools and orphanages, they sought to create a safe spiritual home for all children and a place of welcome for Jewish women. The actual work of Our Lady of Sion was largely one of education, and the Ratisbonne brothers were intensely respectful of the religious wishes of the parents of their students".[27]
One may say that given the supersessionist convictions of the Church in those days, Sisters of Sion did what was possible on the way to salvation and reconciliation by creating a safe haven for Jewish underprivileged youth.[28] They were connected to the postwar events in the Jewish-Christian dialogue, for example through a friar from the male branch of this congregation, Paul Démann, who attended the Seelisberg Conference and remained in contact with Jules Isaac. In the 1950s the congregation, having acknowledged the need for a reformulation of its call, issued documents weakening its stand on the conversion of Jews and highlighting the question of creating bonds of friendship with the Jewish people.[29] Later, during the Council, many Sisters played an invaluable role "on the backstage" – informing scholars and Conciliar Fathers about Jewish-Catholic relations and Judaism as well as publishing scholarly articles on these subjects.[30]
The pope's will to gather the Council was announced on Jan 25th, 1959 and soon the preparatory work started. Part of it was collecting "wishes and desires" (consilia et vota), as it was mentioned above. In those wishes, as Fr. Stransky recalls, there was scarcely any concern raised about the Jewish-Christian relations.[31] However, already on Good Friday 1959, John XXIII made the term perifidi disappear from the traditional intercession prayer for Jews. Thus, things had already started to change, though they were not to take full shape until six years later.
THE PREPARATORY STAGE AND THE COUNCIL
Preparations and the First Session
Already on June 5th,1960, over two years before the Council was opened, Pope John XXIII founded the Secretariatus ad christianorum unitatem fovendam (SCUF) more commonly known as the Secretariat for Christian Unity and appointed Cardinal Bea its first president. Eight days later a historical meeting between the Pope and Jules Isaac took place, in which the latter handed a Dossier regarding Jewish issues to John XXIII and asked the Pope if he can foster any hope, to which the Pope answered, "You have a right to more than hope!". Undoubtedly, that meeting became a trigger for the long chain of events that finally led to the promulgation of Nostra Aetate.
The mission to examine the Jewish question, together with the materials submitted by Isaac, was entrusted to Cardinal Bea and his Secretariat. Its members were informed about that enlargement of their responsibilities on the first meeting, held in mid November 1960. Several weeks before that, in late October 1960, Cardinal Bea met Nahum Goldman[32] from the World Jewish Congress in the hope that he might represent the whole of Jewry, and requested from him a memorandum on Jewish recommendations for the SCUF. Cardinal Bea's main goal for this meeting was to make sure that there would be only one memorandum allowing the SCUF to avoid the chaos of numerous responses from dozens of Jewish organizations. Goldman was probably also meant to be a Jewish observer to the Council.[33] On December 8th, 1960, Goldman called a meeting of Rabbis from different denominations in New York and presented them the question of Jewish participation in the Council.[34] Jewish religious leaders opposed and Orthodox organizations have ruled against it.[35]
The issue of the Jewish representation at the Council gave rise to a disagreement in which two main standpoints are discernable. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel argued that the dialogue with the Catholic Church is necessary and inevitable, while Rabbi Joseph Ber Soloveitchik was against Jewish-Christian theological-religious dialogue, including Jewish presence at the Council which he viewed as a purely religious event, with the exception of the dialogue on completely secular, societal issues.[36]
Before the opening of the Council, Cardinal Bea met not only with Goldman but also with many other significant Jewish figures. An organization that was particularly active in forming relations with the Vatican was the American Jewish Committee which was granted a privilege of having a series of audiences and discussions with Cardinal Bea regarding the document De Iudaeis. As a result of the first audience, which took place in July 1961, Cardinal Bea requested a memorandum on anti-Jewish elements in Catholic religious instruction to be prepared and sent to him by the organization. In fact, in response to this desire, the AJC prepared and sent two memoranda in the summer and fall of 1961[37]: The Image of the Jew in Catholic Teaching[38] and Anti-Jewish Elements in Catholic Liturgy[39] which were later followed also by a memorandum prepared by Heschel and titled On Improving Catholic-Jewish Relations[40].
After sending the memoranda, the AJC decided to reinforce their position by arranging a personal meeting between Cardinal Bea and the AJC representatives. As it is known, in that period Rabbi Heschel worked very closely with two AJC professionals – Zachariah Schuster and Rabbi Marc H. Tanenbaum, a director of interreligious affairs who was also Heschel's student at the Jewish Theological Seminary.[41] From the latter, we have a detailed description of Heschel's involvement in the process of drafting Nostra Aetate.[42] In November 1961, Schuster and Heschel, accompanied by a certain Dr. Herkheimer from Frankfurt, were sent to Rome,[43] in order to present some positive suggestions for the improvement of Catholic-Jewish relations.[44] They were received very warmly and invited to create a set of recommendations for the use of the SCUF. As a result, a document containing them was submitted in May 1962[45] followed by the third memorandum, crafted by Heschel in cooperation with AJC's Interreligious Affairs Department.[46]
Meanwhile, Cardinal Bea and his Secretariat worked on the materials that had been gradually provided.[47] The Jewish question was consigned to the sub-commission 10 with Gregory Baum and John Osterreicher as leaders in charge.[48] As the work on the text progressed, by August 1961 it became "clear that presentation and approval of a positive text on relations with the Jews was far from evident" in certain traditional Catholic circles.[49] At the same time, the efforts of the SCUF became known to the Arab world and first objections from this environment started to arrive. Apparently, in the Middle-East, religion and politics were so closely interconnected that it seemed impossible for Arab politicians that the declaration on Jews would not at the same time constitute a declaration of political support towards the newly established state of Israel. Throughout the whole process of drafting the document concerning the Jewish question, this point of view and constant protests from Arab political leaders and bishops from the Middle East resulting from them, were a serious challenge for the SCUF and a threat to the promulgation of such a document. Apart from that, it created many tensions between the SCUF and the Secretariat of the State of Vatican which was responsible for foreign affairs.
