Posted on 04/23/2013 9:37:23 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
In a segment titled “God and Hitler,” Gordon Robertson (son of Rev. Pat Robertson), hosted a discussion on the Catholic Church’s response to Hitler. Several errors of fact were made.
1) It is wrong to paint Hitler as a Catholic. Though he was baptized, he excommunicated himself, latae sententiae, when he sought, in his words, to “crush [the Catholic Church] like a toad.” He made good on his pledge by persecuting 8,000 priests, over 500 of whom were killed in concentration camps. He also sought to assassinate the pope.
2) The 1933 Nazi-Vatican Concordat was not a show of solidarity. As Rabbi David Dalin has shown, it was a protective measure designed to protect German Catholics from persecution. In fact, at least 34 letters of protest were sent from the Vatican to the Nazis between 1933 and 1937, culminating in a 1937 encyclical that condemned Nazi violations of the Concordat and its racial ideology. It was smuggled out of Italy and distributed on Palm Sunday to Catholics in Germany. Nothing like this happened in Protestant churches in Germany.
3) It is not true that Hitler met resistance from Protestants alone. There are 800,000 trees planted in Israel that represent the 800,000 Jews saved by the Catholic Church. None have been planted as a tribute to Protestants. During the war, the New York Times twice said the Church was “a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent”; Albert Einstein also singled out the Church during the war. After the war, Golda Meir praised the work of the Church, as did the ADL, the World Jewish Congress, and scores of other Jewish organizations.
4) It is factually wrong to say the Vatican archives have “never been seen.” Many scholars have had access. As for Pope Pius XII being “Hitler’s Pope,” it should be noted that John Cornwell, the ex-seminarian who originated this term, retracted it years ago. So why does “The 700 Club” continue to cite it?
This is a FLAT OUT LIE.
The tree in the picture is planted at Yad Vashem for the Ten Boom family - who were Protestants
http://db.yadvashem.org/righteous/facebookFamily.html?language=en&itemId=4014036
and it's not the only one
There is also a huge monument at Yad Vashem dedicated to Village of Nieuwlande - every Protestant family in that village hid at least one Jewish person from the Nazis
http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/righteous/related_sites.asp
This just shows that it's GOOD to check the sources of information.
But; we'd should already KNOW this...
Acts 17:11 NIV
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
And we've all surely seen the backtracking the media has done over false bomber info it propagated...
Perhaps you’ll overlook US!!
—MormonDude( http://io9.com/5962336/the-time-mormons-baptized-adolf-hitler-and-vlad-the-impaler )
Now the Protestants were of more noble character than the Catholics, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Rome said was true.
Mussolini veered in and out of religiosity. According to his wife Rachele, he was mostly irreligious until the later years of his life. He was given a Catholic funeral in 1957, again according to Mrs. Mussolini.
Baptized Catholic, married in the Catholic Church, had his children baptized in the Catholic Church, outlawed contraception and divorce, made Catholicism the State Church of Italy, threatened with excommunication, given a Catholic burial albeit a belated one ... sounds pretty Catholic. The church itself certainly seemed to believe he was.
Very interesting!
And if Trad. RCs really want to separate from the liberal RCs Rome counts and treats as members, they must become part of a sect (becoming more Catholic than their vaunted leadership), but which action they criticize when Prots do it.
It’s a lose/lose situation for them.
They then, by default, sanction Luther and the Reformation.
And the Catholics?
They believed what some church leaders said; and felt no need to examine the Scriptures at ALL; for they believed what Rome said was true.
"If he will not listen to the Church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." --Jesus.
Sometimes we Catholics wonder the same thing.
If so, then who should follow his interpretation?
If yes, how is each individual Protestant different from the pope?
What authority canonized the Protestant collection of Books (Bible = Biblia = Books)?
Was this authority infallible?
If not, how can the Bible be inerrant?
If so, what was this Authority? And when did Its teaching authority dissolve?
Christians follow Jesus.
The problem comes in when anyone follows anyone else’s *interpretations*, even those of the Catholic church.
What your questions demonstrate is faith in a works based belief system. It’s all based on following someone else’s teachings about what they should do and not do. That’s where factions and denominationalism comes in, the us vs. them, mentality. They don’t do what we do, therefore they’re not saved.
