Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

“700 Club” Errs on Catholic Church and Hitler
http://www.catholicleague.org/ ^ | April 23, 2013 | Bill Donohue

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?


TOPICS: Apologetics; Current Events; History; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: 700club; christianmedia; hitlerspope; sourcetitlenoturl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-470 next last
To: RegulatorCountry
I refer to almost entirely Catholic, fascist Italy, an Axis power, allied with Hitler.

Italy was fascist. Germany was National Socialist. Fascism is a political system. National Socialism is a political religion.

Are you seriously claiming that every Catholic who supported the fascist regime of Mussolini, a Catholic, was somehow not really Catholic?

No but the 1948 Italian election is illuminating in that the atheist Communists got over 30 percent of the popular vote at a time when the Red Terror was very real. A third of the population voted Communist.

How many Jews were there in Italy at that time, and how were they treated? Protestants weren’t even treated especially well, what few there were. I know Waldensians didn’t get full religious rights in Italy until 1984.

None of the groups were treated as badly by Italians than they were by Germans. By 1943 the Italians had enough, arrested Mussolini and signed an armistice with the allies.

51 posted on 04/23/2013 8:34:45 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Mussolini was an atheist.


52 posted on 04/23/2013 8:35:23 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Mussolini was married in the Catholic Church, had his children baptized in the Catholic Church. He made contraception and divorce illegal in Italy, and made Catholicism the State Church of Italy. He was close with numerous Cardinals and Bishops right up until the time of his death.

Truly odd behavior for an atheist, wouldn’t you say? He may have been atheist at some point in his life but it’s clear he didn’t remain one.


53 posted on 04/23/2013 8:47:18 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry; dfwgator
That's Truly odd behavior for an atheist, wouldn’t you say?

No. Not for a leader.

He may have been atheist at some point in his life but it’s clear he didn’t remain one.

Why do you say that? Who died alongside Mussolini in April 1945?

54 posted on 04/23/2013 8:58:06 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

I do not know anything about the Pope but I was watching a show about WW 11 and they were talking about how Catholics allowed Nazi war criminals to escape after the war. I tried to research it but got side tracked. Do y’all know anything about that?


55 posted on 04/23/2013 8:58:26 PM PDT by MamaB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet; All
A quote about Hitler from Weimar Chancellor Heinrich Brüning bears mention on this thread:

Hitler was born at Braunau. Braunau is in that part of upper Austria which went Protestant at the Reformation. After that it was forcibly Catholicized by the forces of the Counter-Reformation, the hapsburgs and the Jesuits. Since then there has been no religion in that part of the world.

56 posted on 04/23/2013 9:18:38 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fso301

It’s clear Mussolini did not remain atheist because of records indicating threat of excommunication following the Lateran Pact and the concordat that followed.

One cannot be excommunicated from a church to which one is not acknowledged to belong.


57 posted on 04/23/2013 9:25:32 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
It’s clear Mussolini did not remain atheist because of records indicating threat of excommunication following the Lateran Pact and the concordat that followed.

When was Mussolini threatened with excommunication?

One cannot be excommunicated from a church to which one is not acknowledged to belong.

Mussolini was presumably baptized as an infant and to my knowledge never formally renounced Catholicism. That in no way precludes his being an atheist, pagan or jedi.

58 posted on 04/23/2013 9:37:20 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; NKP_Vet; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; smvoice; HarleyD; CynicalBear; ...
That argument simply makes it worse. As with liberal RCs today, it is how Rome acts that interprets her words, and treating them as members in life and in death, such as Teddy K., interprets canon law though that that is supposed to preclude such "notorious sinners" from being given ecclesiastical funerals, which even Chavez was given. And please spare the unsubstantiated excuse, "he must have repented."

If Hitler was to be considered excommunicated, it should have been manifestly done, and all Catholics forbidden to have fellowship with him, (1Cor. 5:11-13) like as Paul named names of those who were handed over to the devil due to their sins. (1Tim. 2:10)

I just want to gag every time I hear those pathetic excuses for for the wishy-washy inaction by the Catholic church in regards to following what it claims are its own guidelines.

