Hitler's Pope

[Eliyahu]

Are you interested in finding the truth about history and the role of the Pope in World War II, or are you merely interested in denigrating the Catholic Church? I am interested in finding the truth, and in a search for the truth, whether in religion or history, I find it useful to look at both sides of the story.

Then you better start to read about the true history of the Biblical churches outside the Roman Catholics first.
RCC persecuted and killed the true believers condemning them as Heretics.
Bible says "As for Heretic, after the first and the second admonition, reject" Titus 4:10, RCC tortured and killed the people condemning them as Heretics because they didn't follow the Bible. This is the true history.
Holocaust was not more than the extension of it by RCC followers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1676.cfm

See all the torturing tools at the European museums.

http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/katalikai/

Also, you better read the History:


http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/thailand/PC-B-000.htm

http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0547.htm

In referring to the original topic of this thread, I suggested that you read a book by a rabbi - who is not a Catholic - called "The Myth of Hitler's Pope." He says that this is not true, and that the Pope did all he could to help the Jews. You can believe what he says or not.

I don't trust this type of man as my Lord Jesus condemned such:

Revelation 2:
9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan

There are many Jews who work against Jews. I already mentioned about Simon Perez, the former Israel Foreign Minister who is very much criticized as working for Vatican.

Many Jewish Catholics were the descendants of the bastards by the Jewish women raped by Catholic Crusades.

I do know that the the author of "Hitler's Pope" is biased against Catholics, so I would take what he writes with a grain of salt. I also know that the sites that you reference are all anti-Catholic, so I would take that into consideration in my search for the truth. You are only presenting one side of the story. I think that you should look at what the other side is saying.

It depends on the view. In my view such person is speaking the truth. OK. then you should look at the other side too.

I read the letter that was supposedly written by Harry Truman. I'm sorry, but that letter is fake.

Nope!
Your post may be correct, but mine was correct as well at different time.

http://www.thebibletruth.org/RomanCat.htm

This letter may be the ealier one, and we don't know how they compromized each other.

But we must know that RCC is so powerful on this world to do anything to re-write the history, but the True God knows and remembers everything and He wants us to know the Truth of the history.

If you read the letters, the contents are so different, and totally another issues, and therefore we can conclude they were written at different times. Catholic plays the game of the press on the internet.

However, this portion is apparently controversial and Israelites know more than the average people.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/124737

Even today, the first day of the Holocaust Memorial, Yad Vashem, RCC threatened that the ambassador wouldnot attend there, but now they changed and attend there. Why? Israel knows the truth of the history.

Here are links from the "American Presidency Project" to actual letters that Truman wrote to Pius XII and the Pope's response.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=12746&st=Pius+XI&st1=

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=13372&st=Pius+XI&st1=

As I said, it is totally different contents.
There were many war criminals among the Vatican members, but none of them were indicted, which is a mystery but many suspect that some Catholics inside USA helped to delete the charges against them.

The Concordant with Germany in 1933 was merely an agreement to disband the Catholic Center Party in exchange for a guarantee for Catholic religious freedom - and that agreement was immediately violated by Hitler, the chancellor of Germany. In 1933, Hitler was the legitimately elected head of state. No one knew the monster that he would become. It was not an endorsement of the Nazis - the RCC knew that the Nazis were opposed to Catholic religion, social teaching, and philosophy. It was merely an attempt to protect the religious freedom of the RCC in Germany and - as history shows us - failed - as the Nazis proceeded to persecute both the Catholics (by closing their religious houses and imprisoning their members) and the Jews.

How come, the concordat stipuated that RCC is the only recognized religion in the Third Reich?

In 1937 on Palm Sunday, the Pope issued a document called "With Burning Anxiety" that was read in every Catholic Church in Germany. In it, the pope listed the Nazi's violations of the concordant, affirmed Christianity's roots in Judaism, reminded the people that we are all children of God, whatever race or nation, and condemned the neo-paganism of the Nazis and their "mad prophet" - Hitler. The Pope concluded that against this (the Nazis) "There is but one alternative left, that of heroism."

A typical way of Excuses by the hypocrites.

In response, Hitler declared, "The Third Reich does not desire a modus vivendi with the Catholic Church, but rather its destruction with lies and dishonor, in order to make room for a German Church in which the German race will be glorified."

Read and see these photos.

http://liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/NaziLeadership.html

I don't believe Hitler was a Christian. Do you?

I don't believe at all that Hitler was a Christian.

I do believe that Hitler was a Roman Catholic, because Roman Catholics are mostly not Christians! RCC teaches all the paganism.

Even if he had been raised in the RCC, he certainly didn't practice any Christian religion as an adult. If I was raised as a Muslim, yet didn't practice that religion as an adult, could I still be considered Muslim? Or if I was rasied in the religion of Islam, yet converted to Christianity as an adult, would I still be considered Muslim in your eyes? If I was raised as a Baptist, yet didn't practice that religion from the time of my teens, and commited horrible crimes, would you still consider me to be a Baptist?

That is the typical way of excuses by the RCC. RCC members mostly maintaine various paganism. My colleague at the company buys Lottery, smoke, sometimes drugs for fun, and gambling too, but excuses in various ways. Most of the RCC members overlook the Idolatry. Many RC excuse that Hitler was worshipping Teutonic god, but RCC is often full of paganism.

It's very interesting that you would presume that I am not a Christian simply because I suggested that the whole story of Pius collaborating with the Nazis is anti-Catholic propaganda - like some of the websites that you provide to "prove" your point. Some of those websites are not even by Christian people. They even say that Hitler "practiced his own brand of Christianity" and was against the Catholic Church. So basically some of the sites refute your own point. You should do your own research. Try a library for starters. Read a book.

