KGB INTENT ON LINKING PIUS XII WITH NAZIS

CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY ^ | 1/26/2007 | CATHOLIC NEWS

[TradicalRC]

I however take it further and emphaticall state that he is never infallible...especially when he portends to speak of morality or religion. JMO

Of course, you could be wrong here...couldn't you?

[DainBramage]

Of course. Im not infallible except when I restate what the Bible says.

[Mrs. Don-o]

No Church? Golly, 85% of ther NT is about the early history of the Church.

G'night now, brother.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Im not infallible except when I restate what the Bible says."

Well, then, you're really VERY similar to the Pope, who is, after all, a distributor, not a manufacturer.

[DainBramage]

Goodnight Ma'am

[TradicalRC]

Thanks, Mrs. Don-o.

[DTA]

I read with due diligence everything you post and have noticed this realy important information:

"While some of these charges are recent in origin (and from suspect sources), there is no credible evidence that the Pope or the Vatican behaved inappropriately. For instance, the Vatican expressly repudiated forcible conversions in a memorandum, dated January 25, 1942, from the Vatican Secretariat of State to the Legation of Yugoslavia to the Holy See (addressing conversions in Croatia)."

But the forced conversions did take place in Croatia and continued after January 25th 1942. According to the above quote, it was against Holy See wish, because Holy See 'expressly repudiated it" as of January 25 1942.

There was even Ustasha Commision for conversions, presided by Archbishop Stepinac himself.

One has to believe that that Roman Catholic Church in Croatia was led by "renegade clergy", to borrow expression form another poster.

What happened with the clergy that followed Holy See intentions and did not follow Ustashas? German Nazi concenttration camps were full of Roman Catholic clergy. Interestingly enough, it was not the case in Croatia. Ustasha goverment has not prosecuted, incarcerated and murdered Roman Catholic clergy. By comparrison Ustashas murdered four Orthodox Christian Bishops, tortured to insanity Orthodox Christian Bishop of Zagreb, murdered 171 Orthodox Christian priests in total and expelled all the rest. All Orthodox Christian churches were ransacked and destroyed and Orthodox Church ceased to exist in Croatia. That was the main reason for conversions - complete destroyed Orthodox Cristian Church and flock left to the mercy of the wolves.

Holy See was well informed of those events in Croatia because Holy See had a legate in Croatia, Mgr. Marcone. Holy Grace called himself "Sancti Sedi legatus" in his correspondence with Ustasha government and was received as such. His Grace, Stepinac, noted in his journal on August 3rd, the day the Pope's representative reached Zagreb: 'By this act, the Holy See has recognized via facti the Independent State of Croatia.'

Likewise, two representatives of Ustasha government were given diplomatic status in Vatican.

So, to recapitulate, Holy See was against forced conversions yet forced conversions did not stop. Clergy run the Church affairs against Holy See wish yet the Head of the very same Chrurch was elevated to the level of Cardinal after the war and Beatified.

[DTA]

>>>>>>ALTHOUGH PIUS XII AS CHIEF OF STATE OF THE HOLY SEE RECEIVED MANY FRIENDS AND ENEMIES, HE NEVER MET HITLER NEITHER AS POPE, NOR AS SECRETARY OF STATE, OR AS APOSTOLIC NUNCIO TO GERMANY. REAGAN RECEIVED GORBACHEV PRIVATELY, DOES IT MEANT THAT REAGAN WAS A CLOSET COMMUNIST OR WAS THE COMMUNIST LEADER SUPPORTING REAGAN'S GOAL OF DEFATING THE SOVIET UNION???<<<<<<

Pius XII has not received Hitler but has received Ante Pavelic. Pavelic complained that he was not received as a head of state - he was received in a private audience as an individual Catholic.

[rzeznikj at stout]

whoa--too cool...8^)

[rzeznikj at stout]

dta--can you really back up these, er, statements?

I have read this thread from top to bottom as a lurker, and I have failed to see one iota of evidence that remotely suggests the good bishop was in cahoots with the Nazi puppet government in Croatia; whereas just about everyone else (most notably dqban22) has definitively proven you wrong--in that regard, I have little more to say.

As another poster stated "You have a credibility issue." Suffice it to say, I must concur with that judgment--I have yet to see evidence to the contrary.

I studied WWII in Europe last semester, and on my own time studied the role of the Church during the war. There is no evidence to suggest Alois Cardinal Stepinac was a Nazi collaborator. On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary--he really did do everything in his power to prevent the obliteration of the Jewish people in Croatia and the forced schism of the Catholic Church in Croatia from Rome.

