Cardinal Manning said...

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kathryn:
DHK: The KKK was against blacks, Catholics, and Jews.

And so was Hitler who was Catholic until his death. (at least to the blacks and jews) Do you know the history of the Roman Catholic Church and hitler?

So since we admit the KKK is wrong and should be tried for their murders and not treated as legitimate apostles of Christ will you now admit the same about the RCC?

~Lorelei </font>[/QUOTE]Ah yes, a picture of the Pope and Hitler. That proves they were in cahoots. Get rational.


http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/pius12.html

Now is it this version or yours that is true? This one can be verified.

--It is well documented by Jewish scholars like Joseph Lichten of B'nai B"rith that Pius used the assets of the Vatican to ransom Jews from the Nazis and that the Vatican under Pius ran an extensive network of hide-outs. Even the Pope's summer residence, Castel Gondolfo, was used to hide fugitive Jews. The Pope, moreover, took personal repsonsibility for the children of deported Jews;


--Largely as a result of the Church's efforts, the Jews in Italy had a far higher survival rate under Nazi occupation than was the case in other countries; estimates of the number of Jews saved by the Vatican's efforts range up to several hundred thousand; this was one reason why the chief Rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism at the end of the war;


--In appreciation of what Pius did for the Jews, the World Jewish Congress made a large cash gift to the Vatican in 1945; in the same year, Rabbi Herzog of Jerusalem sent a "special blessing" to the Pope "for his lifesaving efforts on behalf of the Jews during the Nazi occupation of Italy"; and when Pius died in 1958, Israel's Foreign Minister Golda Meir gave a him moving eulogy at the United Nations for the same reason;

 

[Lorelei]

Carson,

I find it ironic that you discredit me, a mere layman of the Bible who never professes infallibility with one simple statement. Boy, to err once against the Catholic Church you are discredited forever and ever, yet to err in many vile ways as the leader of the Catholic Church is ignored and over-looked and covered-up without question.

As for my statement, I will do some research and try to find where I read that Hitler was Catholic until his death. In the meant time, you might want to quote the Pope you said so adamantly opposed the Hitler Nazi rather than someone else. If your pope made a sincere statement that spoke to the vile crimes of the holocaust, you might want to share that with the Jewish nation, they are still disappointed that no pope ever has spoken out against it.

As a matter of fact, your pope today has been going around attempting to apologize for the many past crimes of your church, but even still, the Jews are unconvinced because he never specifically states that the holocaust was a crime and admits that the church was silent about it and did absolutely nothing. Below is one article that expresses the disappointment the Jews still feel towards the Catholic Church, you can find many others.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/675361.stm

When Pius XII was questioned as to why he would not protest against the extermination of the Jews, he answered "Do not forget that millions of Catholics serve in the German armies. Shall I bring them into conflicts of conscience?"

If, as you suggest, the Pope was so greatly opposed to Hitler's Germany, was it because of their extermination of the Jews? If so, why is the rest of the world not aware of the fact that he was?

If my statement about Hitler being catholic until his death turns out to be false, I will admit my error and apologize for that bit of misinformation. That, however, does not deny the fact that many Catholics were indeed in Hitler's regime and especially that the pope and the church have never openely admitted that they believe that the Holocaust was wrong. Not a difficult statement to make, and they have had plenty of opportunities to make it, but they have yet to do so.

To those catholics that served in German armies and who stood with hitler's regime were they excommunicated from the faith, were they reprimanded in any way? Oh no, Pius was clear, he didn't want to burden their consciences.

This began with someone using the KKK as representatives of the typical Baptist church. There are no members of the KKK in my church, but if we should find that there were, we would certainly take that person out of our church and not allow such vulgar and vile attitudes to corrupt God's house or His Word.

Jews are still awaiting a word from your church, just one statement from the leadership that admits the church remained silent and by doing nothing committed a most horrible crime. I did not make this comparison up simply to make a point (as was done with the KKK analagy), this is something the entire world knows to be true, and the Jewish community still awaits an honest answer to.

~Lorelei

 

[GraceSaves]

Hitler was never excommunicated, which is an admitted tragedy.

That does not make him Catholic. I can "not be Catholic" without being excommunicated.

