I guess that's on interpretation of those verses.
Posted on 03/15/2008 10:17:55 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper
I guess that's on interpretation of those verses.
lol. Cornwell said no such thing. He recanted nothing. He simply said, after being trashed mercilessly by his fellow Catholics, that he thinks it is difficult to gauge Pacelli's rationalizations for doing what he did and did not do because it's always difficult to label reasons for what men do and say, and thus to read their minds.
Cornwell stands by everything he wrote in regards to what Pacelli actually did and did not do.
That one ever-so-slight addendum does not negate the truth in his book, as distasteful as the truth is to the apologists.
You wrote:
“No, purgatory is a Scripture-denying, Christ-rebuking fiction.”
No, purgatory is a Scripture-affirming, Christ-powered truth.
Also, the verses you posted, from Hebrews, actually support Catholic doctrines on purgatory. Of course.
ROME!
For example, consider all of those Arminian Protestant churches, who by their doctrine rejecting the pure teaching of sovereign grace embodied in the Five Points of TULIP, demonstrate that they're returning to the corruption of
ROME!
And consider those Protestant churches who are now inventing various strange rituals, like writing your sins on paper and pinning them to the cross. We know that this is ritual and ritual is bad and it's all about a return to
ROME!
And consider the Muslims. Why, it's well-known that Islam was started by
ROME!
(as was everything bad) and today
ROME!
even says that Islam is a perfectly "valid religion" ... all the while continuing to summon up demons to torment perfectly innocent Calvinists who are fighting to preserve true Christianity from the evils of
ROME!
who is responsible for fluoridation -- they're putting it in children's ice cream, Mandrake, did you know that? -- and ...
/s
I can believe a Pope did such a thing, as the Pope is human. Look below for further references. As for Elizabeth, she was human, as well.
2) Can you actually find a reputable source with documentation that shows Gregory XIII conspired to murder Elizabeth? Your “source”, Linda Alchin, shows no actual evidence and just makes an assertion. Who were the conspirators? What are the documentary sources?
Each faith harbored grievances against the other. Her Protestant councilors increasingly felt that Catholics were political traitors, as if their very faith implied a lack of patriotism. They warned Elizabeth that the pope commanded her Catholic subjects, not she; only a swift and strong blow could ensure their fear and forced loyalty. But for the queen, her Catholic subjects were also, quite simply, subjects. If they recognized her rule, she had no qualms about their private worship. Let them go publicly to Protestant services and then do as they wished at home. So long as they did not rebel, she was content not to pry.
http://englishhistory.net/tudor/monarchs/eliz3.html
No blame, therefore, attaches to Gregory XIII for trying to depose the queen by force of arms. As early as 1578 he sent Thomas Stukeley with a ship and an army of 800 men to Ireland, but the treacherous Stukeley joined his forces with those of King Sebastian of Portugal against Emperor Abdulmelek of Morocco. Another papal expedition which sailed to Ireland in 1579 under the command of James Fitzmaurice, accompanied by Nicholas Sanders as papal nuncio, was equally unsuccessful.
"I would now argue, in the light of the debates and evidence following Hitler's Pope, that Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by the Germany."
That makes all the difference in the world, because the motive for his "silence" (which wasn't really all that silent) was to preserve innocent lives.
Let's see, 1 John says "cleanse", you guys say "cover" ... whom shall I believe ... it's a tough choice, Dr. Eckleburg or the beloved disciple ... hmmm ... gotta think about it ...
The context of Ps 91 is God's protection in danger, not soteriology. But why bother to interpret Scripture in context ... ????
You wrote:
“Nope. Campion told us that Hitler’s baptism into the RCC made him a Catholic even if he was excommunicated.”
I have no idea what you mean and don’t know what Campion said. I do know that what I said was correct. I also know that - if you are accurately relating Campion’s words - we are not contradicting one another. Hitler was a baptized Catholic. As such he was subject to canon law. He still had no relationship to the Church for he received no sacraments, was under excommunication and persecuted the Church’s members.
“Time to get the story straight.”
My story always is straight. Time for you to learn the facts. The real problem is that you don’t know what excommunication is, how it works, what it means, nor do you know the facts of Hitler’s persecution of the Church.
Please briefly describe what the Catholic church believes about purgatory and of praying on behalf of souls there.
If the Catholic church no longer believes such things, I stand corrected.
Yes he does, but admitting it would spoil all the glee he has in trashing Christ's Church.
Here is some interesting data showing who in Germany supported the Nazis and helped bring them to power:
It’s glaringly obvious they don’t have any defense for poor ol’ Luther.
I’m sorry, but all sins cause man to fall short of God and all sins can prevent one from Heaven, according to Scripture.
If Hitler wasn’t a Catholic, then he had nothing from which to be excommunicated. He, if never accepting of God and Christ, would be destined to Hell, regardless of the praying of people after his death (perhaps while in Purgatory).
Ping to #171.
"she had no qualms about their private worship"?
Catholics were compelled to attend Anglican services under force of law, and compelled to receive Anglican Communion, something a Catholic cannot do.
For a priest to say Mass or hear confessions was treason punishable by death.
Sheltering a priest was also treason punishable by death.
My namesake, St. Edmund Campion, protested at his trial that he had no reluctance to recognize Elizabeth as his sovereign and respectfully disagreed with the Pope's decree in that regard.
He was executed anyway.
Bookmark
Hey! No fair. Don’t confuse the issue with facts! < /sarcasm>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.