You beter start to read the true history of the Biblical church as I mentioned above.

How can we trust the Idol worshippers like this?

http://www.maryqueenofheaven.net/index.htm

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/crown.htm

Oh, miserable Idol worshippers, and the Pope, the head of Chemarim ( Zephaniah 1:4)

 

[Eliyahu]

You realize, of course, that the "letter" is probably a hoax. You will indeed find letters from Truman to Pius, but nothing like what is contained in this missive. The president does indeed call Pius "Your Holiness," BTW.


- Letter to Pope XII, August 1947.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=12746

As I said above, the letters may be dated different times. I heard there were many efforts by the RCC, to evade the indictment of the war criminals among the RCC members. There might have been a certain compromise, to cover up the truth.

 

[Eliyahu]

If you'll look, you'll notice many pictures of the "German Christians," who were Lutheran, and Reich Bishop Ludwig Müller, another Lutheran. The Berlin Cathedral, where Göring was married, is a Protestant church.

There is plenty of blame to go around - inside and outside Germany - for the horrors of the Third Reich.

I already mentioned this point too. Though there was a difference in the degree of the involvement, the most of the Protestants were not free from the responsibility for the connections with Nazis or Hitler. But the main body was RCC.
The concordat specified the RCC as the only recognized religion in Third Reich, realizing the dream of Roman Catholic.

 

[Eliyahu]

Arutzsheva reported this as today is the first day of Yad Vashem ( Holocaust Memorial)

Vatican Won’t Participate in Yad Vashem Ceremony
if (sLinkData != "") document.write("Edit");

(IsraelNN.com) The Vatican is refusing to participate in this year's annual Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial service. The Holy See is objecting to a photograph of then-Pope Pope Pius XII in the museum, captioned with an observation about his conduct during Hitler’s genocide of the Jews.

The Vatican asked the museum in early 2006 to change the caption on the photo, which was added to the exhibit in 2005. The museum notes that it “told to the Vatican’s representative in Israel that it was willing to continue examining the issue, and noted that if granted access it would gladly study the Vatican’s archives from the era…. to possibly learn new and different information than what is known today.”



Vatican Rep Changes Mind, Will Attend Yad Vashem Event
if (sLinkData != "") document.write("Edit");
(IsraelNN.com) Vatican Ambassador to Israel, Archbishop Antonin Franco has informed the government that he will attend Sunday evening’s opening ceremony marking the beginning of Holocaust Memorial Day.

Franco had announced last week that he would boycott the ceremony in response to a caption of a photo in the Yad Vashem memorial museum showing Pope Pius XII during the period of the Holocaust. The caption charges that the late Catholic leader ignored the plight of the Jews during the period of the Nazi genocide.

Last week’s decision by the Catholic church’s representative provoked a storm of protest from Jewish communities around the world. New York-based Anti-Defamation League Director Abe Foxman called the decision unnecessarily insulting and unbecoming.” Foxman called on the Vatican to release its archives to the public so historians can examine the documents and determine precisely what Pope Pius XII did or did not do during the period of the Nazi genocide of the Jews.

 

[Colin]

The Concordant with Germany in 1933 was merely an agreement to disband the Catholic Center Party in exchange for a guarantee for Catholic religious freedom - and that agreement was immediately violated by Hitler, the chancellor of Germany. In 1933, Hitler was the legitimately elected head of state. No one knew the monster that he would become. It was not an endorsement of the Nazis - the RCC knew that the Nazis were opposed to Catholic religion, social teaching, and philosophy. It was merely an attempt to protect the religious freedom of the RCC in Germany and - as history shows us - failed - as the Nazis proceeded to persecute both the Catholics (by closing their religious houses and imprisoning their members) and the Jews.

Hi, I would agree that the Concordat was signed simply to protect Catholic rights in Germany. It was never intended to protect Jews.
For a bit more of its history, Hitler met with Bishop Berning on April 26, 1933. Bishop Berning called on Hitler in his role as a delegate from the Conference of Bishops, which was meeting at the time. The Jewish situation was not on the Bishop’s agenda, but, in talks that were later described by Berning as “cordial and to the point,” Hitler himself raised the topic, stating:

I have been attacked because of my handling of the Jewish question. The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc., because it recognized the Jews for what they were. In the epoch of liberalism, the danger was no longer recognized. I am moving back toward the time in which a fifteen hundred year long tradition was implemented. I do not set race over religion, but I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.

The minutes of the meeting, kept by the observer from the Vatican, Vicar General Monsignor Steinmann, do not record the bishop’s response to this statement, in which Hitler both stated his policy of excluding Jews, and claimed for it a precedent in church history. What is known is that on May 6, Cardinal Bertram commented on the results of Berning’s talk, stating that as a result of the talk, and of Hitler’s declaration before the Reichstag, the serious misgivings of the German episcopate concerning the new regime had been eliminated. As it is known that Hitler’s treatment of the Jewish people was raised, this can only mean that this was not an area of “serious misgivings” for the German Catholic Church. The rapprochement had immediate consequences. The Centre Party ceased its policy of opposing Nazism. As their historian Karl Bachem stated: “after the bishops have unanimously professed their recognition of the new government, such resistance for us would have been morally unjustifiable ... We had no choice but to follow the example of the bishops.” Prior to this there had been a significant minority within the German church who opposed Nazism, but with the Concordat, this opposition found itself out of line with the Vatican, and collapsed.

