Posted on 11/03/2003 8:27:06 AM PST by Brian S
Oh, indeed. Who has debunked my "theory" that PIUS XII was the architect of the protocols, and adhered to them?
And here I was thinking that you were onto something. Instead, you are basing your theories on one bad Anthony Hopkins movie. The event you are talking about was so unusual and remarkable that it caused an international sensation. But it was a solitary event and laws were changed because of it. You acted like this sort of thing was commonplace. It was unfortunate, but it affected 1 person, and it took place in 1858, when slavery was still legal in the United States. You remind me of another guy on this site who hates Lincoln and cites "Gangs of New York" as evidence for why he was our worst President.
Let us review. "Voice of Jesus" is a shorthand for Papal Infallibility, which IS a doctrine of the catholic church, and is, as I have stated, only invoked upon cathedral pronouncements of grave formal presentment. You are once again caviling at irrelevancies because you prefer that to answering the central charges. I have demonstrated the common use of the term, do I really need to do your homework for you on the subject Papal Infallibility? Enough with this BS, pony up an argument or a fact or two, I'm a little tired of being your google fetchit boy.
This comming from you? You seem to have made discrediting the Catholic Church your life's work. And you are not even very good at it.
There you have it folks. This is what a ignorant bigot this guy is. IT should be noted that the whole purpose of excommunication is to help the sinner recognize the enormity of his sins, so he will seek forgiveness. As St. Paul wrote: "If any one refuses to obey our word by this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not look on him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother." (2 Thes 3:14-15). Someone like Hitler, who did not believe in the truth of Christianity, would simply shrug it off. There was no point in excommunicating Hitler, just as there has never been any point in excommunicating any truely evil man. It has not point.
Need a quote of Hitler renouncing all of Christianity? Here's one: "National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity." -July 1941
It should also be noted that previous Bulls had made the excommunication of a man guilty of Hitler's crimes implicit, and that the Council of German Bishops excommunicated all Nazis in 1930.
What, the ones that helped save 80% of Italian Jews?
Apparently so. Care to tell us where Papal Infallibility can be invoked? Hint: Never in matters of state.
Look, you are flat-out wrong here. The Church has been very clear on this matter.
A new chapter in the history of forced baptism began in 1543, with the establishment of the House of Catechumens in Rome, which rapidly took hold in other cities. Any person who, by whatever casuistry, could be considered to have shown an inclination towards Christianity, could be immure in the House of Cathecumens “to explore his intention,” all the while being submitted to unremitting pressure. A popular superstition which claimed that any person who secured the baptism of an unbeliever was assured of paradise, lead to a spate of such procedures throughout the Catholic world.
In the mid-18th century the Jesuits were the main enforcers of this practice. Several cases became infamous. In 1762 the son of the rabbi of Carpentras was pounced upon and baptized in ditch water, and thereafter lost to his family. The kidnapping for baptism of Terracina children in 1783 caused a revolt in the Roman ghetto. In 1858, Edgardo Mortara, aged six, was abducted by papal police from his family in Bologna, and taken to the House of Catechumens. The boy had been secretly baptized five years previously by a domestic servant who thought he was about to die. The parents tried in vain to get their child back. Napoleon III, Cavour and Franz Joseph were among those who protested and Moses Montefiore traveled to the Vatican in an unsuccessful attempt to release the child.
The founding of the Alliance Israélite Universelle in 1860 “to defend the civil rights of the Jews” was partly in reaction to this case. The pope rejected all petitions and by 1870, when his secular power came to an end, the boy had ceased to be Edgardo. He had taken the pope’s name (Pius), and had become a novice in the Augustinian order and an ardent conversionist in six languages. Mortara’s tragic end was his death in Belgium in 1940, weeks before the Nazi invasion, in this way narrowly avoiding an unwilling return to his Jewish roots.
In the Russian Empire during the second quarter of the 19th century, the institution of the Cantonists was introduces, which involved the virtual kidnapping for military service of Jewish male children from the age of 12, or even 8, with the explicit intention of compelling them to abandon Judaism.
from:
The Nature of Judeophobia
Gustavo D. Perednik
This twelve-lecture course is transmitted by Internet since 1997 when it was presented by "The Jewish University in Cyberspace." During 2000 and 2001, the book by Gustavo Perednik "Judeophobia" was published in Spanish. This course summarizes the core of the book.
see also:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=273&letter=C
Pray tell, how did the accords between Hitler and the Vatican, in which the church agreed to shut up about jews in return for nazi support "save 80% of the Italian Jews"?
This comming from you? You seem to have made discrediting the Catholic Church your life's work. And you are not even very good at it.
Answer the question put to you. What is disreputable about my source?
Not at all. You indicated that this practice was commonplace in the late 18th century. You used the plural "children." In fact it happened once and there were extenuating circumstances. BTW, there were no "Inquisators" in Rome in 1858, as the author suggests.
Not at all. You indicated that this practice was commonplace in the late 18th century. You used the plural "children." In fact it happened once and there were extenuating circumstances. BTW, there were no "Inquisators" in Rome in 1858, as the author suggests.
It's quite simple: When you make outlandish accusations, you need to provide corroboration from mainstream sources. The things you are saying about the Pope are not new. They have been around for decades, and debunked often. Why has the mainstream never embraced your theory? Because it is easily proven false.
Ah, progress on this front too, so now we acknoledge the existence of Papal infallibility. When Martin Luther and his followers and theses were condemned, and the protestant wars followed, was that an example of avoiding matters of state?
Look, you are flat-out wrong here. The Church has been very clear on this matter.
Wrong about what? Indeed the church has been clear, see the "We Remember" document.
from the catholic encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
If the Pope can condemn & commit genocide on the anabaptists in protestant Switzerland, it is very hard to see how there's some magic line between matters of state and doctrine the pope isn't permitted to trespass--the gist of your argument, I presume.
Papal infallibility means whatever the Pope declares it to mean, being infallible.
"Infallibility must be carefully distinguished both from Inspiration and from Revelation"
So, in fact, the Church does not speak with your oft-repeated "Voice of Jesus." You argued as point for 100 posts, and then provided a link that emphatically proved you were wrong. You can't stay out of your own way, can you? Do yourself a favor and don't supply any more links. You are better off when you are just BS-ing off the top of your head. I have 16+ years of Catholic schooling. You would be wise not to get into a debate on the policies of the Catholic Church with me, I am just much better armed.
So you've decided to just ignore the other sources? The inquisition was "disbanded" in 1834, however, it's offics & charter re-emerged as The Sacred Congregation of the Faith, which presently is the arm of the church that reviews heresy. I am, you will forgive me, more than a little skeptical that there weren't inquisitors in all but name in the holy see in 1858.
Make the connection between the accords and the italian jews. This is not a puzzle contest.
There is no such thing a "a litte bit fallible". If you are infallible, you can decide whether anything you say is "insiration", "revelation", or docrine. Answer the question asked. Were the wars against Lutheren countries and the genocide of the anabaptists questions of doctrine, inspiration, or revelation?
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.