As if the political situation was not delicate enough, a serious faux pas on the Jewish side occurred in June 1962, a few months before the opening of the first session of the Council. A week before the draft of De Iudaeis (Text A)[50] was to be discussed in the Central Preparatory Commission, the news reached Vatican that Dr. Chaim Vardi was appointed an "unofficial observer" to the Council by the World Jewish Congress. This nomination proved to be highly problematic because Vardi was the counselor on Christian Affairs at Israel's Ministry of Religions and he was publicly endorsed by Golda Meir (at that time Minister of Foreign Affairs) and Zerah Warhaftig (Minister of Religious Affairs) which gave a political tone to the appointment. In view of predicted political repercussions, the Secretary of the State, Cardinal Cicognani, decided to withdraw De Iudaeis from the agenda of the Central Preparatory Commission[51] and Vardi ended up as an observer with a position equal to journalists and no official recognition from the Holy See.[52] During the first session of the Council, which was opened on October 11th, 1962, the schema on the Jews was not to be discussed.
First Intersession
The second session of the Council took place a year later, starting on September 29th, and the year of the first conciliar intersession witnessed many changes -- the most significant of them being undoubtedly the death of John XXIII. The pope beloved by many, passed away in June 1963 and was succeeded by Paul VI who was feared to be more moderate in his views on Catholic-Jewish relations.
In the intersession time, in March 1963, Cardinal Bea undertook a journey to the United States in order to present and promote his agenda. He presided over a Catholic-Protestant colloquium at Harvard University and had meetings with many Jewish leaders in New York and Boston.[53] Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum recalls a few confidential meetings held by the Cardinal with several Jewish scholars. According to Tanenbaum, when seeing him and Heschel in Boston, Bea told them "that Pope John was exploring the possibility of establishing diplomatic relations with the State of Israel as a dramatic gesture of good-will toward the Jewish people".[54] Apart from this promising conversation, Bea met during a private conference, held in the AJC building in New York on March 31st, with Jewish leaders from institutions such as the Jewish Theological Seminary, the Rabbinical Seminary of America, the Synagogue Council of America, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, and Yeshiva University, in order to discuss the declaration on the Jews and problems that it might raise. Heschel presided over this meeting.[55] Among the points that were addressed were inter alia the deicide charge, anti-Semitisms as well as interreligious dialogue and cooperation.
During the second session, on November 8th, 1963, a document entitled De Catholicorum habitudine ad non christianos et maxime ad Judaeos (Text B) was distributed as a part of chapter 4 of De Oecumenismo. The text was brief and highlighted topics which were previously discussed during the meeting held by Bea with Jewish leaders: the unique place of Judaism among other religions, Jewish roots of Christianity and Jewishness of the Virgin Mary and Apostles. Moreover, it rejected the Jewish responsibility for deicide and the view that they are cursed by God.[56] Unfortunately, it was not discussed as such during the session; howeverreferences were made to it during the discussion of the three first chapters of De Oecumenismo and while presenting the general report, Cardinal Cicognani made positive comments on the love of the Holy Scriptures uniting Jews and Christians.
Even though Cardinal Bea said repeatedly that the approach of the text is purely religious,[57] bishops coming from the Middle East saw the text as inopportune and threatening for the situation of the Christian minority in the Arab countries.[58] Other bishops found that the text should include also other religions that surround Christians in Asia and Africa – such as Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism etc.[59] There was also a group of Conciliar Fathers and scholars who were not convinced that there is a need of a separate text on Jews, even though they had a positive attitude towards Jews and Judaism.[60] In addition, there were also those Council participants who simply opposed, and finally those who preferred an independent text on the Jews and regretted that relevant chapters were not discussed. Nevertheless, the Conciliar Fathers had the opportunity to submit their written remarks concerning chapter 4 and chapter 5 that were not discussed.[61] The careful proceeding with the text resulted to a great extent from the diplomatic protests stemming from political tensions in the Middle East (Arab-Israeli conflict) and theological critique which even if pronounced by the minority, was considered in a serious manner. It is known from the correspondence between Bea and Heschel[62] that the latter was aware of the negative trends that started to unfold. Moreover, he had some critical remarks on the iteration of the text. At the request of AJC, he went to Rome in late November 1963 where, due to the pressure from conservative and Arab circles, he was not received by Bea but by his secretary, Msgr. Willebrands, who promised to convey Heschel's perspective to Cardinal Bea and the SCUF.[63] Following the meeting with Willebrands, Heschel met also with Cardinal Meyer of Chicago as well as with Protestant observers to the Council in order to present his views and gain their support in which he succeeded.
Second Intersession
After the end of the second session, on December 7th, Pope Paul VI announced his pilgrimage to the Holy Land "in order to venerate personally the holy places where Christ was born, lived, died, and ascended into heaven after his resurrection" and "to beg for divine mercy in favor of peace among mankind… to plead with the Lord Christ for the salvation of all humanity". [64] The pilgrimage was planned for January 1964 and had also ecumenical goals such as seeking reconciliation with the Orthodox Church and meeting with the Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras, upon his own initiative. The visit was to be completely apolitical and in order to avoid any political implications, the Pope landed in Jordan and when addressing king Hussein of Jordan and Zalman Shazar, the president of Israel, he underlined the spiritual character of his pilgrimage.[65] In Bethlehem, on January 6th, the Pope delivered a homily in which he addressed all those believing in one God and spoke about "smoothing the path towards dialogue" with other Christian denominations.[66] Regarding the Catholic-Jewish and Vatican-Israel relations, the pilgrimage did not seem to bring any changes.[67]
The second intersession, inaugurated with the pope's pilgrimage to the Holy Land, was a period of intense work on the text on Jews. The SCUF was granted freedom of decision as to the form of the text -- whether it ought to be preserved as a part of the schema on ecumenism or constitute an independent declaration. During the plenary meeting held in late February and early March 1964, the SCUF decided to maintain the text on Jews, given its objective importance, and to relocate it to the appendix to the schema on ecumenism. In addition, this version of the text (Text C) took into consideration remarks of the Conciliar Fathers. It was submitted to the Coordination Commission on April 16th.