If your argument is that he was never excommunicated, then you have an argument. But you have yet to say that, so I doubt that you even took that into consideration. Your whole argument is from negative evidence, that we should prove that he WAS NOT a Cahtolic, and until we do, he "WAS a Catholic."

Hitler was not a Catholic, and not a Christian of any variety, whatever he claimed he was. Further, he wanted to establish a state church for Germany, which certainly could not have been Catholic ("universal").

Once Catholic does not make one always a Catholic.

And the picture you posted is of a Cardinal, not the Pope. It is well known that many German priests/bishops at times sided with Naziism; that is unfortunate for their souls. That has nothing to do with the CHURCH, which is universal, and is not defined by the actions of a few, although those actions do wound her (as the actions of reprobate priests are in the United States).

But, again, since you argue that Hitler was Catholic "until he died" from negative evidence, nothing could sway your adamency, save a letter from Hitler right before he died saying, "I am not a Catholic!"

Scholarship goes out the window when you have the agenda of discrediting the Church.

God bless,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

By the way, what exactly is the universal "Jewish community" which blaims the Church? I have read on numerous occasions praise for Pius XII from "Jewish communities." I have no doubt that others are much less pleased, possibly even condemning. That is their perogative. But it is also not the view of all Jewish peoples.

Got any more sweeping generalizations?

God bless,

Grant

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Lorelei,

I find it ironic that you discredit me, a mere layman of the Bible who never professes infallibility with one simple statement.

Yes, one simple statement which is a gross misrepresentation and which bears false witness. We call this libel as an offense against the positive and moral law.

As for my statement, I will do some research and try to find where I read that Hitler was Catholic until his death.

While you're at it, check the sources. Make sure it wasn't at Anti-Catholic-And-I-Don't-Care-What-The-History-Books-Say.com I can create a webpage or a tract right now that says Hitler was a Catholic until his death, but that wouldn't change the verifiable, reliable evidence that is strewn throughout the sources.

If your pope made a sincere statement that spoke to the vile crimes of the holocaust, you might want to share that with the Jewish nation, they are still disappointed that no pope ever has spoken out against it.

*grin* You're kidding with me, right? No pope ever spoke out against the Holocaust? Are you saying all of this in good faith? I hope so, for the sake of your soul, which otherwise is falling deeper and deeper into the sin of false witness.

As a matter of fact, your pope ... admits that the church was silent about it and did absolutely nothing.

Okay, Lorelei, you just said that Pope John Paul II admits that the Catholic Church was silent about the Holocaust and did absolutely nothing.

You made the accusation, now prove it.

Show us where Pope John Paul II said this. Show us where Pope John Paul II has admitted that the Church was silent about the Holocaust and did absolutely nothing about it.

I publicly challenge and rebuke you for making up such a lie, and I'm calling it what it is, and I'm calling you out for the act of lying that you have just committed.

Now, to address the accusation that the Catholic Church did absolutely nothing (apart from your lie that Pope John Paul II ever admitted such a thing).

Did you read my last post? Or am I posting to an empty void, which neither listens nor cares about the evidence?

I just gave you evidence that you disregard by closing one eye. You may have to close another eye at what I'm about to show you in order to perpetuate your prejudiced, uninformed opinion:

In 1967, Israeli diplomat Pinchas Lapide estimated that Pope Pius XII "was instrumental in saving at least 700,000 but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands." (1) In other words, no institution, outside of the Allied armies, did more during WWII to save Jewish lives from the Holocaust than the pope and the Catholic Church. To put those numbers in even clearler perspective, consider that the Nazis had within their grasp 8,300,000 Jews. Six million of these were killed, leaving only 2,300,000 survivors. (2) If we take Lapide's lowest estimate of the Jewish lives that Pope Pius XII was "instrumental" in saving - 700,000 - it amounts to 30% of the Jews who survived Hitler's holocaust.

(1) Quoted in "Pius XII and the Jews," by Rabbi David G. Dalin, in the Weekly Standard, 26 February 2001, p. 31.

(2) These figures are taken from Robert Leckie's on-volume history of WWII, Delivered from Evil: The Saga of World War II (Perennial Library, 1987), p. 914.