All it is, is excuse making to avoid having to admit that the RCC can do or ever did anything wrong.

Non-Catholics are regularly and constantly castigated for their lack of moral stand on certain issues, but when it's the Catholic church, excuses abound.

While I have seen Evangelical churches actually remove people from their membership roles for unethical business practices and adultery, the Catholic church gives them Catholic funerals in violation of their own rules, and grant annulments to those who commit adultery and want to divorce their spouses, like said Teddy Kennedy.

59 posted on 04/23/2013 9:59:37 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
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.

Baloney. We've been told here that *Once a Catholic, always a Catholic* and that baptism into the Catholic church leaves an indelible mark on ones soul.

60 posted on 04/23/2013 10:02:42 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; NKP_Vet
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.

This is a FLAT OUT LIE.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

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

61 posted on 04/23/2013 10:04:12 PM PDT by Lera (Proverbs 29:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: zerosix
From now on, I'd best be watching 700 Club so I know what I'm going to be linked to and blamed for as a possible source, as a Protestant.

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...

62 posted on 04/24/2013 1:52:03 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Keep blasting these Catholics!

Perhaps you’ll overlook US!!

—MormonDude( http://io9.com/5962336/the-time-mormons-baptized-adolf-hitler-and-vlad-the-impaler )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

63 posted on 04/24/2013 1:57:59 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

http://saintsalive.com/resourcelibrary/mormonism/adolph-hitler-and-mormonism


64 posted on 04/24/2013 1:59:29 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Nazi Germany   (http://www.mormonthink.com/QUOTES/nazi.htm)





"Hitler enjoyed at least as much popularity among German Saints as he did among the population in general. His apparent dynamism and self-confidence seemed to show a way out of the chaos and weakness of the Weimar years. Moreover, as ‘good Germans,' the Mormons were acutely aware that Hitler had risen to power through legal channels... Some Church members even saw Hitler as God’s instrument, preparing the world for the millennium. Superficial parallels were drawn between the Church and the Nazi party with its emphasis on active involvement by every member... The vital importance of ‘Aryan’ ancestry gave new significance to genealogical research. And the Fuhrer himself, the non-smoking, non-drinking vegetarian who yielded to no one in his desire for absolute law and order, seemed to embody many of the most basic LDS virtues."

 

"... [S]ympathy [for some of the Nazi goals] was apparently shared by some members of the [Mormon] Church leadership. The Church's German magazine, Der Stern, reminded its readers in 1935 that Senator Reed Smoot had long been a friend of Germany, and this attitude seemed to receive official sanction during President Grant's 1937 visit. The message to the German Saints was clear: Stay here. Keep the Commandments. Try to get along the best you can, even under some limitations. We want to keep the Church intact and the missionaries working.”


"The German Saints were not eager for a confrontation with their national government and they were happy to follow President Grant's advice. By and large, the Mormons and the Nazis coexisted comfortably."



"In their eagerness to coexist with the [Nazi] government, American officials of the German Church resorted to public relation efforts . . . Probably the clearest example of this tendency is an article by West German Mission President Alfred C. Rees entitled 'In the Land of the Mormons.' The article appeared in a special issue of the Nazi Party organ Der Volkische Beobachter dated April 14 1937. In the Editor's Preface to the article, President Rees is called 'the representative of the Church in Germany,' who 'paints for our readers a portrait of Mormonism today, a church which views the New Germany with sympathy and friendship.' Whether President Rees originally wrote the article in German or not, the language of the piece abounds in such loaded terms as Volk and Rasse (race), and a picture of Brigham Young bears the caption, 'Fuhrer der historischen Mormonenpioniere.' But the significance of these linguistic gaffes is magnified by hindsight. More disturbing is the way President Rees blatantly parallels Mormonism with Nazism. As Rees warms to his topic, Mormonism begins to sound like a fulfillment of Nazi teachings, providing 'the practical realization of the German ideal: "the common good takes precedence over the individual good."' Rees concluded by assuring his readers that 'Mormons are people who put this healthy doctrine into action.' Reading articles such as this, it would have been easy for a German Saint to mistakenly conclude that the seal of official Church approval had been placed on the Nazi regime."