The Commission, having in regard the sensitivity of the Arab world, suggested that the Jewish question should be placed in the wider context of a statement on monotheistic religions,[68] thus founding the declaration on the Jews on universal criteria such as the shared source of religion, being children of the same God, universal fraternity of all mankind, and rejection of every form of racial or national oppression. [69] The SCUF followed these suggestions in the fourth text (Text D) entitled Declaratio de habitudine christianorum ad Iudaeos at ad universam familiam humanam which was approved by Bea on May 2, 1964.[70] In that text, the Catholic-Jewish relation was put in a new interreligious light replacing the previous ecumenical perspective. The text was divided into three subsections dedicated to the following topics: common heritage of Christians and Jews, all human beings sharing the same God as their father, condemnation of every form of discrimination. On May 6th 1964 Bea submitted the Adnexum to the pope and after implementing his suggestions (in Text E), added a few more changes (Text F). The Coordination Commission accepted it on June 26th, 1964.
Meanwhile, on May 17th, Paul VI announced the establishment of the Secretariat for Non-Christian Religions, later named Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and appointed Cardinal Marella as its first chair. The SCUF, however, remained responsible for the work on the document regarding the Jews. Two weeks later on May 30th, another audience with the Pope for the AJC took place during which the AJC delegation raised an issue of the deicide, reminding of a recent speech delivered by Cardinal Spellman before the AJC in New York. The Pope referred to it, answering that he had read the address of Spellman and that he shares his sentiments.[71] Moreover, during the meeting, Paul VI acknowledged the close connections between Christianity and Judaism and deplored the Jewish suffering throughout the history.[72]
Soon the openness of the new pope was confirmed by his first encyclical Ecclesiam suam published on August 6th, 1964, in which the pope explicitly referred to Judaism and Islam, and expressed hope that all nations will eventually worship one God, retaining however the conservative point of view in claiming that Christianity is the only true religion.
Despite these signs of gradual opening of the Church towards Judaism, the Arab fraction actively opposed the text on the Jews. The Melkite bishops, for example, gathered during a meeting held between August 17th and 22nd, asked for the removal of the Jewish question from the conciliar agenda, which was communicated to the Holy See by the patriarch Maximos IV Saigh. The same point of view was presented in a letter from the Coptic patriarch Sidarouss who feared that such a text would have a very negative impact on the situation of the Christian minority in Arab countries.[73]
Several weeks before the opening of the third session of the council, on September 1st, 1964, The New York Times published a poor translation of Text D which was not well received in the Jewish circles. As recalled by Tanenbaum, there was no explicit denial of the collective Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus; the particular character of anti-Semitism was not recognized even if hatred of Jews was "reproved as one among many kinds of human wrong".[74] A sentence that raised special concern was the one expressing hope for an "eventual union of the Jewish people with the Church" which could be understood as missionary. The AJC soon released a statement in which it objected to the conversionary implications and expressed resentment towards "any declaration, no matter how well intended, whose effect would mean […] the elimination of Judaism as a religion".[75]
Also Heschel expressed his vehement disagreement with Text D, issuing a statement that condemned it on September 3rd. In a very forthright manner, he stated:
"Since this present draft document calls for 'reciprocal understanding and appreciation, to be attained by theological study and fraternal discussion,' between Jews and Catholics, it must be stated that spiritual fratricide is hardly a means for the attainment of fraternal discussion or reciprocal understanding."[76]
He concluded with expressions of hope that the Conciliar Fathers will have an opportunity to vote on a statement that will "eradicate sources of tensions between Catholics and Jews".[77] Rabbi Soloveitchik, since the beginning averse to the Jewish-Catholic dialogue, was thus ensured that his initial ideas were right and that the Church had initiated the dialogue simply as a new way of converting Jews.[78]
Third Session
The third session of Vatican II started on September 14th which was also a day of the meeting between Paul VI and Rabbi Heschel. In reaction to the text that appeared in The New York Times and fearing that the conservative forces might negate the forgoing efforts to improve the Catholic-Jewish relations, the AJC arranged an audience with the pope for Heschel on the eve of Yom Kippur.[79] During the audience that lasted circa 35 minutes, Heschel presented his views on the four disputed points of Text D, focusing on the fragment that might be understood as missionary. The pope's attitude was very friendly, yet firm. His opinion was that the text was amicable to the Jews and that as a document of the Church it cannot be changed on the request of outsiders. At the same time he justified some of the passages (on conversion and on deicide) as based on the New Testament which would signify that Jews do not have to agree with them. He also reminded Heschel that for many members of the Church the declaration is too progressive and in case the pressure is too high, it might be also completely taken off the agenda, concluding that the decision depends entirely on the Council Fathers. Paul VI received a lengthy theological memorandum from Heschel, which he promised to convey to the SCUF.[80]
A few days later, on September 17th, a significant number (170 out of 240) of American bishops met urgently and requested the return of the original text on the Jews.[81]
A week after this conference, on September 25th, Cardinal Bea introduced the schema to the Council[82], and during the five following days the text was discussed, revised and presented again to be voted upon almost a month later, on November 20th. [83] The large majority of the assembly supported the text and asked for its strengthening[84] while the opposing minority consisted of three groups: representatives of Eastern Catholic Churches in the Middle East, who raised objections of political, pastoral, ecumenical and interreligious nature; conservative Italian, Spanish and Latin American bishops claiming that this document is against the magisterium Ecclesiae; and Asian and African bishops feeling that all main religions should be included in it, not only Judaism.[85] At the same time, there was also a pressure of another kind, coming from the Presidents and the Coordinating Commission, urging the Conciliar Fathers "to reduce the materials and integrate them into the major schemata"[86] which posed a threat that fragments of the document on the Jews would eventually be inserted into other more important texts such as On Divine Revelation (De Iudaeis), On the Church (non-Christian religions) and Church in the Modern World (rejection and condemnation of racism, discrimination and anti-Semitism).[87] This solution would also resolve the Middle Eastern problem with a statement on the Jews.