The pope - who was surrounded by Fascist Italy, which, by 1940 was the ally of Nazi Germany - intended to bring as many Jews as he could to freedom. Thousands of Jews were housed, literally, in Church buildings in Rome - even after the Nazis occupied the city in 1943. Go to Rome. Take tours of the churches. I have. You'll learn of false ceilings in some of the largest churches in Rome that hid hundreds of Jews in hidden rooms from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

Of the forty-four public speeches that Nuncio Pacelli made on German soil between 1917 and 1929, at least forty contained attacks on National Socialism or Hitler's doctrines. (3) As pope, he took the name of Pius XII (1939-1958). Cardinal Pacelli, under Pius XI's leadership, called on Catholic archbishops to lobby their government to accept Jeiwsh immigrants from Nazi tyranny. (4) The Nazis understood that the new pope was their enemy; shortly after Pacelli's election in 1939, a secret Nazi security report noted, "Pacelli has already made himself prominent by his attacks on National Socialism during his tenure as Cardinal Secretary of State ... In adopting his name [Pius], will he not also resume the work of that man whose collaborator as Secretary of State he has been in recent years?" (5).

(3) Rychlak, Ronald J., Hitler, the War, and the Pope, p. 18.
(4) Ibid, p. 105.
(5) Ibid, p. 110.

When Pius XII was questioned as to why he would not protest against the extermination of the Jews

In 1943, Hitler (in the year the Nazis occupied Rome) planned to seize the Vatican and kidnap Pius XII. Another plan was developed by SS cavalry units in 1944 to "massacre Pius XII with the entire Vatican," because of "the papal protest in favor of the Jews." (6) These plans didn't come through, but if the Nazis decided that they couldn't risk kidnapping or killing the pope, they did send Cathoilc priests to the death camps for "treason" against the Nazis. Moreover, they punished Jews even more severely whenever the Church condemned Jewish deportations. The Church delivered such condemnations repeatedly in 1942, with regard to Dutch Jews and Jews being deported from Vichy France - to no positive effect. In sheer fact, the Church - and this shouldn't be surprising - was most effective as a silent rescuer by doing rather than merely talking. Our own age tends to prefer the latter, because it offers painless self-affirmation. But in World War II, public condemnations were no more than a lit candle in a window - a symbolic gesture - and, unfortunately, an incitement to those who would kill.

(6) Rabbi David G. Dalin, "Pius XII and the Jews," p. 36-37.

If, as you suggest, the Pope was so greatly opposed to Hitler's Germany, was it because of their extermination of the Jews? If so, why is the rest of the world not aware of the fact that he was?

The rest of the world is. It's those who have been fed false propaganda and who haven't read the sources and listened to the scholars (like you, for instance) who perpetuate these myths.

the pope and the church have never openely admitted that they believe that the Holocaust was wrong.

WOW!!! Are my ears deceiving me, or did you just say that "the pope and the church have never openly admitted that they believe the Holocaust was wrong"???? This is getting worse by the moment. Or rather, your witness is getting worse.

I refer you to these articles:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/search.cgi?query=holocaust&submit.x=0&submit.y=0

"[T]he best historical evidence now confirms both that Pius XII was not silent and that almost no one at the time thought him so ... Any fair and thorough reading of the evidence demonstrates that Pius XII was a persistent critic of Nazism. Consider just a few highlights of his opposition before the war"

All of the above public denunciations of the Holocaust can be found in the same article from which the above quotation was taken here:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=2902

Have you ever heard of Rabbi Zolli, Lorelei? I'm going to guess that you haven't considering your vast ignorance concerning World War II, Pius II, and the Third Reich, an ignorance, which you are responsible for mending as you make these ludicrous and bigotted statements.

On February 17, 1945, Israel Zolli, the Chief Rabbi of Rome, and his wife, were baptized in the Basilica of St Mary of the Angels, by Msgr. Luigi Tralia. With no secular reason for doing so, Zolli converted to Catholicism and took Pius XII's Christian name, Eugenio. This is a very unexplicable move if the Catholic Church was as you say it was with regard to the Holocaust.