This talk was part of the process which led, on July 9, to the signing of the Concordat between the Vatican and the Nazi regime. The Concordat was welcomed by the Nazi press as a “moral strengthening” of the government. On July 14, at a meeting of his cabinet, Hitler summed up his own position on the Concordat, stressing “that one should only consider it as a great achievement. The Concordat gave Germany an opportunity and created an area of trust which was particularly significant in the developing struggle with international Jewry.” By contrast, Hitler realized that his euthanasia policy would cause problems with the Catholic Church, and so, while the law approving it was passed on the same day as the Concordat was signed, its publication was delayed to ensure it did not affect it. In other words, after detailed discussions with the German Catholic hierarchy, Hitler both believed that his euthanasia policy would be opposed by the Catholic Church, and at the same time saw the main benefit of the Concordat as providing support to his anti-Jewish policy.

The church’s own self-expressed understanding of the Concordat was that it gave moral backing to a regime which it also explicitly knew had, and intended to continue, discriminating against Jews. Writing to Hitler in 1933, Faulhaber commented: “For Germany’s prestige in east and west and before the whole world this handshake with the Papacy, the greatest moral power in the history of the world, is a feat of immeasurable blessing.” Before the Concordat was signed, the Vatican knew how Hitler would view it. Faulhaber had told von Papen: “He is a great spirit, he sees what a halo his government will have in the eyes of the world if the Pope makes a treaty with him.” Chadwick also comments on “the universal pleasure and gratitude among the German bishops at the signing of the Concordat” In 1937, Cardinal Faulhaber stated in a sermon: “at a time when the heads of major nations in the world faced the new Germany with cool reserve and considerable suspicion, the Catholic Church, the greatest moral power on earth, through the Concordat expressed its confidence in the new German government. This was a deed of immeasurable significance for the reputation of the new government abroad.” Following the ratification of the Concordat, a thanksgiving service was held at St. Hedwig’s Cathedral in Berlin. The Papal Nuncio, Orsenigo presided, and Nazi and Catholic flags were placed together. Those inside the cathedral sang the Horst Wessel song, which was relayed by loudspeakers to the thousands outside. In the public mind, the Concordat clearly gave papal blessing to the new regime. With the signing of the Concordat, Cardinal Bertram also expressed his own “joyous preparedness to co-operate with the new government.” On the popular level, members of the Nazi Party now attended church services in their SA uniforms.

Upon ratification of the Concordat, Parcelli wrote to the German charge d’ affairs:

The Holy See takes this occasion to add a word on behalf of those German Catholics who themselves have gone over from Judaism to the Christian religion or who are descended in the first generation, or more remotely, from Jews who adopted the Catholic faith, and who for reasons known to the Reich government are likewise suffering from social and economic difficulties.

Here, the future Pope acknowledges without censure the persecution of Jews in Germany, and speaks only on behalf of those he no longer considers to be Jews. Claims that the Concordat “saved the lives of thousands of Jews” are simply not substantiated. Clearly, the policy of exclusions of Jews from German life encountered no opposition from the Catholic leadership.

At both a national and international level, the Catholic Church at this time was then seeking to forge a positive working relationship with the Nazi regime. In 1934, the dogmatic theologian Michael Schmaus wrote that the German bishops would have never revoked their ban on membership of the Nazi Party if they had thought that Catholic and National Socialist ideas were in conflict. A degree of racism was certainly present with German Catholicism at this time. The German Catholic Church’s February 1936 official guidelines for religious instruction declared: “Race, soil, blood and people are precious natural values which God the Lord has created and the care of which He has entrusted to us Germans.” In 1936, Cardinal Faulhaber spoke positively of the contribution “blood and race” had made to German history, while in 1937, the Vicar General of Miltenburg instructed his clergy: “if a priest should heap scorn on or ridicule the concepts of blood, soil, race, he would thereby not only risk political attacks and legal prosecution, but also offend theologically and against his Church.” In the atmosphere of Germany in 1936, such comments were not innocent of immediate and anti-Jewish application. The Catholic press likewise justified the desire to eliminate the Jewish ‘alien bodies’ (Fremdkörper) from Germany. “Taking action against the Jews, according to the body of these publications, was ‘justifiable self-defence to prevent the harmful characteristics and influences of the Jewish race’.”
Hope this adds to the discussion,

Colin

 

[rsr]

I don't trust this type of man as my Lord Jesus condemned such:

No proof, of course, that the biblical reference has anything to do with the rabbi. Another ad hominem attack with no recognition of the possibility the man may be telling the truth.

There are many Jews who work against Jews. I already mentioned about Simon Perez, the former Israel Foreign Minister who is very much criticized as working for Vatican.

Criticized by whom? By crackpots warped by paranoia and conspiracy theories?

Many Jewish Catholics were the descendants of the bastards by the Jewish women raped by Catholic Crusades.

I suppose there's some proof for that allegation. Or has it been hidden by the Vatican?

Your post may be correct, but mine was correct as well at different time.

This letter may be the ealier one, and we don't know how they compromized each other.

No, your letter is a hoax. A fabrication. A lie. All you have is an Internet reference supposedly translated from a journal that no one can find. What I supplied is an authenticated letter (there are three of them) from an official archive. They are not, in fact, widely separated in time as you would like to contend in order to salvage an untenable position. Truman could have written no such letter after early 1953.

But we must know that RCC is so powerful on this world to do anything to re-write the history, but the True God knows and remembers everything and He wants us to know the Truth of the history.

Then why do you insist on making believe the hoax letter is genuine?

If you read the letters, the contents are so different, and totally another issues, and therefore we can conclude they were written at different times. Catholic plays the game of the press on the internet.

Or, because some of the letters are authenticated and some are not, we can conclude that Truman didn't write the spurious one. Catholics aren't the only ones playing on the Internet; there is a wealth of false "facts," and the Catholics don't have a monopoly.