In the following two months the SCUF worked on reiteration of the text, making sure to include also other religions. The final product was a smooth declaration consisting of five paragraphs dedicated to the following topics: the unity of all mankind; the unity of origin, the journey and the ultimate destiny of all men, which are reflected in universal philosophical questions; world religions; Islam and Judaism; condemnation of every kind of discrimination. Regarding Judaism (included in paragraph 4) there were many emendations suggesting a pro-Jewish direction and return to the 1963 text (Text B). The following issues were the crux of the text : deicide charge was clearly rejected, educators and priests were obliged to reprobate and exclude all ideas which could nurture hostility against Jews, all kinds of hatred and persecution towards Jews in all times were condemned and Christians and Jews were encouraged to increase their mutual knowledge and respect. There was no statement that could be understood as a call for conversion to Christianity and the permanence of Judaism was accepted in the words that "even though a large part of the Jews did not accept the Gospel, they remain most dear to God".[88] In addition, there was an explicit reference to Moses, Jews and Christians as "the descendants of Abraham", and when quoting Rom 9:5 -- the expression "Paul on the Jews" was replaced by "Paul on his kinfolk".[89]
Cardinal Bea presented this text, entitled Declaratio De Ecclesia habitudine ad religiones non-christianas on November 20th, the last day of the third session, and his presentation was followed by voting. The total number of voters was 1996 among whom 1651 voted placet, 99 non placet, 242 placet iuxta modum.[90]
Third Intersession
After the approval of the text, the SCUF was supposed to evaluate the modi (proposed emendations).[91] Unfortunately, the reintroduction of the term "deicide" suggested by a significant group of bishops, raised protest from the Arab countries once again which led to tensions between the Secretary of the State, Cardinal Cicognani and the SCUF.
Aware of the disapproval and protests from the Arab world, and urged by Cicognani, Bea wrote an article published in L'Osservatore Romano on November 30th, insisting once again that the document was purely religious and cannot be interpreted in a political way.[92] In his opinion, the enlargement of the text and inclusion of other religions proved that there were no political connotations applicable and the foremost goal of the text was the promotion of peace.[93] Even after the article was published, however, Cicognani still felt disturbed and feared political repercussions. Because of that, Bea wrote a detailed letter to Cicognani on December 23rd in attempt to sooth his anxiety by reminding him that the objections from the Arab diplomats appeared already in 1962 before the content was known:
"As far as the reactions to the Declaration in the Middle East are concerned, we can rightly ask whether a Declaration even more moderate and less explicit would not provoke more or equal reactions, since the opposition started from June 1962, when the content of the decree was almost unknown".[94]
He added also that apart from the Theological Commission, the vast majority of the Conciliar Fathers approved of the document, and noticed that it was repeated multiple times that the text does not have any political dimension or undertone to it.[95] Then he also clarified his idea on how the SCUF should proceed in order to make sure the text will be promulgated and the obstacles removed:
"I entirely agree with His Most Reverend Eminence that at the moment of the final approval, other steps will be needed to explain, above all in the Eastern [churches] environment, the value of the Declaration, in order to prevent any kind of political manipulations. In fact, our Secretary did the same last year when the text was presented for the first time in the Council, with a long bulletin with an even wider and more detailed redaction for the countries of the Middle East. The text of this last bulletin was also sent privately to the Representatives of the countries concerned, before the official bulletin was circulated. It would have been very useful if we had done the same thing this year as well […]
Therefore in conclusion, I agree that we should do our best to avoid negative reactions in the future. It is also correct to think that among more than two hundred ways suggested by the Conciliar Fathers, there will be much advice on how to give the best possible form to the text. However I have no illusions that we will succeed in satisfying everybody. Moreover I feel that when we get final approval, all countries involved need to be given authoritative clarification on the Declaration in order to avoid any political interpretation. This could be done separately".[96]
Indeed, the reactions from the Arab world were far from positive. Certain sources insinuated that the Catholic Church supported the international Zionist movement and was opposed to Palestinian claims. There were also the media campaigns and street demonstrations against the Church and it was considered to be dangerous for local Catholic communities. As a result, rumors spread that Arab Catholics would become Orthodox.[97] Patriarchs from that region also expressed their concerns: the Armenian patriarch Ignace Pierre XVI Batanian, for example, deemed any special mention of Jews as a persecuted nation unnecessary because other nations (e.g. Armenians) also suffered for the same reason.[98]
At the same time, there was also opposition from the Coetus Internationalis Patrum (a group of conservative bishops) who were not ready to accept the acquittal of the deicide charge and based their views on the magisterium and the New Testament.[99]
Nonetheless, the SCUF continued its mandate. The sub-commission 10 and then the plenary commission were still working on the revision of the text. Ninety emendations were proposed in reference to the schema and thirty-two of them concerned paragraph 4. Twelve of them were upheld. As stated by Declerck and Lamberigts, "a careful comparison of the text approved in 1964 with revised text presented in 1965 reveals an agreement of more than ninety percent with respect to paragraph 4": the acknowledgment of common origin (children of Abraham), respect for the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), recognition of Christ's and apostles' Jewishness.[100]
As a part of the strategy mentioned in Bea's letter to Cicognani, in spring 1965, two members of the SCUF, its Secretary, Johannes Willebrands, and Fr. Pierre Duprey, went to see the Eastern patriarchs to present the schema to them and try to answer their doubts. The first journey, to Lebanon and Syria, took place in March, and the second one, to Jordan and Egypt, in April. From the latter, a detailed report by Willebrands is available.[101]