Read all about it: http://www.petersnet.net/browse/4533.htm

No, really, read all about it:
http://www.petersnet.net/browse/4533.htm

I've had about enough of this trash. I don't have the time to spoon feed you what you can easily read for yourself. I've given you the sources. Have a good day, Lorelei, and, for your own soul's sake, educate yourself on what you speak about before you go off bearing terrible, cruel false witness against your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Again, to make it simple and easy for you, here are two of the online articles referenced above (click on them), both of which were written by a Jewish rabbi:

"Pius XII and the Jews" by Rabbi David G. Dalin
"A Righteous Gentile: Pope Pius XII and the Jews" by Rabbi David G. Dalin

[ June 17, 2003, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[thessalonian]

"As for my statement, I will do some research and try to find where I read that Hitler was Catholic until his death."


Translation... If I can find it in one place on the web and it is against the Catholic Church it is absolutely true.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Lorelei:

Originally posted by Kathryn:
[qb] DHK: The KKK was against blacks, Catholics, and Jews.

I trust this history should put to rest the issues concerning the KKK:

Our opinion on the Ku Klux Klan is that they are a bunch of ignorant fools. They claim to stand for a non-violent christian movement. But in actuality they are very violent. The fact that they burn crosses on the front lawns, if this is not violence, what is? Over the history of the KKK, it has been involved in numerous lynching of black people, another form of their violence. If they were really non- violent, then why do the have to hide behind the hoods. If they claim to be non-violent, I guess I can go out and lynch somebody and it wouldn't be considered a violent act.
The first era of the KKK was started with its founding in 1866 by former Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest in Pulaski, Tennessee. This one was just one year after Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox. During the so-called Reconstruction period, the KKK went on "night rides" during which they would intimidate the empowered blacks of the South from voting and would lynch those people they found to be the greatest threats to continued white supremacy in the South. Though this First Era KKK was short-lived, being stamped out by President Grant in 1871 1, the basic ideas and traditions that it set forth remain in most Klan factions to this day. The identifiable garb of the white hoods and cloaks and the ritual of the "cross lighting" were all instituted during this time. However, what the First Era Klan lacked in structure it would find in the Second Era.

And although today the Klan accepts Roman Catholics, the Second Era Klan did not, as it was believed that a Klansman might confess to a priest a crime

Robert Miles of Michigan ushered in the Fifth Era -- the present era of the Ku Klux Klan. This Era is marked by an increasingly paramilitary presence within Klan factions and the embracing of Christian Identity by many KKK factions. While the KKK still outwardly portrays itself as more moderate than its previous Era configurations, it is every bit as violent as it was in the past, if not more.

http://www.koeroesi.asn-graz.ac.at/f_gump/kkk.htm

DHK

 

[DHK]

In addition to my above post, since all here that post on this board would (I hope) abhor the practices of the KKK, and none of the Baptists are part of it, and hopefully none of the Catholics, then the discussion of it should be moot.
DHK

 

[Kathryn]

And although today the Klan accepts Roman Catholics, the Second Era Klan did not, as it was believed that a Klansman might confess to a priest a crime

What does this prove? They want members, so they say "Hey we will now let Catholic join. " They write some new admission rules, and so what? There is no history of Catholic presence or involvement in the Klan. Catholics have historically been their victims along with blacks, and jews. Changing their bi-laws in an attempt to beef up membership doesn't mean anything. It was not historically, and is not present day, a Catholic thing.

God Bless

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Kathryn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> And although today the Klan accepts Roman Catholics, the Second Era Klan did not, as it was believed that a Klansman might confess to a priest a crime

What does this prove? They want members, so they say "Hey we will now let Catholic join. " They write some new admission rules, and so what? There is no history of Catholic presence or involvement in the Klan. Catholics have historically been their victims along with blacks, and jews. Changing their bi-laws in an attempt to beef up membership doesn't mean anything. It was not historically, and is not present day, a Catholic thing.

God Bless </font>[/QUOTE]#1. Yes, historically the KKK was against Blacks, Jews, and Catholics.
#2. It was and still is a violent organization.
#3. It, in recent years, has become more inclusive, and has in its membership Roman Catholics.

