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 ...
I’ve already told you what I think of that photo. It looks like the priests were kowtowing to Hitler and his minions.
Ah, just another drive-by shooter. Pepper us with slick accusations, but don't back them up. Deliver the cheap shot in the hopes to do damage, then cut and run.
Do you happen to be a Calvinist?
***Ah - the argument from ignorance.***
Yes, I refuse to discuss FDR, that has nothing to do with what a Pope did or did not do, and I’m ignorant. Thank you for amazing me with your profound display of logic.
***LOL - 500 years, and we haven’t come any farther.***
Don’t you think I’d like it if Catholics en masse repented of Catholicism and joined the truth in Christ’s Church? Some people are just slower coming around to the truth. But, not to worry, you will embrace the doctrines known as Calvinism in heaven. We’ve been patient so far, waiting for y’all to catch up. What’s a few more years?
Dumbest thread ever.
***Ah, just another drive-by shooter. Pepper us with slick accusations, but don’t back them up. Deliver the cheap shot in the hopes to do damage, then cut and run.***
Given the way you Catholics have acted so far, I see no reason to have a conversation. I addressed a fellow Presbyterian.
***Do you happen to be a Calvinist?***
No, I just play one on FR to be edgy.
IT LOOKS LIKE. There it is folks, that's what they have. Innuendo. Accusations. Appearances. Insinuation.
T: but that isn’t what’s under discussion, is it? The discussion has been focused recently on the actions/failures of a single person, Pacelli/Pius XII.
So to present an accurate picture of the leader of your church, Lutheranism is accused of being intrinsically antisemitic, the USA is accused of practicing similar policies with the internment of the Japanese, and your leader is claimed to be the only one who took action and saved more by keeping his mouth shut. It's ridiculous.
It seems to me he could have done a heck of a lot more and yes so could everyone else. It doesn't make him evil, just a fallible human like the rest of us.
Now, take a look at your church's position on the WOT. Is it following the same pattern? I see these muslim terrorists as being the same as the nazis were prior to gaining power. The ideology is different, but the concept of death to all who disagree is the same.
I am going to try and pursue truth, as I hope all would.
The way we have acted? LOL. Here are some drive-by quips from you:
Of course not. Facts aren't important. If you all can just lay out the slick accusations, you've accomplished your task. It's a drive-by alright.
No, I just play one on FR to be edgy.
You are meeting all expectations.
Stone thrower it is.
You wrote:
“What color is the sky in your world? I haven’t discussed FDR at all and, frankly, refuse to do so.”
I didn’t say you did. But you are at the very least justifying his inaction according to your own logic. If you think - as you said - that mentioning FDR was not too helpful in saving Jews is an attempt to cover up the shame of Catholics on the “evil actions” of their leaders in the same regard, then at the very least your refusal to admit that FDR and other Americans were not so hot in their pursuit of defending Jews must mean you are trying to justify their failures - that is, if we use your own logic. are you now recanting your own logic and remarks? Please let me know.
“It has absolutely nothing with how good or evil some Pope was. It is a non-issue.”
Apparently it is an issue if we use your own logic. Also, doesn’t the pope, Pius XII, have to be proven evil before it can be assessed that someone is trying to avoid that as an issue? When was that proven? In what post exactly?
“I realize that Catholics are duty bound to defend their Popes.”
We are? According to whom? Are you just making things up now?
“That doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to be starry-eyed.”
But apparently you wnat to be. After all you claimed we were trying “to justify the evil actions of their leadership, have simply taken to attacking America and past Presidents during WWII.”
Apparently you have a rather starry eyed view of the former presidents and American history in regard to Jews around 1938-1945. I don’t.
“And, it doesn’t mean we have to be distracted by Catholic attempts to try and confuse things.”
Oh, so pointing out that Pius XII saved over 800,000 Jews while FDR skipped easy opportunities to save Jews is confusing the issue? No, it is hitting at the exact problem - Pius was a hero but is no longer granted that status because of anti-Catholic sentiment.
“I have this thing called a free choice and don’t have to bow down before any leader in my church.”
I have free choice as well, but I have no inherent right to grasp on to sin and call it other than sin. I have no inherent right to grasp onto rebellion and call it freedom. Christ sent a Church. That Church has authority and I gladly respect it because it was sent by Christ. If you think you can exercise your free will against the power authorities Christ sent with complete impunity in this world or the next then you don’t understand what the Church is, Who sent it, Who died to be able to sent it out into the world, and what its for. And I wouldn’t be surprised at all. As I once heard a Protestant minsiter say in a recording of a debate with a Catholic: The Reformation was about freedom, not truth. I agree. It was about freedom, but without truth what kind of freedom will a man have?
You wrote:
“I’ve already told you what I think of that photo. It looks like the priests were kowtowing to Hitler and his minions.”
That’s your whole case? So now a salute is kowtowing? I sure hope you don’t tell people in the military this.
You wrote:
“IT LOOKS LIKE. There it is folks, that’s what they have. Innuendo. Accusations. Appearances. Insinuation.”
And lies. Don’t forget their lies!
***I didn’t say you did. But you are at the very least justifying his inaction according to your own logic.***
I have done nothing of the sort. And, yes, in order to justify FDR’s action or inaction, you have to discuss FDR.
Look, all of you Catholics are free to think that the campaign we call WWII was a colossal failure for all I care. It has nothing to do with any Pope. Which is why I had and have no intention to discuss FDR.
Discuss it all you want. All it does it make you, well, sound just like a liberal. Go ahead if it floats your boat.
