“700 Club” Errs on Catholic Church and Hitler

http://www.catholicleague.org/ ^ | April 23, 2013 | Bill Donohue

[NKP_Vet]

In a segment titled “God and Hitler,” Gordon Robertson (son of Rev. Pat Robertson), hosted a discussion on the Catholic Church’s response to Hitler. Several errors of fact were made.

1) It is wrong to paint Hitler as a Catholic. Though he was baptized, he excommunicated himself, latae sententiae, when he sought, in his words, to “crush [the Catholic Church] like a toad.” He made good on his pledge by persecuting 8,000 priests, over 500 of whom were killed in concentration camps. He also sought to assassinate the pope.

2) The 1933 Nazi-Vatican Concordat was not a show of solidarity. As Rabbi David Dalin has shown, it was a protective measure designed to protect German Catholics from persecution. In fact, at least 34 letters of protest were sent from the Vatican to the Nazis between 1933 and 1937, culminating in a 1937 encyclical that condemned Nazi violations of the Concordat and its racial ideology. It was smuggled out of Italy and distributed on Palm Sunday to Catholics in Germany. Nothing like this happened in Protestant churches in Germany.

3) It is not true that Hitler met resistance from Protestants alone. There are 800,000 trees planted in Israel that represent the 800,000 Jews saved by the Catholic Church. None have been planted as a tribute to Protestants. During the war, the New York Times twice said the Church was “a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent”; Albert Einstein also singled out the Church during the war. After the war, Golda Meir praised the work of the Church, as did the ADL, the World Jewish Congress, and scores of other Jewish organizations.

4) It is factually wrong to say the Vatican archives have “never been seen.” Many scholars have had access. As for Pope Pius XII being “Hitler’s Pope,” it should be noted that John Cornwell, the ex-seminarian who originated this term, retracted it years ago. So why does “The 700 Club” continue to cite it?

[Elsie]

Trinity, transubstantiation, the necessity of baptism, homosexuality, abortion, birth control ordination of women, primacy of Peter, the necessity of Christ's Church, etc., ad infinitum.

You guys SURE make it tough!!

---

 

John 6:28-29

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

---

1 John 3:21-24

Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

[boatbums]

Unprovable to what standard? The Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth"? Or Elsie's infallible standard?

Yes, the Body of Christ (the church of the Living God) is supposed to be where one finds the truth supported and upheld, but nowhere does Scripture say the church is the creator or inventor of the truth. It's not up to the church to decide what is or is not the truth - that is what God gave us His sacred, inspired word to do. If the church presumes to make up what is the truth to be followed and believed by all Christians, then they are exceeding their role as the buttress and support of the truth. If any church stops being that, they cannot be the church as Scripture defines it. When Jesus spoke about taking a brother one has an issue with to the "church", I think it is pretty obvious that this meant their local congregation of which both were members - else how could their decision hold any weight? I highly doubt Jesus had a monolithic, central organization in mind when he gave this remedy for personal disputes.

We have many examples of the failure of the Roman Catholic Church to uphold the truth as God revealed it. Rather than hearing and accepting this, many Catholics prefer to stop up their ears, close their eyes and repeat the mantra that ONLY their church is the true one and whatever they say MUST be true. "Just trust us on this - wink, wink."

[Elsie]

The hypocrisy is astounding!

Listening to what our FR Catholics have been taught; then the seven churches mentioned in Revelation were Catholic.

[Elsie]

Please, do show proof of your claim that nazi/hitler were fans of Luther because Luther hated Jews....

Lots of FR folks HATE Muslims...

Are any of them Catholic?

[GeronL]

bump

[Natural Law]

"There is but one Gospel, in this dispensation."

There is but one Gospel, PERIOD!

"There Is No Other Gospel"

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!"

"Am I now seeking human approval, or God’s approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ."

- Galatians 1:6-10

Peace be with you

[metmom]

Probably cherry picking verses does impugn on your credibility.

There’s more to that passage you quoted than just that one verse. Verses need to be taken in context. Taking them out of context leads to error in interpretation.

Any believer in Jesus IS the church. An organization is not.

[smvoice]

Natural, you are giving me the ONE GOSPEL of this dispensation of the grace of God. Congratulations! Now, tell me what the gospel of the circumcision is, the gospel of the uncircumcision is, the gospel of the grace of God is, the gospel of the kingdom is, etc. They are ALL in God’s Word. And like I said in my previous post, God distinguishes them. I didn’t name them, HE did.

[metmom]

There are countless Protestant sects with important doctrinal differences.

Give us some specific examples please.

That kind of charge is constantly being thrown out there but rarely, if ever, are specific examples forthcoming.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Faith without works is dead.

There's a reason why Luther initially removed that from his Bible.

[metmom]

What differences? Seriously? Trinity, transubstantiation, the necessity of baptism, homosexuality, abortion, birth control ordination of women, primacy of Peter, the necessity of Christ's Church, etc., ad infinitum.

Well, you were talking about differences between PROTESTANT denominations.

Are those all differences between each other or them and Catholicism?

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

How about you give me a doctrine that all Protestants agree on, except for "we're not Catholics."