The question then is: Do you condone the actions of the KKK?
I will answer that on the behalf of the Baptists here. We do not condone the actions of the KKK. Baptists, historically, never have. They aren't a violent people, not the true believers.

Now for your answer: Do you condone the actions of the KKK? If you do, then you have been hypocritical all along. If you don't then you are barking up the wrong tree. In fact your barking is all for naught. Because then we both do not believe in the actions of the KKK, or of its violence.
DHK

 

[Kathryn]

#1. Yes, historically the KKK was against Blacks, Jews, and Catholics.
#2. It was and still is a violent organization.
#3. It, in recent years, has become more inclusive, and has in its membership Roman Catholics.

# 3. As much as you have tried to prove this you have not. Them opening their membership to Catholics does not mean Catholics are joining.

The question then is: Do you condone the actions of the KKK?

No, I condemn their actions. I find it strange how you feel so compelled to include Roman Catholics in this organization. I trust that no Baptists are members and I also trust no practicing Catholics are members.


God Bless

[ June 17, 2003, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: Kathryn ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Kathryn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
#1. Yes, historically the KKK was against Blacks, Jews, and Catholics.
#2. It was and still is a violent organization.
#3. It, in recent years, has become more inclusive, and has in its membership Roman Catholics.

# 3. As much as you have tried to prove this you have not. Them opening their membership to Catholics does not mean Catholics are joining.

The question then is: Do you condone the actions of the KKK?

No, I condemn their actions. I find it strange how you feel so compelled to include Roman Catholics in this organization. I trust that no Baptists are members and I also trust no practicing Catholics are members.


God Bless </font>[/QUOTE]The issue was more about color than anything else:

"The most unfortunate victims of the Reconstruction Era were the poor whites and freed Negroes who fared the worse under the violent conditions. The most infamous villains were the Carpetbaggers and Scalawags, most of whom just happened to be Jewish. But there is documentation that ex-Confederate Jews, as well as many Catholics also joined the Klan. Religious distinctions were not part of the original Ku Klux Klan's doctrine."

http://www.kkklan.com/briefhist.htm

DHK

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
with one simple statement.

Yes, one simple statement which is a gross misrepresentation and which bears false witness. We call this libel as an offense against the positive and moral law.

[/b]

You are holding me to a higher standard then you do your own church. I made my statement believing it to be true and instead of simply disproving my statement and showing me the error of it, you have jumped to judging my motives as intentionally lying with the intent to bear false witness. This was not the case.

Because my statement is an offense to your church, you find that worse then the murders ordered by former church leaders and the child molestation that goes on today?

Because of my statement I have lost ALL credibility with you, but these crimes have not caused the catholic church to lose any credibility. Speaking of biased propaganda, it doesn't get any worse than that.

Originally posted by Carson Weber:

While you're at it, check the sources. Make sure it wasn't at Anti-Catholic-And-I-Don't-Care-What-The-History-Books-Say.com

It seems that with most devout catholics, it doesn't matter how much one proves their claim, they always discredit the source simply because they do not agree with the catholic church's view. This causes a problem because the catholic church is going to cover up their lies just as much, if not more so then they way they cover up child molestation by their priesthood.

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
I publicly challenge and rebuke you for making up such a lie, and I'm calling it what it is, and I'm calling you out for the act of lying that you have just committed.

Edoardo Senatro of the L'Osservatore Romano was the correspondant in Berlin that asked the pope about protesting to the extermination of the Jews. The quote is what he reported as the pope's answer.

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Now, to address the accusation that the Catholic Church did absolutely nothing (apart from your lie that Pope John Paul II ever admitted such a thing).

I never said Pope John admitted they were silent, I said he apologized for the past church crimes which I showed you the news article as to how the Jews responded to his apology.

You can prove me wrong by showing me a document from a pope that specifically deals with the holocaust, yet you choose to quote other sources instead.

So find me a quote and show me. I am not looking for nice little sermons that might have had some pretty phrases stating they were the "defenders of basic rights and priviledges". I want bold statements that admit Hitler was killing Jews and they thought it should be stopped. Never did they say this killing of the Jews was wrong, never did they mention this particular race of people and say this atrocity was wrong. At least I have yet to find one pope who has and apparantly many of the Jews who are still waiting agree with me.