***We are? According to whom? Are you just making things up now?***
Fine, prove me wrong. Start talking critical about the Vicar of Christ. We will see just how critical you can be of your Popes. If you feel that your duty is not to defend the Vicar of Christ, but, rather it is your duty to be critical of him and attack him, then I away the performance of your duty.
***Apparently you have a rather starry eyed view of the former presidents and American history in regard to Jews around 1938-1945. I don’t.***
Yes, my refusal to discuss FDR’s action means I have a starry-eyed view of him. LOL! This is bordering on the absurd, which, lucky for you, is why I continue to read. It is entertaining.
***You did with your first post. Did you forget?***
Yeah, I must have forgot the part where I discussed what FDR did or didn’t do to or for the Jews in WWII. Perhaps you might refresh my memory.
***No, I haven’t given much thought to what you’d like, now that you mention it. :)***
Alright, now, don’t get flirty with me. I know we Calvinists are all that, but, really, what would people think. ;^)
Sad to say, it looks that way.
Four hundred thousand Americans, no doubt relatives of you and me and all of us, died to bring peace to this earth, and yet the RCC seems to be saying it wasn't enough.
Pacelli's silence, however, they deem appropriate and productive.
Wow. And they say Obama has a problem with his conspiracy-minded pastor.
Pius XII was saving more than 800,000 Jews
A number pulled from the ether. It is fiction. Quix says he saved 300,000 and blue-duncan another 250,000 (his numbers are lower since he was busy writing the Magna Carta).
Disprove it.
Pius XII was targeted by Hitler for kidnapping or assassination.
Lucky for Pacelli, we know what bad shots those nazis were. If Hitler wanted you dead, you had a pretty good chance of surviving. If you were a sympathizer, that is, and not a Jew.
And yet he had no great army to defend him!
Obviously, Pacelli didn't need an army. He not only survived; he THRIVED into decrepitude!
Hitler hated him, wanted to kill him and could easily have done so
"Easily?" That really begs the question.
Why didn't Hitler kill Pacelli? Why are there no stories about death threats or evil plots against Pacelli, etc., if Hitler hated him so much?
The answer is obvious. Pacelli was a willing and useful tool in the hands of national socialism. He was protected.
Oh, dear! Now we've gone and exposed another hole in the story. I suppose we should prepare ourselves for some "long-lost documents" that will soon emerge which reveal "for the first time anywhere" intricate death threats made against the slumbering Pacelli by all those inept nazis he saluted.
You wrote:
“I have done nothing of the sort. And, yes, in order to justify FDR’s action or inaction, you have to discuss FDR.”
Actually you did essentially try to justify FDR according to your own logic.
“Look, all of you Catholics are free to think that the campaign we call WWII was a colossal failure for all I care.”
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Is that what any of us EVER even remotely suggested? No. So why imply that we did?
“It has nothing to do with any Pope. Which is why I had and have no intention to discuss FDR.”
But you responded to a post that mentioned FDR. You made a false distinction and now you don’t want to deal with it.
“Discuss it all you want. All it does it make you, well, sound just like a liberal. Go ahead if it floats your boat.”
And again, the false implication. Defending Pius does not make anyone a liberal since it is liberals who are pushing the lies against him. And aren’t you acting like the liberal by making false implications, false distinctions, and then refusing to discuss what you yourself posted?
“Fine, prove me wrong. Start talking critical about the Vicar of Christ.”
What? So, to prove you wrong I have to prove you right? I have to attack a pope (which one?) just to show that I am not duty bound to defend the popes? What if I choose to defend the popes of my own free will rather than because of any supposed sense of duty? Did that even occur to you? No, of course not. And, by the way, what exactly am I supposed to attack? Should I attack the personal sins of popes - their illegitimate children and greed in the Middle Ages perhaps - or should I attack their defense of Catholic doctrine? I have no problem whatsoever admitting that some popes have been terrible sinners who horribly abused their office. I have no doubt whatsoever that that was the case for several popes and that many more popes, although not the worst sinners, were bad enough men, and poor administrators to boot. I have no difficulties, however, with their defense of Catholic doctrine.
Now, I can freely, and easily admit that some popes were terrible men. If only one-tenth of what was said of Pope John XII was true then he was a rotten man and a terrible pope. I have no problem whatsoever saying that. Even the current pope, Pope Benedict XVI, has been too lax for my liking. He believe he has given the SSPXers too many chances. He should simply excommunicate them. I think he should act faster to regularize sedevacantists who want to come home like Terence Fulham. I think Benedict XVI is probably wasting his time with those Muslim scholars because they don’t actually represent Muslims since there is no such thing as a structure within Islam. I hope Benedict XVI slaps the American bishops in the head about giving communion to pro-abort politicians!
Now, I have no problem saying these things about popes when they are warranted. I wouldn’t even have a problem saying it to the pope’s face if I had the chance - and most popes actually have been open to such conversations believe it or not.
“We will see just how critical you can be of your Popes.”
Again, you’re assuming I need to be critical. I have listsed some of my criticisms of Benedict XVI. Will you claim they are not up to your standards now? Is that it?
“If you feel that your duty is not to defend the Vicar of Christ, but, rather it is your duty to be critical of him and attack him, then I away the performance of your duty.”
Neither is my duty. My duty is to the truth and its defense. I have no duty to defend any pope when he is wrong. I have every duty to defend anyone anytime he is right. I await your apology. Will you have the class and grace to offer it? You have been wrong about me since the beginning.
“Yes, my refusal to discuss FDR’s action means I have a starry-eyed view of him. LOL! This is bordering on the absurd, which, lucky for you, is why I continue to read. It is entertaining.”
Your refusal to defend your own ideas is what is entertaining. Will you have the courage to apologize for being wrong about me or will you try to worm out of it?
Let’s see.
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.