There were many war criminals among the Vatican members, but none of them were indicted, which is a mystery but many suspect that some Catholics inside USA helped to delete the charges against them.

A suspicion, I suspect, held by those who bitterly hate all Catholics.

 

[Eliyahu]

I suppose there's some proof for that allegation. Or has it been hidden by the Vatican?

No, your letter is a hoax. A fabrication. A lie. All you have is an Internet reference supposedly translated from a journal that no one can find. What I supplied is an authenticated letter (there are three of them) from an official archive. They are not, in fact, widely separated in time as you would like to contend in order to salvage an untenable position. Truman could have written no such letter after early 1953.

I already supplied the source. You may be saying that Roman Catholic refutation is trustworthy because they are rich and powerful , right?
Is that authenticated by God who knows everything happened on this earth?

Now I realized you are not the Baptist but the lover of Idol worshippers!

Your love of Idolatry is a Romance and my love iof true history is an Adultry, is that what you are saying?

Then why do you insist on making believe the hoax letter is genuine?

Why do you insist that it is a Hoax? Please disprove it!

Or, because some of the letters are authenticated and some are not, we can conclude that Truman didn't write the spurious one. Catholics aren't the only ones playing on the Internet; there is a wealth of false "facts," and the Catholics don't have a monopoly.

A suspicion, I suspect, held by those who bitterly hate all Catholics.

You may be one of the lovers of the Idol worshipping Pagan religion Catholic disguised as Baptists.

Why do you remain in the Baptists? Do you believe the History of Baptists?

Yes, I am Anti-Idolatry, Anti-Inquisition, Anti-Papacy, Anti-goddess worship.

Do you love Idolatry, Inquisitors, Papacy, goddess worship? Do you Roman Catholic?

Do you believe theory of Purgatory?

Do you know that Pope is nothing but the Head of the Idol worshipping pagan priests?

Jesus HATES the doctrine of Nicolaitanes, ( Rev 2:6, 15), Do you know who are the Nicolaitanes?


RCC is doing a lot of the work to heal the wounds of the head and I expect they will eventually succeed in doing so. But God remembers everything.


From now on I will treat you as a Lover of Roman Catholic, the Idolatry Pagan Religion.

 

[rsr]

Why do you insist that it is a Hoax? Please disprove it!

You offered the letter as evidence, so it is your duty to establish the provenance. My evidence is readily available and verifiable, and it contradicts your evidence.

Now I realized you are not the Baptist but the lover of Idol worshippers!

Why is that whenever you are backed into a corner you inevitably resort to personal attacks and name calling?

Those who take issue with your "facts" are not just wrong, they are heretics or fellow travelers in a conspiracy, or both.

It is impossible to reason with you; I only do occasionally so I can show that not all of the members of this board are as vituperative and one-track as you are.

 

[4Given]

good points, rsr

Eli's posts seem more about his hatred of the RCC than anything else.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Eli's posts seem more about his hatred of the RCC than anything else.

Eliyahu is a nothing more than a romaphobic and a very ill informed one at that. He never fact checks his sources, as I’ve personally called him on numerous quotes that were nothing more than cut and paste jobs that he discovered from some fundies anti-catholic site, who in returned plagiarized another site….trying to have a civil discussion with such people is like clapping with one hand…

-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

The reputation of Pope Pius XII has suffered from an endless series of accusations of collaboration with the Nazi regime before and during World War II. In books such as John Cornwell's Hitler's Pope and others, the Pope and the Roman Catholic church face accusations of moral cowardice in the face of the most twisted regime in modern human history. However, new documentation shows that the Nazis themselves considered Pius and his Church their enemy -- because Pius assisted in the flight of Jews from the Nazi genocidists: Source Link

Pius XII, the wartime pontiff often condemned as "Hitler's Pope", was actually considered an enemy by the Third Reich, according to newly discovered documents.

Several letters and memos unearthed at a depot used by the Stasi, the East-German secret police, show that Nazi spies within the Vatican were concerned at Pius's efforts to help displaced Poles and Jews.

In one, the head of Berlin's police force tells Joachim von Ribbentropp, the Third Reich's foreign minister, that the Catholic Church was providing assistance to Jews "both in terms of people and financially".

A report from a spy at work in the Vatican states: "Our source was told to his face by Father Robert Leibner [one of Pius's secretaries] that the greatest hope of the Church is that the Nazi system would be obliterated by the war."​

After the war, the Pope himself acknowledged that he did not speak out consistently against the Nazis, but claimed he held back in order to save more people from their clutches. In light of this new evidence, he may have done his best under the worst of circumstances. Certainly the Nazis understood him as a threat to their plans to wipe Jews off the face of the Earth, and recorded their concerns.

How did Pius get such a bad rap? Part of it comes from the circumstance of having been Pope during the war. The Vatican, after all, sits within Rome -- and the Italians who aligned themselves with Hitler had them surrounded. The Swiss survived under similar circumstances by essentially doing the same thing -- remaining quiet while doing what they could under the radar.

Now, though, it looks like there may be more to the story than just circumstance. The discovery of these records within the files of the Stasi -- the East German secret police during the Communist era -- indicates that the smear may have had political motivations. The Telegraph reports that some believe the story got circulated at the direction of Moscow to discredit the Catholics, which they saw as a potential rival in Eastern Europe. If they could paint the Vatican as Nazi sympathizers, then the Poles and other Catholics in the Soviet sphere of influence would discount them as an anti-Communist force.

In the end, of course, the Soviets failed in their strategy. Their smear lived on, unfortunately.