But salvation is not based on works, because by the works of the law, no one shall be justified. The law was put in charge to lead us to Christ, to show us what God’s standards are so that we can see our need for a savior. (Galatians 2 & 3)
The righteous shall live by faith. Good works are prepared in advance for us to walk in and do them, not to save us but to demonstrate to the world the power of God in our lives, to minister to the hurting and needy, to overcome evil with good, and, ultimately, to glorify God.
The Jews thought that obeying the Law to the letter saved them, so they took the Law God gave Moses and added to it. Jesus condemned their traditions of men that only further burdened men. Paul himself said that for all his flawless keeping of the Law, he counted it all loss for the sake of knowing Christ and being found in Him, not having his own righteousness but having the righteousness of Christ credited to his account, so that Paul himself did not have to keep the law.
If someone who could keep the law as well as Paul did could not be saved by it, then nobody can.
Thank you for that information. Unfortunately, it does not jibe with what the Catholic League would like us to believe, therefore the information will be branded as being anti-Catholic.
For the record, Corrie Ten Book was awarded the honorific "Righteous Among the Nations" by the State of Israel on December 12, 1967, for her actions on behalf of the Jews during WWII. While many Catholic priests and officials have also been awarded with this honor, Pope Pius XII has not received it to date.
Not assuredly as per Rome's claim. However, insomuch as it is clearly taught in Scripture then a statement is incapable of failure or error. Therefore even the man in the street which states, "there is a Creator," or "Jesus Christ is Lord and who died for sins and rose again" (1Pt. 3:18) is speaking infallible salvific truth.
Accordingly, the degree of veracity of any teaching is dependent upon the clarity and weight of Scriptural substantiation, upon which Christ and the apostle's established their claims in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) for of such is the kingdom of God, (1Cor. 4:20) - not self-proclamation - and upon this basis we affirm sucn commonly held salvific truths as expressed in the Apostle's Creed, etc.
In contrast, the RC basis for veracity is not the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but the premise of perpetual assured infallibility. But which is not what Scripture teaches.
If so, then who should follow his interpretation?
As the Lord responded to those who basically asked the same question, (Mk. 11:27-33) the answer is found in another question, why should anyone follow a man in a hairy garment in the desert eating insects, and who instructed souls to follow an itinerant Preacher from Galilee, both of whom were rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) being over the people who were stewards of Divine revelation and inheritors of the promises, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) and whom He reproved by Scripture? (Mk. 7:2-16)
The answer is that is was not upon the premise of an assuredly infallible magisterium that truth was conveyed and preserved, but that as abundantly evidenced , it is the Scriptures that were the transcendent material standard for obedience and in establishing truth claims.
If yes, how is each individual Protestant different from the pope?
As basically expressed above, and contrary to the borrowed polemic you should return as faulty, under SS no one can claim a charism of assured infallibility - that they will always be incapable of error whenever they speak to all the church on faith and morals - but as in Scripture, veracity is dependent upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation.
And in contrast to SS, it is under Rome that an individual becomes supreme, as the pope is "infallibly" affirmed by men to be infallible, and is not subject to councils, and consistency with the past is supremely determined by him.
What authority canonized the Protestant collection of Books (Bible = Biblia = Books)?
The same authority that established writings as Scripture before there was a church in Rome, and upon which the claims of the Lord of the church and thus itself were established. (Lk. 24:44) If you reject this authority and establishment then you nuke the church.
The answer is that the Holy Spirit who inspired writings as Divine established them among men as being Divine like as a true man of God is, that being upon Heavenly qualities and attestation (and thus the law of the Lord is given more praise than any man or women save for Christ).
Those who sit in power should recognize and ratify both men of God and writings of God, but what Scripture teaches is that they often reject both, and that God raising up men of God whose authority is established upon Scriptural substantiation to reprove the perversity and presumption of who sit in power. "And by a prophet the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved." (Hosea 12:13)
And thus the church began and thus it has been and will be preserved as the body of Christ. Rather than self-proclamation under the premise of assured infallibility, which is what cults typically essentially engage in, this means requires superiority in power, piety and Scriptural probity (2Cor. 6:4-10) to overcome the competition, (2Cor. 6:4-10) continually manifesting that the church is that of the "living God," (1Tim. 3:15) supporting the truth of Scripture. That is why it is more difficult than presuming to "infallibly" define tradition Scripture and history as supporting you. And using the power of the sword of men.
Was this authority infallible?