In the report, Willebrands recalls a tense socio-political situation resulting from the creation of the state of Israel and the loss of Palestinian property. As a consequence, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, Msgr. Gori rejected any possible version of the document on the Jews, deeming the injustice sufficient reason to do so. Moreover, the Christian environment en bloc was against such a declaration, especially the prevalent Orthodox Christians. Also other patriarchs opposed. Maximos IV Saigh, Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, and Alexandria and Jerusalem of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church threatened to leave the Council in case of the approval of the declaration on the Jews, as Paul VI reported to Bea on April 25th. [102] As a result, Willebrands suggested two solutions: either to change parts of the declaration or give it up and use it as guidelines for the activity of the SCUF and the Secretariat for Non-Christian religions.[103]
Following Willebrands' and Duprey's trip, the SCUF gathered for a plenary meeting on May 9th-15th 1965 to discuss the situation. Msgr. De Smedt (bishop of Bruges) insisted on proclamation and highlighted the need to repeat that the text had no political intention. He also argued that -- if that might help – it would be better to abandon the term "deicidium", not abstaining though from stating clearly that Jews were not responsible for the death of Jesus.[104] Bishop J. Stangl (Würtzburg) also intervened, explicitly referring to the Holocaust.[105] In effect, the SCUF decided to compromise: their resolve was to omit the "deicidium" and replace "damnat" with "deplorat" in reference to anti-Semitism but not to withdraw the text as such. Cardinal Bea reported it to the pope in following words:
"The Conciliar Fathers, Members of the Secretariat think, almost with unanimity, that the Declaration cannot be withdrawn. It would be a [cause of] shame for the Church and especially for the Council to surrender in the face of such political pressure and it would mean risking [possible] trust in the Council and in the Holy Father as well. Once the Council approved the schema with a stunning majority (just 99 opponents out of 1996), the Council would be unfaithful to itself, if it withdrew now".[106]
In July Willebrands and Duprey undertook a new journey to the Middle East with the purpose of meeting with the patriarchs -- to explain the revised declaration to them and ask for their opinion. They met Patriarch Tappouni of the Syriac Church, Patriarch Meuchi of the Maronite Church, Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh (Melkite) and Latin Patriarch Gori, as well as the already mentioned Armenian Patriarch Batanian and Coptic Patriarch Sidarouss. The messengers of the SCUF wanted to discuss whether the declaration was necessary and opportune. In the end, all the patriarchs approved the document and were prepared to defend it in case of such a need,[107] with the exception of the Latin Patriarch Gori, who was not persuaded even later and continued to raise objections after the promulgation of Nostra Aetate.[108]
Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh proposed four emendations, however: (1) in reference to the death of Jesus – it would be wrong to blame all the Jews who lived in the times of Jesus without distinction (indistinctim); (2) more restrictive accentuation of the idea that the Church is the new people of God, (3) in regard to the condemnation of anti-Semitism -- Church condemns every form of persecution, including that of Jews; (4) regarding the Rom 11:28 fragment – the patriarch argued that the passage should be omitted because it contradicts the first part of the same sentence (inimic secundum evangelium).[109]
Given the previous progressive form of the document, these emendations were weakening its expression in regard to several points: the bond to the children of Abraham, deicide (no explicit acquittal of the Jews on the deicide charge), rejection of Jewish people by God (it is slightly undermined by the phrase: "Although the Church is the new people of God"); discrimination and anti-Semitism (replacement of "damnat" with "deplorat").[110] It is worth mentioning, however, that after these emendations were implemented, Maximos IV Saigh, who previously threatened to leave the Council in case of the approval of the text on Jews, was to completely support the declaration during the final session.
Fourth Session and the promulgation of Nostra Aetate
The last session of Vatican II started on September 14th and lasted for almost three months, finishing on December 8th. Already on September 15th the SCUF brought its activities to a close during the last plenary meeting. In September the embassies of Arab countries were informed about the discussion with the Eastern patriarchs; meanwhile, a special press office was established for the Arab speaking world, providing translation and explanation of the document on non-Christian religions and distributing the translated document among Arab diplomats.[111] Moreover, the visit of Paul VI to the United Nations on October 4th, positively influenced Arab politicians and moderated their opposition.[112]
At the same time, the final version of the text together with the Expensio modorum were distributed among the Conciliar Fathers. The text of the declaration was also shared with the press.[113] All of the modi were studied and discussed, although the majority of them were rejected.[114] The opposition to the text made itself present and was based on the arguments that were already raised during previous sessions such as being in contradiction with the magisterium of the Church and having political pro-Israel implications. There was also a small group of bishops who thought that the omission of the words "deicide" and "condemnation" was a mistake and called for a more powerful statement.[115]
The ballot on the emendation of the text now called Nostra Aetate, was scheduled to mid-October 1965.[116] Several days before, the Coetus Internationalis Patrum released a polemical document opposing the declaration and requesting a non placet vote from the Conciliar Fathers.[117] The core argument was the deicide charge and the inability to accept the aquittal of the Jewish people in reference to that accusation. In spite of that, the vote on paragraph 4 was overwhelmingly positive with 1,821 fathers approving the document and 245 fathers voting against it.[118] The voting process was preceded by Cardinal Bea's presentation and report on the activity of the SCUF and its goals during their work on the declaration. He addressed the theological and political arguments that were raised against the document and explained the decisions made by the SCUF regarding the content of the document.
Even if the vote was a success and elicited positive reaction in some Jewish and ecumenical circles, such as the AJC or the World Council of Churches[119], there were still tensions and opposition among Arab and Jewish leaders as well as from some Christian Orthodox circles.[120] In view of that, a few members of the SCUF asked Cardinal Suenens and other moderators to ask the pope to promulgate the text before October 28th or announce that it will be promulgated. Finally, on October 28th, the text was approved definitively. Among 2312 fathers who took part in the vote 2221 voted placet, 88 non placet, 2 placet juxta modum and 1 vote was not valid.