"[The Mormon] policy of appeasing the Nazis worked well until the war broke out. Despite the classification of Mormonism as a sect 'dangerous to the state…' according to Gestapo reports, the Church was not summarily dissolved as many others were. The missionaries remained; the Church continued. Even during the war, Mormon life was disrupted more by bombing raids, supply shortages, and travel restrictions than by official harassment. By and large, the German Saints lived through the Thousand-Year Reich much like the rest of their countrymen."



"Some Church members even saw Hitler as God's instrument, preparing the world for the millennium."


"Superficial parallels were drawn between the Church and the Nazi Party, with its emphasis on active involvement by every member. The women's auxiliary of the Party and the Hitler Youth were regarded by some as secular equivalents to the Church's Relief Society, MIA, and the Scouting programs."


"The vital importance of ‘Aryan' ancestry gave new significance to genealogical research."

 
"... [T]he Fuhrer himself, the non-smoking, non-drinking vegetarian who yielded to no one in his desire for absolute law and order, seemed to embody many of the most basic LDS virtues."

The above are quoted from:     Alan F. Keele and Douglas F. Tobler, “The Fuhrer’s New Clothes: Helmuth Huebner and the Mormons in the Third Reich,” Sunstone, v. 5, no. 6, pp. 20-29
 




“If the Deseret News is careful not to offend [Nazi] Germany, and I gather … that it is falling backwards on the attempt, it is my guess that first of all the Church is afraid of complete banishment.”

-    Fawn M. Brodie to Dean Brimhall, June 14, 1939, Brimhall Papers, Special Collections, Marriott Library

65 posted on 04/24/2013 2:06:18 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
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.

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.

66 posted on 04/24/2013 2:07:51 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: fso301
I told you when he was threatened with excommunication, after the Lateran Pact and concordat. You know, the Lateran Pact between Mussolini and the Vatican, that made Vatican City into sovereign territory? You've referenced this yourself on this thread.

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.

67 posted on 04/24/2013 3:42:53 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Very interesting!


68 posted on 04/24/2013 5:09:44 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: metmom

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.


69 posted on 04/24/2013 5:14:25 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

It’s a lose/lose situation for them.

They then, by default, sanction Luther and the Reformation.


70 posted on 04/24/2013 5:30:09 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

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.


71 posted on 04/24/2013 6:04:30 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
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.

72 posted on 04/24/2013 6:12:33 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
Is an individual Protestant's interpretation of Scripture infallible?

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?

73 posted on 04/24/2013 6:16:48 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas; daniel1212; boatbums; caww; smvoice; CynicalBear; Elsie; RegulatorCountry; ...

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.


74 posted on 04/24/2013 6:41:37 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Lera
The tree in the picture is planted at Yad Vashem for the Ten Boom family - who were Protestants 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

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.

75 posted on 04/24/2013 8:30:18 AM PDT by Alex Murphy ("If you are not firm in faith, you will not be firm at all" - Isaiah 7:9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; smvoice; HarleyD; ...
Is an individual Protestant's interpretation of Scripture infallible?

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?

76 posted on 04/24/2013 9:03:53 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; NKP_Vet; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; smvoice; HarleyD; ...
That argument simply makes it worse. As with liberal RCs today, it is how Rome acts that interprets her words, and treating them as members in life and in death, such as Teddy K., interprets canon law though that that is supposed to preclude such "notorious sinners" from being given ecclesiastical funerals, which even Chavez was given. And please spare the unsubstantiated excuse, "he must have repented."

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.

77 posted on 04/24/2013 9:09:21 AM PDT by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
I told you when he was threatened with excommunication, after the Lateran Pact and concordat. You know, the Lateran Pact between Mussolini and the Vatican, that made Vatican City into sovereign territory? You've referenced this yourself on this thread.

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.

78 posted on 04/24/2013 9:12:07 AM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
Sometimes we Catholics wonder the same thing.

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.