The authority under which Scripture was given and is established as Divine is alone assuredly infallible, but no church office possesses inherent infallibility whenever they speak on F+M, while the "infallible" canon of Rome took over 1400 years to issue , and thus dissent was expressed right into Trent, as RC sources affirm.
In Scripture, inherent infallibility of men a per Rome is not taught, but what is taught is assurance of truth based upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
If not, how can the Bible be inerrant?
The answer is found in another question: if the writings upon which the church established its claims were not given and established under an assuredly infallible magisterium, then how could they be inerrant and have authority? (Because man is not responsible for their Divine inspiration and inerrancy.) Related to this, why should anyone disobey the very men who sat in Moses seat to follow an unsanctioned (holy) radical in the desert and a (Heavenly) trouble maker from Galilee.
Under the Roman model both were unauthorized renegades who would be expected to be persecuted and prosecuted for daring to reprove by Scripture those who sat in power, but under the Scriptural model by which superior authority of authenticity is established, truth was preserved and given by such.
If so, what was this Authority? And when did Its teaching authority dissolve?
Since your foundational premise is faulty, that an infallible authority is necessary to establish writings as Divine, rather than the means by which the church began, so your question is non sequitur. The reality is that again, God is what made writings Divine, while the veracity of the 66 book Protestant canon is established among the faithful upon the basis true men of God are, that of Divine qualities and attestation, including strong evidence that Lk. 24:44 corresponds to the Hebrew canon, which your own Catholic encyclopedia affirms is that of the Protestant OT. (Again, see here .)
Meanwhile, while lack of Protestant canonical conformity is made a major issue by RCs, yet it is virtually ignored when it comes to the EO's who also differ with Rome on the canon, even if not as much.
Now one last question for you: since Scriptural substantiation cannot be the real basis for your assurance of truth, nor reliance upon fallible human reasoning, what is the real basis for your assurance of faith that Rome is the one true (conditionally infallible) church to whom all are to submit?
You are making a great point that seems to always be ignored. The RCC is a politically driven entity. It does all kinds of hypocritical things because it always wants to maintain its image as "the official" Christian church as well as maintaining access to the highest levels of government. We see this play out with questionable membership numbers that serve to inflate its size and thus influence. However those numbers really don't mean a lot if members are excommunicating themselves without even knowing it.
In both instances you note we see how the political plays a paramount role. Obviously with Hitler he's not a member and with Kennedy a politician in good standing with the media he is a member. In Kennedy's case having a high profile funeral serves to promote the "official" Christian church image. The uninformed don't think of these things, rather they are influenced by image.
The point to be learned isn't how to "pick on the RCC" but why Evangelical Christians should never trust it as an ally. The RCC will do whatever it needs to maintain its perceived status and power, hypocrisy be damned. It seems pretty obvious to me that the war on Christianity is heating up with SSAD (same sex attraction disorder) Marriage the latest tool to ultimately bring churches under state control. As this happens we will be worshiping in house churches just as our Brothers and Sisters in Christ are doing now in closed countries. I expect the RCC will find some accommodation with the state so they don't have to.
Help us out and provide a source to your statement that Rome threatened Mussolini with excommunication.
Mussolini veered in and out of religiosity. According to his wife Rachele, he was mostly irreligious until the later years of his life. He was given a Catholic funeral in 1957, again according to Mrs. Mussolini.
At best a foxhole conversion following his arrest in 1943 but by the time of his death, he was sharing his bed with a woman that was not his wife.
Baptized Catholic, married in the Catholic Church, had his children baptized in the Catholic Church, outlawed contraception and divorce, made Catholicism the State Church of Italy, threatened with excommunication, given a Catholic burial albeit a belated one ... sounds pretty Catholic. The church itself certainly seemed to believe he was.
Mussolini was an opportunist. He was a British agent in WWI. Rather than resisting Hitler, he decided it best to go along. As for Mussolini and the Catholics, the Catholic church was a powerful institution in Italy and it was necessary for Mussolini to foster good relations with it. He isn't the first leader in history to publicly say or profess something he did not believe purely in order to appease, sway public opinion and garner support from a bloc of people.
Probably because you leave out the FIRST part of the story:
Matthew 18:15-17 (NIV)Dealing With Sin in the Church
15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
It's interesting that you'll use the BIBLE to try to make a point; and yet ignore other stuff.
ACTS 2:42-4444 All the believers were together and had everything in common.
45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.
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.