Even though Nostra Aetate was not perfect and there was still room for improvement - not only from the Jewish perspective but also from the perspective of the SCUF and many Catholic theologians, it was a powerful statement that changed Catholic-Jewish relations for ever. As the AJC characterized it – it was "an act of justice long overdue" which enhanced "new opportunities for improved interreligious understanding and cooperation throughout the world"[121] and eliminated anti-Semitism from the Catholic perspective.
For many reasons that cannot be examined in this paper, the Catholic Church faced numerous difficulties trying to work on the aggiornamento. The Jewish question was a particularly complex challenge for the Council and it is doubtful if the Council ever managed to produce a statement such as Nostra Aetate without external encouragement and help. The fact that questione ebraica was hardly mentioned in the consilia et vota and that there was relatively little interest in the redefinition of the Catholic approach to the Jews and Judaism among bishops proves that it might not have even been included in the conciliar agenda if not for the Jewish intervention of Jules Isaac and the subsequent extensive efforts of the AJC and rabbi Heschel. Obviously, the favor and encouragement received from John XXIII played also a crucial role in the process, but the initial impulse came from the Jewish side. At the same time, differences in the structure of both religious communities – Jewish and Catholic, often caused complications in their dialogue and cooperation. Inopportune decisions, such as the "Vardi affair", proved that Jews not always knew what the procedures of working with the Holy See were. On the other hand, the Vatican officials were not sure how to approach the Jewish community in its complexity and who can be treated as a representative of the Jewish point of view and the Jewish community as a whole.
Nonetheless, the document on the Jews factum est. Without Jewish involvement, most probably it would have never happened. Even if the Jewish question is only a part of it, Nostra Aetate itself is definitely the first fruit of the Catholic-Jewish dialogue and cooperation in almost two thousand years and those who contributed to its creation should be proud of taking part in the tikkun olam.
[1] Thomas Stransky, The Genesis of Nostra Aetate: An Insider's Story, [in:] N. Lamdan, A. Melloni, Nostra Aetate: Origins, Promulgation, Impact on Jewish-Catholic Relations, (Series of the John XXIII Foundation for Religious Studies in Bologna vol. 5), Berlin 2007, p. 29.
[3] Augusto Sartorelli, Il Concilio Vaticano II e la ridefinizione dei rapporti della Chiesa con il popolo ebraico, "La Rassegna Mensile di Israel", 3rd series, Vol. 69, No. 2, Saggi sull'ebraismo italiano del Novecento in onore di Luisella Mortara Ottolenghi, Vol. II (May -- August 2003), pp. 663-680.
[4] Marco Morselli, Jules Issac and the Origins of Nostra Aetate, [in:] Lamdan, Melloni, Nostra Aetate: Origins, Promulgation, Impact…, pp. 21-28.
[5] Annarita Caponera, Papers of the Secretariat for Christian Unity on Nostra Aetate, [in:] Lamdan, Melloni, Nostra Aetate: Origins, Promulgation, Impact…, pp. 55-62.
[6] Uri Bialer, Nostra Aetate: the view from Jerusalem, [in:] Lamdan, Melloni, Nostra Aetate: Origins, Promulgation, Impact…, pp. 63-86.
[7] Marco Velati, The Debate on De Judaeis and Ecumenical Dialogue, [in:] Lamdan, Melloni, Nostra Aetate: Origins, Promulgation, Impact…, pp. 145-162.
[8] Leo Declerck, Mathijs Lamberigts, Vatican II on the Jews. A Historical Survey, [in:] M. Moyaert, D. Pollefeyt [ed.], Never Revoked, Nostra Aetate as Ongoing Challenge for Jewish-Christian Dialogue, (Louvain Theological & Pastoral Monographs vol. 40), Leauven – Paris – Walpole 2010, pp. 13-56.
[9] Reuven Kimelman, Rabbis Joseph B. Soloveitchik and Abraham Joshua Heschel on Jewish. Christian Relations, "Modern Judaism", Vol. 24, No. 3 (Oct. 2004), pp. 251-271.
[10] Gary Spruch, Wide Horizons: Abraham Joshua Heschel, the American Jewish Committee and the Spirit of Nostra Aetate, New York 2008.
[11] Yigal Sklarin, "Rushing in Where Angels Fear to Tread": Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, the Rabbinical Council of America, Modern Orthodox Jewry and the Second Vatican Council, Modern Judaism, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Oct. 2009), pp. 351-385.
[12] Susannah Heschel, Abraham Joshua Heschel and the Second Vatican Council, [in:] G. S. Rosenthal (ed.), A Jubilee for All Time. The Copernican Revolution in Jewish-Christian Relations, Pickwick 2014.
[13] Consilia et vota were a collection of topics and issues that should enter the conciliar agenda; these wishes and desires came from various Church leaders (bishops, generals of congregations etc.) from all over the world. See Stransky, p. 34.
[14] Referred to also as the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, see p. 3.
[15] This term was used first by Leo Declerck and Mathijs Lamberigts in Vatican II on the Jews…, p. 15.
[16] See for example Arthur Gilbert, The Vatican Council and the Jews, Cleveland 1968, pp. 48-52.
[17] On the Seelisberg Conference, see Christian Rutishauser, The 1947 Seelisberg Conference: The Foundation of the Jewish-Christian Dialogue, "Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations", Volume 2, Issue 2(2007), pp. 34-53.
[18] Marc Tanenbaum mentions that in the period 1958-1960 Pope John XXIII entered into discussion with Isaac, however no convincing proof of long-lasting contacts between the two has been found (Tanenbaum, Heschel and Vatican II -- Jewish-Christian Relations, presented at Memorial Symposium In Honor of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, New York 1983, p. 4).
[19] Morselli, p. 23.
[20] Stransky, p. 31.
[21] Declerck, Lamberigts, p. 15.
[27] Emma Green, Developing Dialogue: The Congregation of Our Lady of Sion and Nostra Aetate, 1945-1969, published on the congregation's website: http://www.notredamedesion.org/doc/EmmaGreen.docx, p. 2.
[32] The sole account of this meeting comes from Goldman: see Idem, Staatsmann ohne Staat, Cologne 1970.
[33] See: Eliezer Greenberg, The Ecumenical Council and the Role of Jewish Organizations. A Special Memorandum prepared by Eliezer Greenberg, 23 January 1963, p. 1. [available in the AJC archives].
[35] Greenberg, p. 1.
[36] On Rabbi Soloveitchik's position, see Sklarin, Rushing where the Angels….
[37] While preparing the memoranda, the AJC consulted numerous advisors, deriving from all streams of Judaism: Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative in the Americas, Europe, and Israel; from the Orthodox side it was Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveichik, Rabbi Samuel Belkin; from the Conservative side -- Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, Rabbi Heschel; and from the Reform side -- Rabbi Louis B. Freehof. Simultaneously, also Catholic and Protestant scholars were asked for advice and opinion (See Marc H. Tanenbaum, Heschel and Vatican II -- Jewish-Christian Relations, presented at Memorial Symposium In Honor of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, New York 1983, pp. 5-6).