Episcopalians don't believe in "sola scriptura," and Oneness Pentecostals don't believe in the Trinity.

What's left?

[metmom]

The very Bible that the Catholic church claims it wrote has instructions on what to do with the immoral brother, and yet, immoral priests get a pass, if their *intent* is right.

After all, once a priest, always a priest. Right?

Astounding hypocrisy indeed.

[smvoice]

I won't make you wait, Natural. Or look it up for yourself.

1. The gospel of the kingdom takes us back to David, with whom the covenant of the kingdom was made.

2. The gospel of the circumcision takes us back BEFORE David to Abraham, with whom the covenant of circumcision was made.

3. The gospel of the uncircumcision takes us back before David and Abraham to Abram who, as an UNcircumcised heathen, was justified by faith.

4. The message of reconciliation (the gospel of the grace of God) takes us back before David, Abraham and Abram to ADAM, the "one man" by whom the world was alienated from God.

5. The mystery (The gospel of God) takes us back before David, before Abraham, before Abram, before Adam to GOD HIMSELF and "the good pleasure of His will."

There is also "my gospel" that Paul writes of through the Holy Spirit. Whereby we will ALL be judged one day. The ONE GOSPEL of today.

All of the are dispensational, BTW.

[metmom]

As simple as Ephesians 2:8&9 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Paul never specified what kind of works.

Works are works. If the OT law, which pointed to Christ, could not save, no other works could either.

It leaves one wondering, if the works Jesus referred to in the Beatitudes could contribute to salvation, they why the Law? Why not just give those at the very beginning and forget the other parts of the OT law completely?

What Jesus did was show the intent of the Law handed down to Moses. Jesus never established a new law anyway; He set the bar higher showing that it isn't a matter of outward action, but the heart.

[metmom]

Faith without works is dead.

True because saving faith produces works (fruit).

Works are not added to procure salvation, they are the evidence OF the salvation.

[metmom]

You first.

However, seeing as the Roman Church and the EO don’t even agree on some stuff that Roman considers critical, and yet still considers the EO as Catholic, why then should differences between Protestant denominations be of any import?

Just out of curiosity, do you consider ANY denomination which claims to be Christian and is not Catholic, *Protestant*? Because we Christians on this board don’t. There are lots of denominations which exist which do not fall into the category of classic Protestant.

[boatbums]

Faith without works is dead. There's a reason why Luther initially removed that from his Bible.

Though Luther questioned the canonicity of the book of James and he was not alone in that - both Eusebius and Jerome raised or confirmed similar doubts to the apostolicity and canonicity of James - he nonetheless did NOT exclude it from his German translation of the Bible. He, at first, had the same misunderstanding of James' words that Roman Catholics continue to have to this day. Luther did eventually arrive at a reconciliation between Paul and James:

Luther sees a contradiction between Paul and James, though he did become aware of the solution. Roland Bainton has pointed out, “Once Luther remarked that he would give his doctor's beret to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul. Yet he did not venture to reject James from the canon of Scripture, and on occasion earned his own beret by effecting a reconciliation. ‘Faith,’ he wrote, ‘is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith’”[62] Paul Althaus agrees: “[Luther] also agrees with James that if no works follow it is certain that true faith in Christ does not live in the heart but a dead, imagined, and self-fabricated faith.”[63] In The Disputation Concerning Justification, Luther answered this spurious proposition: “Faith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead [Jas. 2:17, 26]. Therefore, dead faith justifies.” Luther responded:

“The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, “faith” ought to be placed with the word “justifies” and the portion of the sentence “without works justifies” is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word “justifies,” not to “faith.” In the minor premise, “without works” is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a reigned faith. “Without works” is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works.” (http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm#a6)

The trouble today is that the Roman Catholic apologist regularly cites this one verse from James as if to totally annihilate all the other verses in Scripture that confirm it is faith in Christ alone that justifies us. Properly understood, and Luther did, James confirms that genuine faith WILL result in a changed life - one that does good because it is within the new, spirit nature to do them to the glory of God.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Trinity

Oneness Pentecostals are not Trinitarians.

transubstantiation

Transubstantiation: Anglican. Consubstantiation: Lutheran. Lord's Supper: other denominations.

the necessity of baptism

Some Protestants don't Baptize, but have "dedications."

homosexuality, abortion,

Varies by sect.

birth control

OK, all Protestant sects have changed their position since the 1933 Lambeth Conference, when all Protestant denominations must have divided the Word of God improperly.

ordination of women

Varies by sect.

the necessity of Christ's Church

Some sects claim to be the True Church.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The fact remains, the only unifying belief of Protestantism is "we're not Catholic."

Protestantism can only be defined as "Non-Catholic Christians." To go beyond that, one must divide by sect.

[Natural Law]

"All of the are dispensational, BTW."

The problem is that you have to begin by removing Galatians 3 among other things, from the Bible before considering Dispensationalism. I am not willing, whether by the reformation or their offshoots in the last 150 years, to see the Canon of Scripture established by the Holy Spirit acting through the Catholic Church altered to fit a particular theology or doctrine.

Peace be with you.