79 posted on 04/24/2013 10:19:37 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
"If he will not listen to the Church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector."
--Jesus.


It's interesting that you'll use the BIBLE to try to make a point; and yet ignore other stuff.

ACTS 2:42-44

44 All the believers were together and had everything in common.

45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.


80 posted on 04/24/2013 10:24:05 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Is an individual Protestant's interpretation of Scripture infallible?

Good answer to all of the, Daniel.

Therin lies the problem, people assuming if a person is not Catholic they are Protestant, and if they are Protestant they interpret scriptures with their own mind.

Which is just a tool used quite often by Catholics on this forum which shows they are quite misinformed. Or purposely distracting from what God desires?

Not being a Protestant I can't answer for them, but I know that born again saved Christians with a personal relationship with Jesus use the tool given us by God for understanding scripture.

That would be The Holy Spirit of God.

NOT the traditions of Catholicism.

81 posted on 04/24/2013 10:28:56 AM PDT by Syncro ("So?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
It's interesting that you'll use the BIBLE to try to make a point

Wouldn't do me much good to quote Church teaching, would it?

I thought quoting Jesus might carry some weight with you.

Now, how do you interpret Jesus' words?

And why should I take your interpretation more seriously than Christ's Church?

82 posted on 04/24/2013 10:54:14 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you.

I consider it a sin when someone rejects the Teachings of Christ or His Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth." Catholics call such a person a formal, or in your case, material heretic.

So what does the Bible instruct us to do in such a case?

I know, we should take our dispute to "the body of believers." Well, who would they be?

There are countless Protestant sects with important doctrinal differences. How can they possible resolve any doctrinal dispute?

And if Christ's Church is invisible, then His instructions would be moot, void, or nonsensical, which is an impossibility for Christ.

83 posted on 04/24/2013 11:00:06 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
I consider it a sin when someone rejects the Teachings of Christ or His Church,

Well; ain't that special!


I consider it a sin when some 'church' adds a bunch of stuff that is UNPROVABLE and extraneous to it's rituals.

84 posted on 04/24/2013 11:11:26 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
There are countless Protestant sects with important doctrinal differences. How can they possible resolve any doctrinal dispute?

So countless that the 'differences' cannot be named?

85 posted on 04/24/2013 11:12:29 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

It’s interesting that you’ll use the BIBLE to try to make a point; and yet ignore other stuff.


86 posted on 04/24/2013 11:13:18 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
What differences? Seriously?

Trinity, transubstantiation, the necessity of baptism, homosexuality, abortion, birth control ordination of women, primacy of Peter, the necessity of Christ's Church, etc., ad infinitum.

87 posted on 04/24/2013 11:24:35 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
I consider it a sin when some 'church' adds a bunch of stuff that is UNPROVABLE and extraneous to it's rituals.

Unprovable to what standard? The Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth"? Or Elsie's infallible standard?

88 posted on 04/24/2013 11:26:01 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
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.

Yet as said, when men like Teddy K are treated as members even in death, then it interprets canon law (see here on canon law and Kennedy) and teaches quite nominal RCs are still members, though Chavez (who also recvd. a RC funeral) was worse.

89 posted on 04/24/2013 12:05:28 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"What your questions demonstrate is faith in a works based belief system."

Not all works are the same. Works done to attempt to obtain Salvation without Jesus, such as circumcision and observing Kosher laws, are indeed ineffective. However, as St. James wrote, faith without the works of corporeal and divine mercy as characterized in the Beatitudes, is indeed dead.

Peace be with you,

90 posted on 04/24/2013 12:22:04 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

But which does not negate the need and place of the magisterium, of leadership, and you will not get far in typical conservative evangelical churches denying such common core essentials as the apostles creed and Nicene creed (baptism as in obtaining the forgiveness of sins excepted) express.


