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 ...
Some protestants are liberals. But there are many more of us who are not.
Yes, and???
You wrote:
“Some protestants are liberals. But there are many more of us who are not.”
Protestantism is Liberal.
I don't think anyone here is pretending Catholics were so innocent. Most of the objections have been focused on false condemnations of the Pope. Did he take perfect action during the war? No - but who did? Did he do all the things he's being accused of on this thread? No. We are objecting to those false accusations.
You wrote:
“Yes, and???”
And what? You asked a question and I gave an answer. If you actually have a case to make why don’t you make it? Afraid?
I don’t cook anymore. But my husband DOES make the BEST macaroni and cheese around. Smile.
Can’t you do better than that?
Well, at least Dr. E knows WHAT to cut and paste, hmmm?
Of course I can.
Nope. Never afraid.
Bullcrap.
I'm glad Christians actually have the Logos of God for our leader.
That's an excellent question, especially since it's asked of a religious leader of millions. Here's a line from another book (which I haven't read nor own) that seems to ask the same question you do...
"If the Catholic Church is merely considered as a political institution that has to calculate the outcome of its decisions in terms of instrumental rationality, then Pius's choice may be deemed reasonable in view of the risks entailed. If, however, the Catholic Church also represents a moral stand, as it claims, mainly in moments of major crisis, and thus has to move on such occasions from the level of institutional interests to that of moral witnessing, then of course Pius's choice should be assessed differently."From "The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945" by Saul Friedlander:
"So we beat on, boats against the current, born back ceaselessly into the past."
Or this one...
"If personality were an unbroken series of successful gestures, then there was something gorgeous about him."
That's from memory so I may be off a word or two.
I also like the description of the oculist when compared to what John Calvin said about Scripture and spectacles...
"For by the Scripture as our guide and teacher, God not only makes those things plain which would otherwise escape our notice, but almost compels us to behold them; as if he had assisted our dull sight with spectacles." -- JOHN CALVIN "Commentary on Genesis" Vol. I
lol. You offered the glowing review of La Popessa; I didn't. And now you're asking my opinion of that glowing review?
Apparently you want us to believe the good reviews, and also to believe the bad reviews. Strange.
No, I don't think La Popessa vindicates Pacelli from his sins of omission as well as his sins of commission. Far from it. I think the book stands in testimony to one pretty strange couple who lived together for 50 years.
Read the book for yourself. As I said, I thought it was fascinating.
If you look at the resume of Pius XII prior to 1940, his appointments were mostly political. He negotiated treaties with the various European political entities on behalf of the Vatican to protect the property and the educational institutions of the Roman Catholic Church, much like what is going on at this moment with Saudi Arabia.
Yep, that seems clear enough from this thread alone. Deny, defend, diminish, distort, defame, dismiss.
That must be, too, one of the reasons Daniel Goldhagen titled his book, "The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and it's Unfulfilled Duty of Repair."
I've never met a catholic liberal. (eyes roll)
Traditions of Men.
It is rather apparent that the Pope was politically astute. But it seems to me the high office of the Pope should be more than anything else a spiritual one - that his greatest responsibility would be to Jesus and His Church, the Faith.
In a world torn apart by hate and war, people everywhere should be able to look to the Pope as a rock - one who particularly loves God surpassingly above all else, believes Him and trusts Him despite walking in "the valley of the shadow of death."
If he failed, it was in blinking.
I pray that as this world is falling into worldwide hate and terror, that Pope Benedict will not blink.
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.