Further, the mere thought of the Catholic Church seeking to liquidate and obliterate the Orthodox Church is completely wrong--and no man, let alone a Man of the Cloth would, in his right mind support such a brutality.

(Kolokotronis--I defer to your vast knowledge regarding the Orthodox here 8^))

With all due respect sir, I really do believe you are a sick man. The mere thought of slandering and uttering morbidly twisted statements two dead men of God is physically nauseating, and a grave insult to all who fought against the atrocities of the Holocaust--men who have more honor and integrity in their dead fingers than what we have in our entire bodies.

All of humanity owes these righteous men (e.g. Pope Pius XII, Alois Cardinal Stepinac, Raoul Wallenberg, Oskar Schindler, etc. ad infinitum) a huge debt that can never be fully repaid

For the sake of everyone else here, and for your own reputation--just give it a rest, dude. You're certainly entitled to your opinion--but honestly, you've effectively demeaned everyone here and failed to win over anybody to your point of view.

[DTA]

>>>>-he really did do everything in his power to prevent the obliteration of the Jewish people in Croatia and the forced schism of the Catholic Church in Croatia from Rome.<<<<

I have read this sentence several times but can not make sense out of it. Do I understand well that you claim that Catholic Church of Croatia wantted to break away from Rome (Holy See) and Stepinac prevented it from happening?

Hundreds of thousands of people targeted by Ustashas and the entire Christian Orhodox Church perished in Croatia 1941-45. It seems that no one is guilty and no one responsible.

[rzeznikj at stout]

"I have read this sentence several times but can not make sense out of it. Do I understand well that you claim that Catholic Church of Croatia wantted to break away from Rome (Holy See) and Stepinac prevented it from happening?"

Yes, because that is exactly it. I'm not the first person to bring this up, though--it's been mentioned a few times already.

"Hundreds of thousands of people targeted by Ustashas and the entire Christian Orhodox Church perished in Croatia 1941-45. It seems that no one is guilty and no one responsible."

It also seems you cannot find any hard evidence to corroborate this. You've literally parroted this statement at least eight or nine times over the course of this thread, but failed to provide any evidence--or even an actual citation, for that matter.

[DTA]

>>>>>Yes, because that is exactly it. I'm not the first person to bring this up, though--it's been mentioned a few times already. <<<<<<

I am aware of the role of Franciscans in Herzegovina and their arrogant position towards Holy See, culminating in Medjugorje hoax.

However, I was unaware of anyone's the attempt to hijack the entire Roman Catholic Church and separate it from Vatican. I would be grateful if you can point me towards historical sources.

As of genocide commited in Croatia, I do not have to prove anything, it is historical fact. One does not have to prove that The Holocaust happened either. Nazi revisionists are the ones who attempt to dispute it.

[SaintDismas]

I don't know about this or that pope saying these things. All I know from my Catholic teaching is that those of us Christians unfortunate to not know the fullness of Christ teaching through his one, true, catholic and apostolic church, but only know "parts" of him, are still within the Body of Christ, and can still attain heaven. Even those outside of Christianity can, it's just harder, not as many helps (sacraments which impart grace) That, my friend is Catholic belief in a nutshell about those outside of the Catholic Church.

I wish that you would go to an inquiry class on this, such as is at my Church here in Wichita. Nobody will expect or pressure you to convert, we just don't behave that way. But you could get the true perspective straight from the Catholic church about these issues that upset you, without any biases or assumptions stated by others as facts, borne of hate and misunderstanding

[Tao Yin]

An apostolic church is (Ephesians 2:20) "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone".

An apostolic church follows what the apostles said and wrote. I do not think that salvation is that complicated to explain. I believe the creeds cover all of the main points.

Most of the early churches had very little in the way of communication with the apostles. A few visits and a couple of letters was plenty of material to keep them going. Today we don't have the apostles themselves, but we have all of their writings.

I do not follow oral tradition. I have no promise that oral tradition is inspired or protected. I do not rejects oral tradition, but it is a supplement that is neither required nor forbidden.

There are no secret teachings. The apostles preached everything in public. There is no measure of salvation that we are missing today that oral tradition can fill.

The keys given to Peter are the only detail that give me pause. I can neither argue for nor against any particular meaning. But Peter's confession is written about twice in the Bible and only one telling mentions the keys. I've come to the understanding that the keys are not the point of the story and I've accepted that I'll never understand all of the mysteries of God.

[Kolokotronis]

"Further, the mere thought of the Catholic Church seeking to liquidate and obliterate the Orthodox Church is completely wrong--and no man, let alone a Man of the Cloth would, in his right mind support such a brutality.

(Kolokotronis--I defer to your vast knowledge regarding the Orthodox here 8^))"

I think, sadly, that the role of the Latin Church and its cardinal in Croatia in the deaths of tens of thousands of Orthodox Christians is well documented. Yugoslavia is one of those places where, as we have seen, religious tectonic plates rub up against each other. That's been true for 1000 years or so. I find it extremely hard to believe that Pius XII approved of the massacre of Orthodox Christians but it seems apparent that when informed of what Cardinal Stepanic was up to, he did nothing. It also seems that there is at least some evidence that the Vatican actively aided Ustasha leaders in escaping Allied justice after the war and hid/used Ustasha gold. As someone here pointed out, that is right now the subject of Federal litigation.

That Ustasha mentality persists to this day as represented by the KLA leader Ceku who, allied with the Croats in the Yugoslav war as one of their generals, presided over the mass murder of Orthodox Christians in the 1990s. He now presides over the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo.

But you know, this is a subject we have been over before here on FR, with only poison being the result of the discussion. Bad things happened to the Orthodox in Yugoslavia. They continue to happen in Kosovo. At least part of the reason for that is the West's refusal to recognize what the Ustasha and the Croatian Catholic Church did during WWII.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you for this post.

The Catholic Church would agree that the writings of, say, the Ante-Nicene fathers I mentioned, are not in every line and every detail inspired as is the canon of Scripture. But it is authoritative as Sacred Tradition (caps to distinguish it from small-t garden-variety traditions) --- IF you have a "consensus" of the Fathers, indicating that this is a good compilation of what the Apostles and their disciples and successors were teaching, wherever they planted churches from Spain to the Indus and perhaps beyond.

As for the level of communication between the early local churches and the Apostles, you're probably right: in fact, some of them probably had, at first, nothing in writing, and then for a long time only this 'n' that, a Gospel, an Epistle; but most importantly, they had someone who knew: someone who had known the Lord, or had been well taught by the Apostles and their companions; and so people learned by the preaching which was an important part of every Liturgy.

The Church has been described in many ways and by many images, but that --- personal discipleship and preaching --- is why the Church was from very early times described as "the People of God gathered around their Bishop."

[Tao Yin]

I have no promise that a "consensus" of the early church fathers has any authority or inspiration.

I have no promise that the saints in heaven can hear my prayers.

I hold fast to the promises that have been made.

Lineage may be important in eastern religions and dog shows, but I'd rather have the Holy Spirit than someone who knew someone who knew someone...

[Mrs. Don-o]

"I have no promise that a "consensus" of the early church fathers has any authority or inspiration."

Consider this. We know that

1 Corinthians 12:28
"God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues."

Luke 10:16
"The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Jesus Himself appointed His Apostles, and as we know from the Acts of the Apostles, they appointed successors. They also appointed deacons, teachers, men and women with different functions within the Body of Christ, which remained one Body under the leadership Christ appointed.

Do you then, reject this provision that Christ has made for these select men to shepherd His people, to teach and feed, govern and guard His flock?

We have all received the Holy Spirit, but we do not all have the same function in the Body:

1 Corinthians 12:29
" Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?"

"Lineage may be important in eastern religions and dog shows.."

This lineage you speak of-- so dismissively --- is, after all, not a pedigree of physical ancestors, but a spiritual lineage, not of those who handed down a physical genetic code, but of those who handed on the One Faith which comes to us from the Apostles. He did not say just "read this." He said "become a member of Me."

Christ did not just give us a Book. He made us a Body.

[Tao Yin]

There is no succession with regards to the foundation: prophets, apostles, Christ. It is unchanging, true, eternal. The foundation is finished.

The Holy Spirit is our guide, not a man that sits on the Throne of Peter.

With regards to the Church, I think we can agree that all members of the Church will be in Heaven. Will that include all members of the RCC or all believers in Christ? I accepted Jesus as my savior and I reject the idea that my salvation has anything to do with the RCC. I don't question it, I outright reject the idea. Jesus is my savior and I have His promise that I will not perish but have eternal life. I am not a member of the RCC, but I am a member of the Body. The RCC can not be the Church unless His promise is false.