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Did you read my last post? Or am I posting to an empty void, which neither listens nor cares about the evidence?

Apparantly you have some fascination with quoting some rabbi when I am looking for a quote from a pope to prove your point.

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
The rest of the world is.

No, the catholic church is because their church tells them it's ok. Sorry, the rest of the world doesn't buy into your propaganda either.the pope and the church have never openely admitted that they believe that the Holocaust was wrong. If this is a lie, prove me wrong by quoting the pope that did so.

Originally posted by Carson Weber:

I've had about enough of this trash. I don't have the time to spoon feed you what you can easily read for yourself. I've given you the sources. Have a good day, Lorelei, and, for your own soul's sake, educate yourself on what you speak about before you go off bearing terrible, cruel false witness against your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Again you judge my motives and condemn me without a fair trial, but of course that is how your church does things is it not? Kill or condemn those who do not agree, no matter what proof they offer. And yes I can prove this statement.

Yes, my source does not believe the doctrine of the catholic church and if you would like to, you may take up any problems that you have with it to the author. Most of my information (except that Hitler was catholic until death) has come from his book "A Woman Rides the Beast" by Dave Hunt published by Harvest House. Dave Hunt and T.A. McMahon (a former Catholic) lead the Berean Call and Dave has published many books.

See, now we come to the dilema of who are we going to believe? There are so many sources, each side has some biases and every man will be able to be discredited in one way or another. How do we know who is telling the truth? ALL men are sinful and no one is better than the other. Can we take the word of men who murder, lie and steal to find out about God? No, we must have a source greater than man. The apostles always showed their words were proven in the old scriptures. God confirmed their words with signs and wonders. We now have a better source to check these evil men against, God's Holy Word. The Catholic Church tells you God's Word is not good enough, and that man alone cannot understand it. Who are you going to believe?

I will believe God and His Word, not a fallible man.

I can plainly see that you are biased Carson, I hear no outrage from you when catholics try to say that all Baptists are tied in with the KKK. What proof do they have, do you care?

~Lorelei

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Hitler was never excommunicated, which is an admitted tragedy.

That does not make him Catholic. I can "not be Catholic" without being excommunicated.

Well, this could be where my "misinformation" came from. The fact that he and many catholics in his regime were not excommunicated is indeed a great tragedy, but apparantly your church leadership does not agree. How could such infallible men not see the tragedy in that?

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
If your argument is that he was never excommunicated, then you have an argument. But you have yet to say that, so I doubt that you even took that into consideration.

Maybe that is because I do not understand how you can not be catholic when not formerly excommunicated.

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Hitler was not a Catholic, and not a Christian of any variety, whatever he claimed he was. Further, he wanted to establish a state church for Germany, which certainly could not have been Catholic ("universal").

But if he claimed to be, the church should have officially excommunicated him (as you agree). To not have done so, knowing that he was professing to be is indeed a painful silence.

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
And the picture you posted is of a Cardinal, not the Pope.

I never said it was.

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
It is well known that many German priests/bishops at times sided with Naziism; that is unfortunate for their souls. That has nothing to do with the CHURCH, which is universal, and is not defined by the actions of a few, although those actions do wound her (as the actions of reprobate priests are in the United States).

Then it stands to reason that even the actions against the holocaust by persons of the church do not reflect the whole church. Even if the pope did help Jews escape Nazi Germany, until he officially decress the holocaust as evil, the "universal church" is still silent on the issue is it not? This is why the world is crying out for an "official" statement from the church condemning the holocaust, without one the church is "officially" silent.

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
But, again, since you argue that Hitler was Catholic "until he died" from negative evidence, nothing could sway your adamency, save a letter from Hitler right before he died saying, "I am not a Catholic!"

No, the catholic church was still silent about the holocaust no matter if or when Hitler no longer became catholic. I have no problem admitting my mistakes, if I am proven wrong I will admit it, but the source must be a reliable one.

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Scholarship goes out the window when you have the agenda of discrediting the Church.

God bless,

Grant

Those with an agenda to defend the catholic church, no matter what, pay little attention to how they accomplish their end. Many are dead today for disagreeing with your church, so don't be so quick to cast stones.