-

 

[Colin]

Hi there,
thanks for contributing a more balanced debate. The idea that the Pope did not speak out because so doing would have endangered more people is often used, but is hardly plausable. I must appologise here for quoting from my thesis, but i really am stressed for time, and hope the quote makes sence.
The Pope himself, in letter and speech, claimed protest would only provoke greater suffering for those already suffering too much. This policy was publicly abandoned and discredited as regards Poland in 1943. As early as November 3, 1941, Archbishop Sapieha of Poland had written to the Pope requesting an explicit condemnation, or at least a message of comfort, for the Catholics of Poland. He repeated this request in February 1942, as did other Catholic leaders “on the spot” in July and September 1942.[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] The Pope instead sent three letters to the Polish episcopy, denouncing the Nazi atrocities. Cardinal Saphia responded by thanking him, but saying they could not publish them for fear of aggravating the situation.[FONT=&quot][2][/FONT] On February 15, 1943, Bishop Radonski wrote to the Pope:

I wonder just which bishops have asked the Holy Father to remain silent ... According to your Eminence, they did so out of fear of aggravating the persecution. But the facts prove that with the Pope being silent, each day sees the persecution become more cruel. ... When such crimes, which cry out to heaven for vengeance, are committed, the inexplicable silence of the supreme head of the church becomes for those who do not know its reason-and there are thousands of them-a cause for spiritual downfall.[FONT=&quot][3][/FONT]
As a result of this letter, Maglione suggested to Sapieha that he should release some of the earlier letters sent to him by the Pope. Sapieha again responded that it would be better for the Pope to write a new letter, recapitulating the earlier ones, and then release it himself. On June 2, 1943, the Pope therefore spoke directly to the Polish people about their suffering in a speech which was broadcast on Vatican Radio.[FONT=&quot][4][/FONT] On June 11, Cardinal Hlond wrote to Maglione: “The Poles needed this”, while Sapieha wrote to the Pope: “the gratitude of the Polish people will never forget these noble and holy words ... at the same time they will be an effective antidote against the poisonous efforts of the enemy propaganda.”[FONT=&quot][5][/FONT] He concluded that he would try to publicize the speech as much as possible.

In 1981, Cardinal Dezza wrote that in December 1942, the Pope told him of sending the letters to Sapieha, and cited Sapieha’s unwillingness to publish them as supportive of his policy of official silence. Cardinal Dezza (and Marchione) unfortunately only quoted the part of this story where some Polish clergy told the Pope they could not release his letters to them for fear of persecution.[FONT=&quot][6][/FONT] This fact is then pressed into service as justifying Papal silence re the Holocaust, a verdict utterly at odds with the later conclusion of the incident. The Pope’s pastoral letter to the German Bishops was written on April 30, 1943. It was therefore written after the initial concern expressed by some Polish bishops, but before the change in policy which saw his June 2 statement on their behalf. Indeed, he appears to have the initial Polish reaction to his letters in mind (as per Cardinal Dezza’s 1942 recollection) when he wrote to Preysing concerning his policy of leaving decisions re denunciations of atrocities to those on the spot: “This is one of the motives for the limitations which We impose on Ourself in Our declarations. The experience we gained in 1942, when We allowed papal documents to be freely reproduced for the use of Catholics, justifies Our attitude, so far as we can see.”[FONT=&quot][7][/FONT] On June 2, 1943, the same day he broke his silence concerning the suffering of the Polish Catholics, the Pope re-affirmed this policy re Jews in a secret address to the College of Cardinals.[FONT=&quot][8][/FONT] Nor did the positive reaction from the Polish clergy prompt a reassessment of this discredited policy as it still affected the Jews.

Clearly, there was a difference of opinion within the Polish clergy as to the advisability of Vatican comment.[FONT=&quot][9][/FONT] Equally, the Polish hierarchy, in discussion with the Vatican, resolved that a Papal statement from the Vatican was the preferred solution. That is, while the Pope turned down requests from bishops in Germany and France, and his diplomatic representative in Slovakia that the best action to stop the persecution of Jews would be for a Papal protest, when Polish bishops requested the same strategy to protest the persecution of Catholics in Poland, the Pope complied. Their arguments advanced against Papal silence, and the following gratitude of the Polish clergy simply highlight the utter bankruptcy of the Pope’s silence re the Jews. What he would do for Catholics, he would not do for Jews.[FONT=&quot][10][/FONT] Equally, given that by May 1943, Maglione knew that only 100,000 of Poland’s initial 4.5 million were still alive in Poland, keeping silent had clearly not helped them, and with the death camps still running, it is hard to imagine what “worse predicament” any Papal statement might have created for them. Any logic that may have existed in 1940 or even 1942 for silence had by now totally evaporated. That logic had always in any event applied more to the persecuted Polish Catholics, who were hurting, but not facing genocide (meaning that increased persecution was always a Nazi option for expressing disapproval over any Vatican statement), than it did for the Jews. That this argument, overturned by the Pope in 1943 for Catholic Poles, is still advanced by Papal defenders decades after[FONT=&quot][11][/FONT] is simply inexcusable.

As Goldhagen correctly comments:

Let us consider the moral dimension of the defender’s arguments. Since when do we argue that religious men should not speak moral truths? That being silent in the face of mass murder is the best way to help the victims? That mobilizing people of conscience to resist radical evil would have the opposite effect of abetting that evil?[FONT=&quot][12][/FONT]


[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] Blett, 81-82.

[FONT=&quot][2][/FONT] Marchione, 141.

[FONT=&quot][3][/FONT] Blett, 84. A further consequence of these soon to be discredited bishops’ views was that Vatican Radio suspended all broadcasts regarding Germany. Rychlak, 2000: 157.