91 posted on 04/24/2013 12:30:31 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

The Pope has just denied common core by saying Jesus is only found inside of a Catholic Church

That means we should stop defending them, let them defend themselves since we aren’t real Christians anymore according to them


92 posted on 04/24/2013 12:32:27 PM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: metmom; daniel1212
While I have seen Evangelical churches actually remove people from their membership roles for unethical business practices and adultery, the Catholic church gives them Catholic funerals in violation of their own rules, and grant annulments to those who commit adultery and want to divorce their spouses, like said Teddy Kennedy.

I was thinking about this last night. I wonder what the Apostle Paul would have thought had his instructions for the Corinthian church to oust the member, who was unrepentant in an incestuous relationship with his father's wife, had they informed Paul that this member had "excommunicated himself" but that was all they were required to do?

Imagine if they wrote back to Paul and said, "We still let the guy come to our worship services, we let him partake of the Lord's Supper, we invite him to our homes, pray with him, let him tell his neighbors that he is a member of the Church of Corinth. We hope, in time, he comes to his senses and stops carrying on with his step-mom, but what more CAN we do?". I kinda think Paul would have had some very sharp words for the pastor for his disobedience in following Paul's implicit instructions. Now, this was just a regular member of the church, imagine had he been THE pastor or an elder - someone with leadership responsibilities?

The Catholics at Luther's time had no problem excommunicating him yet they let slide the very Popes who were guilty of far worse sins than the ones they accused Luther of committing. The hypocrisy is astounding!

93 posted on 04/24/2013 1:00:19 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; smvoice; HarleyD; ...
The NAZIS were big fans of Martin Luther. He was a big Jew hater.

Hitler would invoked what ever he wanted for support, and evangelicals (not Rome) today are the strongest supporters of Israel, but in his latter years Luther sadly became bitter against the Jews, though i think they made themselves quite hard to love. Yet as with dissent on what would become Rome's "infallible" canon, his animosity was not novel.

• The crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection.(Pope Innocent III, “Epistle to the Hierarchy of France,” July 15, 1205)

• It would be licit, according to custom, to hold the Jews in perpetual servitude because of their crime. (St. Thomas Aquinas, “De Regimine Judaeorum”)

More

In The Popes Against the Jews : The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, historian David Kertzer notes,

“the legislation enacted in the 1930s by the Nazis in their Nuremberg Laws and by the Italian Fascists with their racial laws—which stripped the Jews of their rights as citizens—was modeled on measures that the [Roman Catholic] Church itself had enforced for as long as it was in a position to do so” (9).

In 1466,

in festivities sponsored by Pope Paul II, Jews were made to race naked through the streets of the city. A particularly evocative later account describes them: “Races were run on each of the eight days of the Carnival by horses, asses and buffaloes, old men, lads, children, and Jews. Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them, and at the same time, more amusing for the spectators. They ran from the Arch of Domitian to the Church of St. Mark at the end of the Corso at full tilt, amid Rome’s taunting shrieks of encouragement and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily. Two centuries later, these practices, now deemed indecorous and unbefitting the dignity of the Holy City, were stopped by Clement IX. In their place the Pope assessed a heavy tax on the Jews to help pay the costs of the city’s Carnival celebrations.

But various other Carnival rites continued. For many years the rabbis of the ghetto were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the streets to the jeers of the crow, pelted by a variety of missiles. Such rites were not peculiar to Rome. In Pisa in the eighteenth century, for example, it was customary each year, as part of Carnival, for students to chase after the fattest Jew in the city, capture him, weigh him, and then make him give them his weight in sugar-coated almonds.

In 1779, Pius VI resurrected some of the Carnival rites that had been neglected in recent years. Most prominent among them was the feudal rite of homage, in which ghetto officials, made to wear special clothes, stood before an unruly mob in a crowded piazza, making an offering to Rome’s governors.

It was this practice that occasioned the formal plea from the ghetto to Pope Gregory XVI in 1836. The Jews argued that such rites should be abandoned, and cited previous popes who had ordered them halted. They asked that, in his mercy, the Pope now do the same. On November 5, the Pope met with his secretary of state to discuss the plea. A note on the secretary of state’s copy of the petition, along with his signature, records the Pope’s decision: “It is not opportune to make any innovation.” The annual rites continued.