[38] The Image of the Jew in Catholic was to a large extent based on the three Catholic textbook studies co-sponsored by the AJC and the Jesuit St. Louis University. This memorandum focused on hostile references to the Jewish people as a group; improper and dishonest comparisons of Judaism and Christianity; not admitting or acknowledging the Jewish roots of Christianity; biased tendency to present the enemies of Jesus and at the same time ignoring the fact that his disciples and friends were Jewish as well. In addition, the document cited a number of references to the Jews as accursed (as a nation) deicides rejected by God (Tanenbaum, p. 6).
[39] Anti-Jewish Elements in Catholic Liturgy concentrated mostly on the deicide charge. It was noted there that certain harmful expressions were already removed from the liturgy (as perfidi from the Good Friday intercession prayer), however biased material is still present in some texts used in the Holy Week and in private devotion. Remembering the horror of the Holocaust, the document called for a rectification of the biased passages that are contributing to the concept of Jews as despised and wicked killers of Christ (Tanenbaum, p. 7).
[40] On Improving Catholic-Jewish Relations was a text proposing a view of Jews as integral and autonomous, not an object of necessary conversion; condemning anti-Semitism and rejecting the accusation of deicide; creating a binding document that would shape Christian views of Christianity, as well as special commissions that would supervise the Catholic-Jewish relations, cooperating in civic, social and charitable initiatives etc. (Tanenbaum, p. 8).
[41] Spruch, p. 4.
[42] See footnote 36.
[43] Greenberg, p. 11.
[44] Tanenbaum, p. 7.
[47] As stated by Fr. Stransky: "Most solicited or unsolicited material from Jewish sources arrived too late. The SPCU (SCUF) received in mid-March 1962 signed on 27 February 1962 by Nahum Goldman of the WJC and Label Katz, International President of B'nai B'rith. […] Likewise, too late for the SPCU initial draft and known only to Bea was a document from Paris meeting held in late November 1961, together with Professors Zvi Werblowsky of the Hebrew University and Ernst Ehrlich, Basel University and B'nai B'rith activist. Supporting the meeting was Bea, Maurice Fisher, the director-general of the Israel Foreign Ministry, and Aryeh Levavi, the Israeli ambassador to Italy, (see Bialer, Cross on the Star of David. The Christian World in Israel's Foreign Policy, 1948-1967, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005, pp. 74-75). For some reason, Bea never shared this document with any of us (SCUF members)", (see Stransky, p. 40).
[48] Both Baum and Osterreicher were converts from Judaism who eventually played a very important role in the preparations of Nostra Aetate and in post-conciliar Catholic-Jewish dialogue. In his work in the SCUF, Osterreicher put emphasis on recognizing Jewish roots of Christianity, rejecting the notion of Jews as accursed by God and presenting the Jewish-Christian reconciliation as a part of eschatological hope of the Church (see Declerck, Lamberigts, p. 16)
[50] This first draft corresponds to what Caponera calls Text A (Caponera, p. 56), and I will consequently follow her nomenclature indicating the version of the text acc. to Caponera in the parentheses.
[51] Stransky, pp. 41-42.
[53] Tanenbaum, p. 10.
[56] On the content of the text, see Declerck, Lamberigts, pp. 20-21; Tanenbaum, p. 12.
[58] See in this regard the interventions of Cardinal Tappouni, Patriarch Sidarouss, and Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh (AS II/5, 527-528; 541-542; 542-544) (after: Declerck, Lamberigts, p. 23).
[60] Their proposition was to include the Jewish question in the schema on the Church – specifically in the chapter De populo Dei – or in the schema on the Church in the Modern World and to talk about anti-Semitism in the context of discrimination in general (see Declerck, Lamberigts, p. 24).
[61] See Declerck, Lamberigts, p. 24.
[64] See http://custodia.org/default.asp?id=779&id_n=24158, date of access 29.09.2016.
[66] See http://www.lastampa.it/2014/05/21/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/paul-vis-trip-to-the-holy-land-years-ago-marked-the-dawn-of-papal-visits-nGnyMXQfsRWBjvyqeNk2TJ/pagina.html, date of access 29.09.2016.
[67] Bialer writes that Paul VI's visit was disappointing from the Israeli perspective, given his lack of references to the state of Israel (Bialer, Israel and Nostra Aetate…, p. 83).
[69] Ibid., p.27.
[70] Caponera, p. 57.
[78] Stransky, p. 48. Sklarin quoted Rabbi Soloveitchik's opinion expressed in reaction to Text D regarding those Jews who engaged in the dialogue with the Catholic Church and who served as Jewish ambassadors during Vatican II: 'They should say chatanu (we have sinned) for rushing in where angels fear to tread' (Sklarin, p. 351).
[82] There are hints that Cardinal Bea did not like the revised text, especially the reiteration of the term deicide and other terms that were introduced on Cardinal Cicognani' s (Secretary of the State) request (see Stransky, pp. 47-48).
[84] Tanenbaum recalls that thirty-four Conciliar Fathers spoke during the discussion and the majority of them asked for the strengthening of the text and that the AJC was told by the periti that "on no issue have the fathers been so united, on none have they spoken so forthrightly" (Tanenbaum, pp. 17-18).
[88] See Tanenbaum, p. 18.
[94] Quotation after Caponera, p. 60.
[95] Declerck, Lamberigts, p. 39; Caponera, pp. 59-60.
[96] Quotation after Caponera pp. 60-61.
[100] Ibid., pp. 41-42.
[101] Ibid., p. 43.
[102] See the report of internuncio Punzolo to Cicognani (March 27, 1965), ASV Conc. Vat. II 1458 (after Declerck, Lamberigts, p. 43).
[103] Declerck, Lamberigts, p. 43.
[106] After: Caponera, p. 61.
[107] See Leo Declerck and André Haquin (eds.), Msgr. Albert Prignon, Recteur du Pontificio Collegio Belga: Journal conciliaire de la 4e Session. Préface de Msgr. Aloys Jousten. Introduction par Claude Troisfontaines, Cahiers de la Revue théologique de Louvain, 35 (Louvain-la-Neuve: Faculté de théologie, 2003) p. 269 (after Declerck, Lamberigts, p. 45).
[108] Gori was very stubborn in his views and after the ballot he wrote to Bea: "Je ne puis vraiment m'empêcher de penser qu'un tel proceed est peu digne d'un texte conciliaire et je m'en étonne d'un exegete de la classe de Votre Éminence" (AS V/3, 513) (after : Declerck, Lamberigts, p. 45).
[109] After: Declerck, Lamberigts, p. 46.
[113] Tanenbaum, p. 18.
[114] See Declerck, Lamberigts, p. 48-49.
[116] Stransky, p. 51.
[117] More on the content of this document and the discourse it presented can be found in Declerck, Lamberigts, p. 49.
[121] After: Tanenbaum, p. 20.
Magdalena Dziaczkowska, The origins of Nostra Aetate, with a special regard to the Jewish contributions, "Free Ebrei. Rivista online di identità ebraica contemporanea", VI, 2, agosto 2017
url: http://www.freeebrei.com/anno-vi-numero-2-luglio-dicembre-2017/magdalena-dziaczkowska-the-origins-of-nostra-aetate-with-a-special-regard-to-the-jewish-contributions