[FONT=&quot][4][/FONT] Rychlak, 2000: 192.

[FONT=&quot][5][/FONT] Blett, 85-86.

[FONT=&quot][6][/FONT] See Rychlak, 151, 368, 370, for a similar misuse of the information.

[FONT=&quot][7][/FONT] S. Friedländer, 1966: 139. In this he repeated his comment of 1940 that, while aware of the terrible things taking place in Poland, he kept silent because speaking out “would simply worsen the predicament of these unfortunate people.” Rychlak, 2000: 140, 378. It is unclear if his 1940 words concerned Polish Catholics or Polish Jews.

[FONT=&quot][8][/FONT] S. Friedländer, 1966: 143.

[FONT=&quot][9][/FONT] See Rychlak, 2000: 169.

[FONT=&quot][10][/FONT] Similarly, as noted, while the Pope never passed on the appeals for help sent by the Jews of Poland (or elsewhere), when the Catholic women of Warsaw petitioned him in August 1944, he passed the appeal on the next day to the representatives of both America and Britain with the request that it be brought to the attention of their governments. Their appeal was also published in the L’Osservatore Romano on September 15. He also spoke twice publicly on their behalf of their cause. Rychlak, 2000: 227-228. Blett, 273.

[FONT=&quot][11][/FONT] Rychlak, 2000: 251. Cardinal Montini for example, wrote in 1963 that, for Pius to have adopted “an attitude of protest and condemnation would have been not only futile but harmful.” Blett, xii.

[FONT=&quot][12][/FONT] Goldhagen, 2002: 28.

 

[Eliyahu]

You offered the letter as evidence, so it is your duty to establish the provenance. My evidence is readily available and verifiable, and it contradicts your evidence.



Why is that whenever you are backed into a corner you inevitably resort to personal attacks and name calling?

Those who take issue with your "facts" are not just wrong, they are heretics or fellow travelers in a conspiracy, or both.

It is impossible to reason with you; I only do occasionally so I can show that not all of the members of this board are as vituperative and one-track as you are.

1. My source itself contains the article from Chilean magazine. As you know Chile has suffered the lots of trouble with the dictatorships, including Pinochet. It is not unusual such company could disappear by some reasons. Therefore it is understandable to have difficultyin verifying the article. But the ultimate authority lies in the archive of either White House or State Department which recorded all the correspondences. Until you or anyone else verify that there was no correspondence like that, still the letter is not proven as a Hoax. This portion of the verification may be difficult for a while, but someday it will be revealed.

When I read thru the contents of the letter, it was very certain that such letter was issued. But the problem could be how Pres Trumen compromised with Mr. Pacelli. However, God knows the truth and what the tricky guys did, and how the Idol worshippers priests are disguising to heal their wounds ( Rev 13:3)

2. You don't deserve my comment any more. I can easily remember you as a dual person, disguised as a baptist. You could never answer my question whether you believe the History of Baptists. Your hear may be refuting the Bible verses which condemn the Idolatry.
You trust what the Idol worshippers are saying. You cannnot reason why Mussolini, Hitler, Franco of Spain were all Roman Catholic, and Himler Goebels etc are the devout Catholic.
I don't think it is too difficult to provide the furthermore evidences, but it is not worthy of my time. Because the already-known probems with the Idol worshippers are enough to convince the reasonable believers.
Your heart cannot deceive the true believers any more, because you don't find much problem with Idol worshippers.

 

[Eliyahu]

Eli's posts seem more about his hatred of the RCC than anything else.

God hates Idol worshippers, Murderers, such as Roman Catholic!

 

[Colin]

[FONT=&quot]Hi again,
concerning papal aid to Jews, the issue again is of Jewish converts to Catholicism, which the Catholic church did not view as Jews, as opposed to Jews in general. For example, the Pope sent a pastoral letter to the German bishops, on April 30, 1943.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] In it, the Pope noted that the Holy See has acted charitably “within the limits of its responsibilities” towards both “non-Aryan Catholics” and those of “the Jewish faith.” He goes on to mention “the very large sums in American money which We have had to disburse on shipping for emigrants. We gave those sums willingly ...” The Pope failed to mention several salient facts here. As early as November 1938, Pius XI had been working on a fund to aid non-Aryan Catholics to emigrate. After some bureaucratic difficulties, on March 4, 1940, 3,000 Brazilian visas were made available to non-Aryan Catholics to enable them to flee Nazi persecution. Matters dragged on, but on February 6, 1941 Maglione informed Cardinal Innitzer that the Pope had personally given $2,000 towards the program.[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] This program and money were only for converts to Catholicism. When Rychlak,[FONT=&quot][2][/FONT] quoting Gaspari, states that the Pope paid out $800 to each of 1,000 German Jews wishing to emigrate to [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Brazil[/FONT][FONT=&quot], either they have both adopted a Nazi definition of Jewishness, or they are misled. Furthermore, some of the money so claimed by the Pope was from a donation to the Vatican to aid in its relief work from the United Jewish Appeal in the United States. While the donation explicitly requested that the Pope use the money for all in need, regardless of race, religion or nationality, it is unclear if they were aware that the Pope would spent it in a way which explicitly excluded Jews as such from its benefits, or that he would then imply that it was spent aiding Jews.[FONT=&quot][3][/FONT] Concerning the difference in numbers (3,000 supplied by [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Brazil[/FONT][FONT=&quot], 1,000 used), 2,000 visas, while obtained, “were not granted because of alleged ‘improper conduct,’ in Cardinal Luigi Maglione's words. This was probably a reference to the returning of Jews to Judaism once they reached Brazil.”[FONT=&quot][4][/FONT] That is, due to the possibility of unconverted Jews using it, the entire program was cancelled. For Gaspari to then use the 1,000 visas as evidence of the Pope’s aid to Jews is simply indefensible. The Pope was aiding Catholic converts, and the possibility that Jews would use the program to save their lives caused the entire program to be cancelled. And this was the Pope’s own choice of example of his giving aid to Jews!