“When all is said and done, the [Roman Catholic] Church’s claim of lack of responsibility for the kind of anti-Semitism that made the Holocaust possible comes down to this: The Roman Catholic Church never called for, or sanctioned, the mass murder of the Jews. Yes, the Jews should be stripped of their rights as equal citizens. Yes, they should be kept from contact with the rest of society. But Christian Charity and Christian theology forbade good Christians to round them up and murder them.”

See more in part 5 of a series (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 .

94 posted on 04/24/2013 1:24:50 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; metmom; Dutchboy88; Iscool; CynicalBear
Natural, in your defense of works, as James wrote about (Which BTW, is written to WHO? "James, a servant of God of and of the Lord Jesus Christ, TO THE TWELVE TRIBES WHICH ARE SCATTERED ABROAD, greeting". James 1:1. FYI, NOT the Church the BOdy of Christ. The twelves tribes. ISRAEL. Different dispensation, different gospel.

Anyway, BUT NOW, in the dispensation of the grace of God, the righteousness of GOd without the law has been MANIFESTED (Rom. 3:21). It was "testified in due time" through the Apostle Paul (1 Tim. 2:6,7). Paul says it was given to him to "declare, I say, at THIS TIME, His righteousness: that He might be just, and the justifier of Him which believeth in Jesus" (Rom. 3:26). THUS, to bring works to God for salvation TODAY would be UNBELIEF.

Just a simple truth of logic from God's Word.

95 posted on 04/24/2013 1:28:06 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

Please, do show proof of your claim that nazi/hitler were fans of Luther because Luther hated Jews....I seem to remember Jesus is a Jew, did Luther hate Him?


96 posted on 04/24/2013 1:55:50 PM PDT by svcw (If you are dead when your heart stops, why aren't you alive when it starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: smvoice; Natural Law; metmom; Dutchboy88; Iscool; CynicalBear
"BUT NOW the righteousness of GOd without the law is manifested" (Rom.3:21); "To him that worketh NOT, but BELIEVETH on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Rom. 4:5); "Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:24); "In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His grace" (Eph. 1:7): "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us" (Tit. 3:5); "Not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2:8,9).

Just a few more for your understanding.

When God says this NOW, in this dispensation of the grace of God, what will faith do? Faith will say "This is the most wonderful offer ever made by God to man. I cannot refuse it. I will trust Christ as my Savior and accept salvation as the free gift of God's grace." We are the most fortunate people to have ever walked this earth. To be living during this period, this grace of GOd, His reconciling us to Himself by the finished work of Christ. And someone wants to impress HIM by bringing works along for his salvation today???

97 posted on 04/24/2013 1:59:53 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
"Different dispensation, different gospel."

There is but one dispensation, one Gospel. Unless I begin with the presumption, I cannot, even by stretching the imagination, see where the belief that St. Paul was called exclusively to give a different Gospel to the Gentiles than was given to the Jews, or that he was given that job exclusively.

"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all." - Ephesians 4:4-5

Peace be with you

98 posted on 04/24/2013 2:11:33 PM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; metmom; Dutchboy88; Iscool; CynicalBear
There is but one Gospel, in this dispensation. But there is the Gospel of the Kingdom, the Gospel of the circumcision, the Gospel of the uncircumcision,the Gospel of the grace of God, the Gospel of God, the four Books of the NT: The Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark, The Gospel of Luke, and the Gospel of John.

If God distinguishes between these gospels they CANNOT be exactly the same. Otherwise, why distinguish? And why did God accept Abel's offering, yet deny Cain's? Why, when God told Noah to build an ark, did Noah not just bring an animal sacrifice, like Abel did? Why, when Abraham was told to sacrifice his son, did he not just say "I'd rather believe that Christ died for my sins, was buried, and rose again the third day..." ?? Ya' gotta' THINK about these things, Natural. Different dispensations, different gospels. Listed by the Holy Spirit, for your reading pleasure, and your learning.

99 posted on 04/24/2013 2:21:32 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
The Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth"?

Because the 'church' says so.


100 posted on 04/24/2013 2:24:00 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-470 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson