Posted on 03/15/2008 10:17:55 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper
More than once during these talks I referred to Luther and what always occurred to me as his destructive influence. I pointed out that even in such an admirable book as Rohan Butler's “The Roots of National Socialism” the spiritual origins of Nazism and Luther's influence had not been given the necessary importance. Then I was asked if I would be prepared to elaborate to them—about a dozen of the very senior boys, that is—my own views on Luther and Lutheranism. I agreed—with the proviso that they would be my own views and nothing else. Admittedly, I had read more on Luther and about Luther than on most other subjects. But I wanted to make it quite clear that I would not speak to them with the voice of a great authority, but would merely give them my own interpretation. I told them, moreover, that I should try to prove how dangerous it is to accept legends; and that the picture I had of Luther and his influence was thoroughly contradictory of the customary Luther of the legend.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicapologetics.info ...
Now if he was in Purgatory he still couldn’t be “prayed out”. Only God can do that, not the prayers of human beings.Our prayers have no value? God doesn't listen? He never gr4ants prayers?
641 posts? You just had to throw rocks at the hive, didn’t you? :^D
>> All he needed in the bunker was a priest, a wafer, some wine, and say a couple of Hail Mary’s and he went right to Heaven. <<
By that same logic, if he were Protestant, he wouldn’t even need the priest, wafer, or wine. And he’d suffer absolutely no temporal consequences for his evil actions, either.
The truth really sucks some times. Denial is a poor defense.
You wrote:
“The truth really sucks some times. Denial is a poor defense.”
Please tell me how a photo makes your case. Come to think of it, what is your case because you don’t seem to even be attempting one?
Do you think you could muster up an argument?
“Table Talk” was a real eye-opener for me when I was a Lutheran.
That being said: this is Holy Week. I’m not going to bicker with fellow Christians during Holy Week. Luther was an anti-semite and a heretic, but that’s more a German thing than a Lutheran thing. I think it unfair to call Martin Luther “Hitler’s Spiritual Ancestor”; whatever else the arch-heretic was, it is certain that he was no state-worshiper (which is what a fascist is).
A letter written in 1919 by Pacelli when he was nuncio in Munich, which Cornwell calls "a ticking time bomb" and proof of anti-Semitism, appeared in print several years before Cornwell started his research. The letter reports an attack on the Munich nunciature by a band of communist thugs led by "a young Russian Jew: pale, dirty, with vacant eyes, hoarse voice, vulgar, repulsive, with a face that is both intelligent and sly." This description is by an aide not by Pacelli (who did not witness the incident). Though this language has been criminalized by today's language police, it was hardly remarkable eighty years ago. Moreover it correctly states the facts. It no more proves Pacelli's lifelong anti-Semitism than incidents from his early schooling, which Rychlak shows that Cornwell has either misunderstood or misinterpreted.
Rychlak also demonstrates that Cornwell misrepresents Pacelli's role (as papal Secretary of State) and motives in negotiating the Holy See's Concordat with Hitler in July 1933. Cornwell's source is the German Protestant Klaus Scholder, whose work is available in English translation, and whom Cornwell calls "unchallenged in German scholarship." In fact, Scholder's work has been decisively refuted by two German Catholic historians whose works remain untranslated: the late Ludwig Volk SJ and Konrad Repgen. (Cornwell appears to have used no German sources at all.)
The initiative for the Concordat came not from Rome (as Cornwell, following Scholder, claims) but from Hitler. Far from weakening the resistance of German Catholics to Hitler, as Cornwell contends, the treaty contained protections for the church, eagerly desired at the time by the German bishops. Moreover, Pacelli was more realistic about the value of Hitler's promises than most political leaders, telling the British Minister to the Holy See that while he expected Hitler to violate some of the Concordat's provisions, he probably would not violate all of them at the same time. Cornwell makes much of Pius XII's supposed indifference to the roundup of Roman Jews by the Nazis on October 16, 1943, shown (Cornwell contends) by the Pope's failure to mention this in a conversation with the American official Harold Tittmann the very next day. Though Tittmann's published report is dated October 17, this is clearly erroneous. The Vatican records show that the conversation took place October 14. Rychlak writes: "The Pope did not mention the roundup of Jews because it had not yet happened." In fact, thousands of Roman Jews were saved by the Pope. When Robert Katz (another star witness for Cornwell) claimed the contrary after Pius XII's death, his niece won an action for libel from the Italian Supreme Court. Cornwell falsely claims that the verdict was "inconclusive."
I think you should just answer my simple questions.
What case are you ineffectively trying to make by posting a photo?
If you can’t answer that question then you’re just proving my point.
The more someone digs into Cornwell’s book the more obvious it is that Cornwell was lying and/or an outrageously bad scholar.
Thanks so much for posting these detailed passages showing his book’s flaws.
You are not dealing in truth, only smears.
You repeat Cornwell's lies. No surprise.
Excommunication, as stated in the Catholic encyclopedia--
"Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion -- exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence. Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Christian society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society."
Sorry it contains a lot of big words, but with a careful reading I am sure even you can grasp it...j/k
And Obama’s Church? What is the root of that evil?
The root of ALL evil is Satan.
Please tell Catholics to stop wasting their time praying for people in Purgatory, then.
As you said, “...he can’t be ‘prayed out’. Only God can do that, not the prayers of human beings.”
bump
You wrote:
“Please tell Catholics to stop wasting their time praying for people in Purgatory, then. As you said, “...he can’t be ‘prayed out’. Only God can do that, not the prayers of human beings.””
The operative word being “he”. Hitler. There is no reason to believe Hitler is in purgatory.
Why do you have to be dishonest and imply that anyone here was talking about someone other than Hitler?
No that’s not what I meant at all. It’s wonderful to pray for people but I just meant that the ultimate judgment is up to God.
Sorry I can’t resist this one. Okay so where did Satan’s evil come from? He’s not eternal, so if he’s the root of all evil whence the evil in his heart?
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.