Take care, Colin
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] P. Blett, 142-148. Note that the Nuncios in Chile and Bolivia wrote to Maglione opposing the emigration of non-Aryan Catholics to those lands, couching their opposition in strongly anti-Semitic language. Preliminary Report, question 39.

[FONT=&quot][2][/FONT] R. Rychlak, 2002: 7.

[FONT=&quot][3][/FONT] Preliminary Report, question 4. See also footnote 1614.

[FONT=&quot][4][/FONT] Yad vashem, The Holocaust and the Christian World, viewed 23/4/03, http://www.yad-vashem.org.il/about_yad/what_new/data_pope/encyclopedia.html. (quoting Gutman, Israel, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, p. 1136).

 

[rsr]

But the ultimate authority lies in the archive of either White House or State Department which recorded all the correspondences. Until you or anyone else verify that there was no correspondence like that, still the letter is not proven as a Hoax. This portion of the verification may be difficult for a while, but someday it will be revealed.

You are asking to prove a negative, which is impossible. What I have done is quote other verified letters, which contradict your "letter." In addition, Truman in 1951 became the first American president to authorize a full-fledged ambassador to the Vatican. (His pastor, Edward Hughes Pruden of First Baptist Church, opposed the move and tried to dissuade him, by the way.)

When I read thru the contents of the letter, it was very certain that such letter was issued.

On what basis? Simply because you would like to believe it.

2. You don't deserve my comment any more. I can easily remember you as a dual person, disguised as a baptist. You could never answer my question whether you believe the History of Baptists.

I would be silly not to believe the history of the Baptists because it happened. However, I am sure we may not agree on the evidence of what happened.

I don't think it is too difficult to provide the furthermore evidences, but it is not worthy of my time.

Eliyahuspeak for "I can't find verifiable evidence so I won't try any more."

Your heart cannot deceive the true believers any more, because you don't find much problem with Idol worshippers.

What I have done, specifically, is to call into question your so-called "evidence." But your tactics are consistent: Vilify all who have the temerity to disagree with your "proofs" and anathemize them.

 

[Eliyahu]

You are asking to prove a negative, which is impossible. What I have done is quote other verified letters, which contradict your "letter." In addition, Truman in 1951 became the first American president to authorize a full-fledged ambassador to the Vatican. (His pastor, Edward Hughes Pruden of First Baptist Church, opposed the move and tried to dissuade him, by the way.)

The ultimate evidence which can justify which one is true can be obtained from the Archive of State Dept or White House. Those diplomatic record may have been re-classified as No-more secrets and may be available if we can try to find out. I live in Canada at the moment, which makes it more difficult for me to search for the archive than anyone in U.S. If anyone is really serious about the verasity of it, she or he must check the archive and show the reasonable result of such investigation. None of your reference has made such investigation to refute the article which I posted. If all the posters on this BB have to verify the articles from its sources, none of the posters can afford to post any articles serious enough to discuss. This type of accusation or refutation may be often used by the Inquisitors when they tortured the true believers objections to the Roman Catholicism. Until you can verify it with State Dept and White House about the versaty of the letters, yours and mine remain in the same degree of validity with the minor differences. There have been so many reports in the field of Diplomacy which could hardly be verified immediately but after some while turned out to be true.
God knows the whole truth but until He appears, so many people are continuing to cheat the people. Until His time, what we can do is to confirm with all the records of White House and State Dept, which may be open to the true believers sooner or later.

On what basis? Simply because you would like to believe it.

Read the contents. Could you find anything wrong in the contents?

I would be silly not to believe the history of the Baptists because it happened. However, I am sure we may not agree on the evidence of what happened.

Oh! Dear! Do you believe that Roman Catholic tortured and killed many True Believers? Really?
Do yiou believe that Roman Catholic tortured the Believers by Inquisition?

You can trust this right? For example,
A crusade against Waldensians in the Dauphiné region of France was declared in 1487, but Papal representatives continued to devastate towns and villages into the mid 16th century as the Waldensians became absorbed into the wider Protestant Reformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians)


Since when the Idol Worshippers have changed their habit of killing people?

Can the dogs change their habits?

Eliyahuspeak for "I can't find verifiable evidence so I won't try any more."

You misunderstand my point!. I provided the initial source, you refuted it, and at the moment neither you nor I have verified it with the ultimate source. You are trying to bite a small piece of the issues to find fault of me. This is only a small portion of the whole issue on the Hitler's Pope, and I showed you many sites and references showing the photos of Concrodat etc. You could never refute them. Are you saying that Concordat was a Hoax? Your eyes may be Hoax!

What I have done, specifically, is to call into question your so-called "evidence." But your tactics are consistent: Vilify all who have the temerity to disagree with your "proofs" and anathemize them.

Again, you are villifying me just with one part of the whole issues. What about the other posts? You better check your eyes first because you are finding fault with the matter of prime sources for one article, while you keep silent about the whole issues, which is the tactics of the pagan believers disguised as Baptists.
Remove the beams of your eyes first then you can see thru the dusts in my eyes. Then you can see the photos of my posts here again:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

http://liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/NaziLeadership.html

How come most of the dictators in that era were Catholic?

Why do the victims of Hitler ( Israel) connect their tragedy with Catholic Pope?

 

[Eliyahu]

ADL: Archbishop’s Boycott “Insulting”
if (sLinkData != "") document.write("Edit");
(IsraelNN.com) The Anti-Defamation League called the announcement by Archbishop Antonio Franco, the Vatican’s ambassador to Israel, that he would not take part in a Holocaust memorial at Yad Vashem “inappropriate and insulting.” Franco said he would avoid the memorial on Monday due to a photo caption in one exhibit, which he says accuses Pope Pius XII of ignoring the plight of the Jews during the Holocaust.

ADL head Abe Foxman called Franco’s response to the caption “unnecessarily insulting and unbecoming.” Foxman, a Holocaust survivor, called on the Vatican to release material documenting the period of the Third Reich and the Holocaust. If the records are made public, he said, historians will be able to determine what Pope Pius did or did not do to help Jews during the Holocaust.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/124702


Vatican Won’t Participate in Yad Vashem Ceremony
if (sLinkData != "") document.write("Edit");

(IsraelNN.com) The Vatican is refusing to participate in this year's annual Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial service. The Holy See is objecting to a photograph of then-Pope Pope Pius XII in the museum, captioned with an observation about his conduct during Hitler’s genocide of the Jews.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/124584

 

[rsr]

None of your reference has made such investigation to refute the article which I posted.

And how could they? What we have access to is verified letters. Yours is not one of them.

If all the posters on this BB have to verify the articles from its sources, none of the posters can afford to post any articles serious enough to discuss.

Sure they can. I can quote, with reasonable certainty, from any number of sources, such as the various versions of Jefferson's letter to Danbury Baptists, Calvin's Institutes, the First and Second London Baptist confessions, the works of Martin Luther, some of the writings of Tertullian, the proceedings of the Council of Trent, the letters of James Madison, etc.

You have simply picked up an Internet source for a document and, because you agree with it, assume it must be reliable. Why not just be honest and admit it?

This type of accusation or refutation may be often used by the Inquisitors when they tortured the true believers objections to the Roman Catholicism.[/iquote]

Back to that again, are we? Your line of reasoning, in fact, is more in keeping with the Inquisition. You can't prove the allegations are false, so they must be true. I really would have expected better of you if I had not read so many of your posts.

Until you can verify it with State Dept and White House about the versaty of the letters, yours and mine remain in the same degree of validity with the minor differences.

No, you once again have turned the argument on its head. By referencing a source, it is your responsibility to establish its veracity. You are unable to. All you can give is a second- (or third- or fourth- or fifth-) hand quote.

Read the contents. Could you find anything wrong in the contents?

Well, yes. It's not the letter a responsible chief executive would write. (Unless, of course, the president were sending it to a music critic who had just panned his daughter's performance.) To believe for a second that Truman, in his capacity as president would pen such a letter to be presented officially is ludicrous and shows you know nothing about the history in question.

Oh! Dear! Do you believe that Roman Catholic tortured and killed many True Believers? Really? Do yiou believe that Roman Catholic tortured the Believers by Inquisition?

I don't believe that is the topic of this thread.

You can trust this right? For example,
A crusade against Waldensians in the Dauphiné region of France was declared in 1487, but Papal representatives continued to devastate towns and villages into the mid 16th century as the Waldensians became absorbed into the wider Protestant Reformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians)

Well, I admit the Wikipedia is an improvement upon your usual sources, but it is certainly not definitive. Besides, that's not the issue.

You misunderstand my point!. I provided the initial source, you refuted it, and at the moment neither you nor I have verified it with the ultimate source.

And, unless you can present better evidence than you have, it will not be verified. In the absence of better sourcing, my proof is better than yours. Not definitive, but better. That's the way sourcing works.

You are trying to bite a small piece of the issues to find fault of me.

A man with no respect for verification and provenance is not to be trusted, don't you think? "“One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much."

This is only a small portion of the whole issue on the Hitler's Pope, and I showed you many sites and references showing the photos of Concrodat etc. You could never refute them. Are you saying that Concordat was a Hoax?

Nope. Never said it. Don't believe it. Pius, in my estimation, showed insufficent moral courage at a time of great trial. Many others in the West must share in that assessment.

Your eyes may be Hoax!

Well, yes, they are. Never said they weren't. "At present we are men looking at puzzling reflections in a mirror. The time will come when we shall see reality whole and face to face! At present all I know is a little fraction of the truth, but the time will come when I shall know it as fully as God now knows me!"

Again, you are villifying me just with one part of the whole issues. What about the other posts? You better check your eyes first because you are finding fault with the matter of prime sources for one article, while you keep silent about the whole issues, which is the tactics of the pagan believers disguised as Baptists.

Do you ever grow weary of making personal attacks? I am sure it wearies the other readers even if it does not fatigue you.

Personally, I care not one iota (or jot or tittle) about your ill-founded and reckless attacks on my Baptist bona fides.

Remove the beams of your eyes first then you can see thru the dusts in my eyes. Then you can see the photos of my posts here again:

No, thanks. Please come back - as Colin admirably has done - with something more than a collection of anti-Christian Web sites that you seem to think constitute "proof" of your position.

How come most of the dictators in that era were Catholic?

Opportunity, perhaps? There is indeed a regrettable record. But to think that Hitler would have accomplished his goal without the support of non-Cathlics is moonshine, pure and simple. Governments of most religious stripes - and none - have sad records of human rights abuses.

 

[Eliyahu]

Pius XII, the wartime pontiff often condemned as "Hitler's Pope", was actually considered an enemy by the Third Reich, according to newly discovered documents.​

This is how Roman Catholic manufacture the martyrs!


​