~Lorelei

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
The question then is: Do you condone the actions of the KKK?
I will answer that on the behalf of the Baptists here. We do not condone the actions of the KKK. Baptists, historically, never have. They aren't a violent people, not the true believers.

Thom Robb, a Baptist pastor, has been the Grand Wizard of the KKK for the past 15 years or so.

Why do Baptists not more vocally object to this?

I understand that Baptist churchs are independent, but do you understand how this looks to many nonbaptists? Can you see how this might lead some people to conclude that Baptists are racist?

 

[neal4christ]

Why do Baptists not more vocally object to this?

I know I am opening the floodgate on this one , but which type of Baptist is he? Unfortunately, Baptist isn't as specific as Roman Catholic is. I object to it, but I do not think he is part of the SBC (I guess I could be wrong, but seriously doubt he is SBC).

God Bless You,
Neal

 

[thessalonian]

" Many are dead today for disagreeing with your church, so don't be so quick to cast stones."

Ditto. KKK. It wasn't just about blacks. They raped women you know. Some websites say they did this in front of the women's husbands. This sounds kind of like Iraq doesn't it.


On the question of excommunication of Hitler, cannon law sets criteria for automatic excommunication. Hitler clearly violated it.

http://www.geocities.com/chiniquy/Hitler.html
Was Hitler Excommunicated?


The allegation is sometimes made that the Catholic Church never excommunicated Hitler from membership. It is unknown whether Hitler was formally excommunicated or not, but it doesn't matter. Hitler was already excommunicated ipso facto under the canon law of the Catholic Church for his numerous sinful crimes. He could only have returned to the Catholic faith, even assuming that he would ever have wanted to, by having his excommunication removed by the Pope himself. The lifting of such excommunication is reserved to the Pope, latae sententiae.

FURTHERMORE, THE CONFERENCE OF GERMAN BISHOPS EXCOMMUNICATED ALL NAZIS IN 1930,
and in the 1932 elections forbade Catholics to vote for a Nazi. By being the leader of the Nazi party, Hitler had already put himself outside of the Church.

[ June 18, 2003, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

[neal4christ]

Now I think both sides are wrong for using these connections, Thess, but I must point out that the KKK is not officially part of any church that I am aware of. Do you know if it was officially backed by any denomination?

Neal

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by neal4christ:
Now I think both sides are wrong for using these connections, Thess, but I must point out that the KKK is not officially part of any church that I am aware of. Do you know if it was officially backed by any denomination?

Neal

I would gladly drop this line of arguementation as I agree that the connection is not explicit. But then neither is the connection when they say "the pope has blood on his hands for saying X." and some government uses it to decide to burn heretics. But hey, it is you guys (according to most baptists on this board) that have the true Holy Spirit. Surely your behavior would be better than ours in this regard. I have been asked several times why I am so complacent in the priest scandal by people who don't even know me. Trying2 is right. I don't hear alot of flap over people claiming to be baptist and still involved in the KKK. "Oh well that is a baptist Church in louisianna.". That has nothing to do with my Baptist Church. Yet a priest in the Phillipines is accused of sexual harrasment and it is rubbed in our faces. I don't start these arguements but I won't back down from them either and let people's names be trashed because some Protestant hates Catholicism and will stop at nothing to discredit it. I would much rather discuss the Bible all day than get in to this mud. But to go after a long since dead man who I firmly believed lived a very good life and was a light in a dark world is sick. I would not defend the reputation of some Popes in this manner. By the way, in one sense I don't mind this whole type of arguement because it is the an area where Baptists will actually use our doctrine of the communion of the saints to in their arguments implicitly. We have to somehow be tied to Pius XII today for instance for them to make the arguements that they do. They acknowledge that we are implicitly when they bring him up.

 

[neal4christ]

But hey, it is you guys (according to most baptists on this board) that have the true Holy Spirit. Surely your behavior would be better than ours in this regard.

How did I get lumped into this? I have not made one accusation or connection and in fact have said that it is pointless and fruitless. I was just asking if you knew of a connection that I may not be aware of, that is all. I am not trying to attack you or connect you with a priest all the way on the other side of the world.

God Bless You,
Neal