Posted on 06/01/2007 2:28:41 PM PDT by Gamecock
I do know about that church practice, however a public rebuke and excommunication might have saved a few Jewish lives. They did not hesitate with Luther did that ?
The difference? Luther threatened THEM and THEIR power. Hitler only threatened the Jews.
Irving's Law: once a comparison is made between [Pharisees/anti-Semitism/Jack Chick tracts] and someone's theology, the discussion is immediately finished - and whoever makes the comparison automatically "loses" whatever debate was in progress, forfeiting all points previously scored.
I'll have to remember that one, for the next time an eschatology discussion goes where it inevitably does.
In general, the southern Germanics remained Catholic and the northerns went Lutheran. Those are general guidelines, not absolute ones, and one can still see that heritage as one travels throughout Germany and Austria and visits the various historic sites.
That is YOUR own personal interpretation, and you remain entitled to it.
The deaths were the work of Rome with Protestant blood flowing in the streets.
http://www.scionofzion.com/reformation_martyrs.htm
http://www.otteryreformed.freeola.net/rc-prot.htm
Since your mind is made up, I won’t bother to point out what I believe are errors in your conclusions, particularly with regard to the teachings of the Fathers.
It does, however, confirm some demographic analysis which indicates that converts to the faith are fervent for about seven years before they reverse themselves and leave the Church. The reasons given, while seeming to be based on conviction, are more sociological.
But someone else above made an interesting observation about why you felt the need to publish a letter of resignation. If you no longer believe that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ, why would you care what any Catholic thinks about your decision enough to want to bother him with it? Why not just go? It leads me to believe that something is left unsaid.
It was started by a Catholic to derail the discussion, not me
He abandoned all that, hated Christianity and sustained automatic excommunication.
Most of the SS had the same history.
Same history, same deal.
Former Jesuit theologian Peter de Rosa hates the Catholic Church.
When you quote him, are you endorsing that hate?
This business of Hitler being a Catholic is a silly one. Yes, he was baptised and a part of a dysfunctional family. By the time he began to rant about the Jews, wrote Mein Kampf, etc., he was well known as an agnostic and very much against everything Catholic & or Christian. He was deeply into occult practices and outright satanism.
Hitler was NOT a Catholic. He abandoned everything the Catholic Church stood for. This is why some of the first victims were the Catholic clergy and the monasteries of Germany.
“All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that’s why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity [is] the liar.... We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus’ doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn’t the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it’s in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... [here he insults people who believe transubstantiation] .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)
14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity— the Christianity of the catacombs— is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)
27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors— but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn’t... behold its demise.” (p 278)
http://www.geocities.com/chiniquy/Hitler.html
My grandmother was Lutheran and she proudly wore her swastika.
I don’t think she got her attitude from the Catholics.
He posted a conversion testimony. Why is that OK for Catholics to do but Catholic bashing when it is done by Protestants?
I brought it up to point the finger at your hypocrisy about Luther, but you cannot respond to it.
Wow! Up to 103 posts in about 6 hours. This has to be some sort of record on the Religious forum.
It’s refreshing to see someone who doesn’t simply say, “I became a Catholic because I enjoy the neat smell of the candles and the Church telling me they base everything on the fathers.”
Read the first sentence in post #62.
That is not the problem at all. What has happened is that in the last month or so there have been several (at least somewhat) prominent leaders of Protestant groups that have converted to Catholicism. Probably the most prominent of these was Francis Beckwith, President of the ETS. Whenever this happens, it produces a flurry of conversion stories by both Catholic and Protestant posters. And after a while, it becomes mostly one side trying to rile the other.
There is one significant trend however worth noting. Go back and look at this and the other conversion stories. Most Protestants who join the Catholic Church have done so after lengthy study, have little to say that is bad about their former churches, and a great many have much to sacrifice in the way of jobs or positions in their church (if not within their own families). On the other hand, most Catholics who leave the Church do so because they either don't understand or don't like the Church's doctrinal or moral teachings. And a great many have little to nothing positive to say about the Catholic Church (and in this case, parrot the exact words of anti-Catholics).
I'm sure some could claim my bias is obvious, but I again encourage you to read the stories.
On a side note, I'm glad this gentleman was honest enough to leave, but I hope that eventually he sees the fuller picture and comes back.
I know a few things about the bible, and I don't recall any annointing by oil. However, Jesus did personally choose them, ordain them (you have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you...)and breath the breath of the Spirit upon them. Peter also mentions the need to replace Judas to fulfill the scripture regarding Jesus' apostles. (Mathias was chosen)
However, there is such a thing as a faithless follower (Judas being one), so that is the basis of my comment.
If faced with a choice between following a faithless "ordained" person, and a faithful lay person, it would be better to remain within the spiritual lineage of Jesus than some human lineage based on the laying on of hands.
At my ordination, in addition to my own bishop and some of my fellow elders, one of his friends, a Jesuit priest, participated.
Does that make me properly someone you should heed?
Whatever you say. Right.
How silly
Jesus always quoted from Scripture as did the apostles. The scriptures are written by God and they represent innerently the teachings and the doctrine of Christ. He did not have to sit down and do it, His spirit was sent for that
Keep up your journey and you will end up home.
I ran as fast as I could from Rome and have never looked back except to call others to the truth
Already read it. It does not help your point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.