text:
Sanders makes it official: He is the new JSU head coach
Pollard verbally commits to Pearl River Community College
Clay scored 10 points for the YMCA Grizzlies Thursday
Vicksburg High ninth grade boys finish the regular season undefeated
Burns returns to lead Porter's Chapel to a 67-37 victory over Benton Academy
Johnson scored 15 points for the YMCA Clippers Monday
Former VHS players Harris and Younger named to SCAC 30th anniversary team
Keith Phillips
(Photo by Deion_Sanders_2011.jpg: Michael J. Cargillderivative work: Delaywaves talk - Deion_Sanders_2011.jpg, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16352546)
Pro football Hall of Famer Deion Sanders has made it official: he will be the next head football coach for Jackson State University.
Sanders made the announcement Sunday evening on his podcast. He will be the school's 21st head football coach.
JSU athletic director Ashley Robinson and interim President Thomas Hudson are expected to make the official announcement from JSU Tuesday at 9 a.m.
Sanders is currently the offensive coordinator for Trinity Christian High School in Texas where his son, Shedeur Sanders, is the starting quarterback. He led the team to a Texas State Championship last season, and he will remain at TCHS until the end of this season.
Hiring Sanders is huge for the Tigers. They have ended their search for a new coach to help turn their program around.
Warren Central Vikings ranked No. 8 in Mississippi
Vicksburg's Anthony Lumpkin paves the way for local athletes to gain athletic scholarships
Shooting at New Main Apartments
MS Levee Board responds to USACE's Record of Decision on backwater pumps
Reeves extends Safe Recovery Order for COVID-19 through Feb. 3


text:
Q: Html href to a specific place in another page How can I put an href tag with link to a specific h1 tag in another page?
This is what I tried...
Move to page 2, section 1

Thanks

A: You can do something like this:-

Heading goes here

and refer to it later with
Link text

A: First of all you have to give unique id to h1 tag on page2.
Move to page 2, section 1

Where #firstH1 is the id given to h1

A: Add page link to href with additional reference to the id of the specific div containing the heading(h1).
 Click to move to next page heading

Here, page2.html is the link to next page and mydiv is the id of the div in which h1 is present.

 My Heading

P.S: You can use the same approach to scroll to different parts on the same page.
Use target='_blank' if you want to open the next page in a new tab.


text:
import _ from 'lodash';

export default function FetchForEachRequestStrategy(Private, Promise) {
  function forEachStrategy(requests, block) {
    block = Promise.method(block);
    const sets = [];

    requests.forEach(function (req) {
      const strategy = req.strategy;
      const set = _.find(sets, { 0: strategy });
      if (set) set[1].push(req);
      else sets.push([strategy, [req]]);
    });

    return Promise.all(sets.map(function (set) {
      return block(set[0], set[1]);
    }));
  }

  return forEachStrategy;
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub