Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pope Asserts Catholic Primacy
The Washington Times ^ | July 11, 2007 | LORENZAGO DI CADORE

Posted on 07/11/2007 7:32:55 AM PDT by kellynla

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 361-373 next last
To: wideawake

I believe the 4th Crusaders were doing the bidding of Venetian merchants who had financed their Crusade. In return these merchants wanted Constantinople removed, or at least seriously degraded as a merchant center. this would open up trade for Venice which, as is well known, would trade with the Devil or Islam for a profit in Ducats.


61 posted on 07/11/2007 9:16:33 AM PDT by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: meandog

Ever done anything boneheaded in your youth?

If you did, then does that nullify any Christian positions or beliefs that you currently hold?


62 posted on 07/11/2007 9:17:04 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: meandog

are those your words or someone else’s?
if someone else’s, you need to post a reference/link.


63 posted on 07/11/2007 9:21:49 AM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

http://atheism.about.com/od/benedictxvi/i/RatzingerNazi_2.htm


64 posted on 07/11/2007 9:27:43 AM PDT by meandog (If Hillary becomes president, remember to thank George Bush because he caused it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: meandog

There is some debate over the authenticity of Episcopalian claims to apostolic authority.

When Elizabeth I appointed Matthew Parker as the new Archbishop of Canterbury, with all the (converted) bishops (the ones left alive), one could argue that the apostolic succession failed at that point, since they removed themselves from the Church.


65 posted on 07/11/2007 9:30:30 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: meandog
ooooh....atheism.com...well that’s a reeeeeel credible source!

not only do you plagiarize but you plagiarize atheists!!!


66 posted on 07/11/2007 9:36:38 AM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Rii-i-i-ight...and the Roman church was soooooo critical of the Nazi regime in the 1940s when Ratzinger came on the scene!

67 posted on 07/11/2007 9:40:12 AM PDT by meandog (If Hillary becomes president, remember to thank George Bush because he caused it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: meandog
The Patriarch of Constantinople. Michael Cerularius, caused the rift when he rejected accepted theology and altered the Nicene Creed.

Actually, you have it backwards my friend. The filioque clause was inserted into the Nicene creed at the Third Council of Toledo in 589. It was rejected by all popes (bishops of Rome) from then until 1014, when Pope Benedict VIII officially inserted it under heavy pressure from Henry II, the Holy Roman Emperor.

This contributed to (but wasn't the only factor in) the Great Schism of 1054. Pope Leo IX sent Cardinal Humbertus of Silva Candida to Constantinople to reach an agreement with the Eastern patriarchates, but the Cardinal instead excommunicated Michael Celarius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. In return, the Patriarch excommunicated Humbertus.

68 posted on 07/11/2007 9:43:45 AM PDT by Doug Loss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
There is some debate over the authenticity of Episcopalian claims to apostolic authority. When Elizabeth I appointed Matthew Parker as the new Archbishop of Canterbury, with all the (converted) bishops (the ones left alive), one could argue that the apostolic succession failed at that point, since they removed themselves from the Church.

Well, let's see, hmmm-m-m-m, after Elizabeth there was Charles II & and James II--Roman catholics, James II being the last. I suppose their bishops didn't count either?

69 posted on 07/11/2007 9:47:33 AM PDT by meandog (If Hillary becomes president, remember to thank George Bush because he caused it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: meandog

You can bash Catholics & the Catholic Church all you want(it’s a free country thanks to millions of Catholics who fought and died to guarantee it). Unlike you, those Jews who are alive and were saved by Catholics and the Catholic Church KNOW the facts.

Your ignorant posts only give credence to my tagline.


70 posted on 07/11/2007 9:48:21 AM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Your pasted reprint here goes from the first (unnumbered) question about "subsistence" then jumps to the "Third Question"...

Please post/repost a complete and accurate text.... TIA

71 posted on 07/11/2007 9:55:33 AM PDT by Wings-n-Wind (The main things are the plain things!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: horse_doc
Hardly. They were almost entirely Normans.

You are completely uninformed.

Not only was there a large contingent of Orthodox involved, the bulk of the Latins were Venetians, not Normans - the non-Venetians were mostly Lombards and Flemings, with some Alsatians.

There were probably some Normans present - but "almost entirely Normans"? Please.

The dynastic dispute part was a polite fiction, so that the Crusaders could sack Durazzo to pay for their passage to Constantinople.

I see. So Alexios III conspiring against his uncle, the Emperor Andronikos and being forced into exile to live among his Muslim patrons never happened. His younger brother Isaac was never made emperor either, I guess. And he never deposed his younger brother after he returned from exile, nor did he hold his brother prisoner and put out his eyes. And Isaac's son was not really angry about his father being overthrown, imprisoned and mutilated.

That was all made up by Baldwin and Boniface - everyone in the Byzantine ruling family were getting along just fine, and everyone in the family was really happy that Alexios was sitting on the imperial throne.

In reality, there was a bitter dynastic dispute, and in reality Baldwin and Boniface didn't sack Durazzo.

Perhaps you are confused: Durazzo was actually sacked by Robert Guiscard - who was a Norman leading Normans, unlike Baldwin and Boniface and their troops - in 1081 in a battle with Alexios I or 123 years before the sack of Constantinople.

The Pope belately expressed his regret, but nobody believes that Rome wasn't thrilled to have the Greek Church "brought to heel".

Even if one were unkind enough to believe that the Pope viewed these matters solely from a geopolitical standpoint and not from a spiritual one, your analysis would still be completely wrong.

In the old rivalry between the Normans of Sicily and the Venetians, Innocent II was firmly on the side of the Sicilians who supported his agenda for defending the Papal patrimony against the encroachments of the northern Italian powers of Lombardy and Venice. Boniface - a Lombard prince - and the Doge of Venice were the Pope's political enemies. Their success threw a wrench into his geopolitical strategy.

Additionally, Innocent III was a vocal supporter of Otto's claim to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire against the claims of Philip of Swabia.

Boniface was Philip's cousin and main supporter in Italy.

Boniface's success in Constantinople helped bring about Philip's eventual crowning as Emperor, one of the most bitter moments of Innocent III's pontificate.

72 posted on 07/11/2007 9:56:02 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
You can bash Catholics & the Catholic Church all you want(it’s a free country thanks to millions of Catholics who fought and died to guarantee it). Unlike you, those Jews who are alive and were saved by Catholics and the Catholic Church KNOW the facts.

Not bashing "catholics" (as I consider myself one) but Roman Catholics who, like Ratzinger, proclaim "one true church" as a way to salvation...and is evasive about his past during the time the Nazis came to power in Germany. Incidentally, I am a great admirer of St. John-Paul II (who actually did save Jews when he was a Polish priest during World War II and actively resisted the Nazis).

73 posted on 07/11/2007 9:57:06 AM PDT by meandog (If Hillary becomes president, remember to thank George Bush because he caused it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: jbwbubba
I am aware of current and past events, including the Pope apologizing for weeks and saying he was only quoting someone else

The Pope did not apologize, and correctly pointed out that he was quoting the analysis of a real historical figure - an analysis which he continued to maintain warranted serious evaluation.

74 posted on 07/11/2007 9:57:45 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65

While these men were not actual Crusaders, you are of course correct that the sack of Constantinople was an intentional part of the Venetian strategy for controlling the Adriatic.


75 posted on 07/11/2007 9:59:02 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: meandog

Before you make a bigger fool out of yourself than you already have, try reading the facts.

How Pius XII Protected Jews

By Jimmy Akin

The twentieth century was marked by genocides on an monstrous scale. One of the most terrible was the Holocaust wrought by Nazi Germany, which killed an estimated six million European Jews and almost as many other victims.

During this dark time, the Catholic Church was shepherded by Pope Pius XII, who proved himself an untiring foe of the Nazis, determined to save as many Jewish lives as he could. Yet today Pius XII gets almost no credit for his actions before or during the war.

Anti-Catholic author Dave Hunt writes, “The Vatican had no excuse for its Nazi partnership or for its continued commendation of Hitler on the one hand and its thunderous silence regarding the Jewish question on the other hand. . . . [The popes] continued in the alliance with Hitler until the end of the war, reaping hundreds of millions of dollars in payments from the Nazi government to the Vatican.”[1]

Jack Chick, infamous for his anti-Catholic comic books, tells us in Smokescreens, “When World War II ended, the Vatican had egg all over its face. Pope Pius XII, after building the Nazi war machine, saw Hitler losing his battle against Russia, and he immediately jumped to the other side when he saw the handwriting on the wall. . . . Pope Pius XII should have stood before the judges in Nuremberg. His war crimes were worthy of death.”[2]

One is tempted simply to dismiss these accusations, so wildly out of touch with reality, as the deluded ravings of persons with no sense of historical truth. This would underestimate the power of such erroneous charges to influence people: Many take these writers at their word.

Stepping out of the nightmare fantasyland of Hunt and Chick and back into sunlight of the real world, we discover that, not only was Pius XII no friend of the Nazis, but that his opposition to them began years before the War, before he was elected to the papacy, when he was still Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, the Vatican Secretary of State.

On April 28, 1935, four years before the War even started, Pacelli gave a speech that aroused the attention of the world press. Speaking to an audience of 250,000 pilgrims in Lourdes, France, the future Pius XII stated that the Nazis “are in reality only miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel. It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of social revolution, whether they are guided by a false concept of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult.”[3] It was talks like this, in addition to private remarks and numerous notes of protest that Pacelli sent to Berlin in his capacity as Vatican Secretary of State, that earned him a reputation as an enemy of the Nazi party.

The Germans were likewise displeased with the reigning pontiff, Pius XI, who showed himself to be a unrelenting opponent of the new German “ideals”—even writing an entire encyclical, Mit Brennender Sorge (1937), to condemn them. When Pius XI died in 1939, the Nazis abhorred the prospect that Pacelli might be elected his successor.

Dr. Joseph Lichten, a Polish Jew who served as a diplomat and later an official of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, writes: “Pacelli had obviously established his position clearly, for the Fascist governments of both Italy and Germany spoke out vigorously against the possibility of his election to succeed Pius XI in March of 1939, though the cardinal secretary of state had served as papal nuncio in Germany from 1917 to 1929. . . . The day after his election, the Berlin Morgenpost said: ‘The election of cardinal Pacelli is not accepted with favor in Germany because he was always opposed to Nazism and practically determined the policies of the Vatican under his predecessor.’ “[4]

Former Israeli diplomat and now Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Pinchas Lapide states that Pius XI “had good reason to make Pacelli the architect of his anti-Nazi policy. Of the forty-four speeches which the Nuncio Pacelli had made on German soil between 1917 and 1929, at least forty contained attacks on Nazism or condemnations of Hitler’s doctrines. . . . Pacelli, who never met the Führer, called it ‘neo-Paganism.’ “[5]

A few weeks after Pacelli was elected pope, the German Reich’s Chief Security Service issued a then-secret report on the new Pope. Rabbi Lapide provides an excerpt:

“Pacelli has already made himself prominent by his attacks on National Socialism during his tenure as Cardinal Secretary of State, a fact which earned him the hearty approval of the Democratic States during the papal elections. . . . How much Pacelli is celebrated as an ally of the Democracies is especially emphasized in the French Press.”[6]

Unfortunately, joy in the election of a strong pope who would continue Pius XI’s defiance of the Nazis was darkened by the ominous political developments in Europe. War finally came on September 1, 1939, when German troops overran Poland. Two days later Britain and France declared war on Germany.

Early in 1940, Hitler made an attempt to prevent the new Pope from maintaining the anti-Nazi stance he had taken before his election. He sent his underling, Joachim von Ribbentrop, to try to dissuade Pius XII from following his predecessor’s policies. “Von Ribbentrop, granted a formal audience on March 11, 1940, went into a lengthy harangue on the invincibility of the Third Reich, the inevitability of a Nazi victory, and the futility of papal alignment with the enemies of the Führer. Pius XII heard von Ribbentrop out politely and impassively. Then he opened an enormous ledger on his desk and, in his perfect German, began to recite a catalogue of the persecutions inflicted by the Third Reich in Poland, listing the date, place, and precise details of each crime. The audience was terminated; the Pope’s position was clearly unshakable.”[7]

The Pope secretly worked to save as many Jewish lives as possible from the Nazis, whose extermination campaign began its most intense phase only after the War had started. It is here that the anti-Catholics try to make their hay: Pius XII is charged either with cowardly silence or with outright support of the Nazi extermination of millions of Jews.

Much of the impetus to smear the Vatican regarding World War II came, appropriately enough, from a work of fiction—a stage play called The Deputy, written after the War by a little-known German Protestant playwright named Rolf Hochhuth.

The play appeared in 1963, and it painted a portrait of a pope too timid to speak out publicly against the Nazis. Ironically, even Hochhuth admitted that Pius XII was materially very active in support of the Jews. Historian Robert Graham explains: “Playwright Rolf Hochhuth criticized the Pontiff for his (alleged) silence, but even he admitted that, on the level of action, Pius XII generously aided the Jews to the best of his ability. Today, after a quarter-century of the arbitrary and one-sided presentation offered the public, the word ‘silence’ has taken on a much wider connotation. It stands also for ‘indifference,’ ‘apathy,’ ‘inaction,’ and, implicitly, for anti-Semitism.”[8]

Hochhuth’s fictional image of a silent (though active) pope has been transformed by the anti-Catholic rumor mill into the image of a silent and inactive pope—and by some even into an actively pro-Nazi monster. If there were any truth to the charge that Pius XII was silent, the silence would not have been out of moral cowardice in the face of the Nazis, but because the Pope was waging a subversive, clandestine war against them in an attempt to save Jews.

“The need to refrain from provocative public statements at such delicate moments was fully recognized in Jewish circles. It was in fact the basic rule of all those agencies in wartime Europe who keenly felt the duty to do all that was possible for the victims of Nazi atrocities and in particular for the Jews in proximate danger of deportation to ‘an unknown destination.’ “[9] The negative consequences of speaking out strongly were only too well known.

“In one tragic instance, the Archbishop of Utrecht was warned by the Nazis not to protest the deportation of Dutch Jews. He spoke out anyway and in retaliation the Catholic Jews of Holland were sent to their death. One of them was the Carmelite philosopher, Edith Stein.”[10]

While the armchair quarterbacks of anti-Catholic circles may have wished the Pope to issue, in Axis territory and during wartime, ringing, propagandistic statements against the Nazis, the Pope realized that such was not an option if he were actually to save Jewish lives rather than simply mug for the cameras.

The desire to keep a low profile was expressed by the people Pius XII helped. A Jewish couple from Berlin who had been held in concentration camps but escaped to Spain with the help of Pius XII, stated: “None of us wanted the Pope to take an open stand. We were all fugitives, and fugitives do not wish to be pointed at. The Gestapo would have become more excited and would have intensified its inquisitions. If the Pope had protested, Rome would have become the center of attention. It was better that the Pope said nothing. We all shared this opinion at the time, and this is still our conviction today.”[11]

While the U.S., Great Britain, and other countries often refused to allow Jewish refugees to immigrate during the war, the Vatican was issuing tens of thousands of false documents to allow Jews to pass secretly as Christians so they could escape the Nazis. What is more, the financial aid Pius XII helped provide the Jews was very real. Lichten, Lapide, and other Jewish chroniclers record those funds as being in the millions of dollars—dollars even more valuable then than they are now.

In late 1943, Mussolini, who had been at odds with the papacy all through his tenure, was removed from power by the Italians, but Hitler, fearing Italy would negotiate a separate peace with the Allies, invaded, took control, and set up Mussolini again as a puppet ruler. It was in this hour, when the Jews of Rome themselves were threatened—those whom the Pope had the most direct ability to help—that Pius XII really showed his mettle.

Joseph Lichten records that on September 27, 1943, one of the Nazi commanders demanded of the Jewish community in Rome payment of one hundred pounds of gold within thirty-six hours or three hundred Jews would be taken prisoner. When the Jewish Community Council was only able to gather only seventy pounds of gold, they turned to the Vatican.

“In his memoirs, the then Chief Rabbi Zolli of Rome writes that he was sent to the Vatican, where arrangements had already been made to receive him as an ‘engineer’ called to survey a construction problem so that the Gestapo on watch at the Vatican would not bar his entry. He was met by the Vatican treasurer and secretary of state, who told him that the Holy Father himself had given orders for the deficit to be filled with gold vessels taken from the Treasury.”[12]

Pius XII also took a public stance concerning the Jews of Italy: “The Pope spoke out strongly in their defense with the first mass arrests of Jews in 1943, and L’Osservatore Romano carried an article protesting the internment of Jews and the confiscation of their property. The Fascist press came to call the Vatican paper ‘a mouthpiece of the Jews.’ “[13]

Prior to the Nazi invasion, the Pope had been working hard to get Jews out of Italy by emigration; he now was forced to turn his attention to finding them hiding places. “The Pope sent out the order that religious buildings were to give refuge to Jews, even at the price of great personal sacrifice on the part of their occupants; he released monasteries and convents from the cloister rule forbidding entry into these religious houses to all but a few specified outsiders, so that they could be used as hiding places. Thousands of Jews—the figures run from 4,000 to 7,000—were hidden, fed, clothed, and bedded in the 180 known places of refuge in Vatican City, churches and basilicas, Church administrative buildings, and parish houses. Unknown numbers of Jews were sheltered in Castel Gandolfo, the site of the Pope’s summer residence, private homes, hospitals, and nursing institutions; and the Pope took personal responsibility for the care of the children of Jews deported from Italy.”[14]

Rabbi Lapide records that “in Rome we saw a list of 155 convents and monasteries—Italian, French, Spanish, English, American, and also German—mostly extraterritorial property of the Vatican . . . which sheltered throughout the German occupation some 5,000 Jews in Rome. No less than 3,000 Jews found refuge at one time at the Pope’s summer residence at Castel Gandolfo; sixty lived for nine months at the Jesuit Gregorian University, and half a dozen slept in the cellar of the Pontifical Bible Institute.”[15]

Notice in particular that the Pope was not merely allowing Jews to be hidden in different church buildings around Rome. He was hiding them in the Vatican itself and in his own summer home, Castel Gandolfo. His success in protecting Italian Jews against the Nazis was remarkable. Lichten records that after the War was over it was determined that only 8,000 Jews were taken from Italy by the Nazis[16] —far less than in other European countries. In June,1944, Pius XII sent a telegram to Admiral Miklos Horthy, the ruler of Hungary, and was able to halt the planned deportation of 800,000 Jews from that country.

The Pope’s efforts did not go unrecognized by Jewish authorities, even during the War. The Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, Isaac Herzog, sent the Pope a personal message of thanks on February 28, 1944, in which he said: “The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which form the very foundations of true civilization, are doing for us unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world.”[17]

Other Jewish leaders chimed in also. Rabbi Safran of Bucharest, Romania, sent a note of thanks to the papal nuncio on April 7, 1944: “It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the supreme pontiff, who offered a large sum to relieve the sufferings of deported Jews. . . . The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance.”[18]

The Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, also made a statement of thanks: “What the Vatican did will be indelibly and eternally engraved in our hearts. . . . Priests and even high prelates did things that will forever be an honor to Catholicism.”[19]

After the war, Zolli became a Catholic and, to honor the Pope for what he had done for the Jews and the role he had played in Zolli’s conversion, took the name “Eugenio”—the Pope’s given name—as his own baptismal name. Zolli stressed that his conversion was for theological reasons, which was certainly true, but the fact that the Pope had worked so hard on behalf of the Jews no doubt played a role in inspiring him to look at the truths of Christianity.

Lapide writes: “When Zolli accepted baptism in 1945 and adopted Pius’s Christian name of Eugene, most Roman Jews were convinced that his conversion was an act of gratitude for wartime succor to Jewish refugees and, repeated denials not withstanding, many are still of his opinion. Thus, Rabbi Barry Dov Schwartz wrote in the summer issue, 1964, of Conservative Judaism: ‘Many Jews were persuaded to convert after the war, as a sign of gratitude, to that institution which had saved their lives.’ “[20]

In Three Popes and the Jews Lapide estimated the total number of Jews that had been spared as a result of Pius XII’s throwing the Church’s weight into the clandestine struggle to save them. After totaling the numbers of Jews saved in different areas and deducting the numbers saved by other causes, such as the praiseworthy efforts of some European Protestants, “The final number of Jewish lives in whose rescue the Catholic Church had been the instrument is thus at least 700,000 souls, but in all probability it is much closer to . . . 860,000.”[21] This is a total larger than all other Jewish relief organizations in Europe, combined, were able to save. Lapide calculated that Pius XII and the Church he headed constituted the most successful Jewish aid organization in all of Europe during the war, dwarfing the Red Cross and all other aid societies.

This fact continued to be recognized when Pius XII died in 1958. Lapide’s book records the eulogies of a number of Jewish leaders concerning the Pope, and far from agreeing with Jack Chick that he deserved death because of his “war crimes,” Jewish leaders praised the man highly:[22]

“We share the grief of the world over the death of His Holiness Pius XII. . . . During the ten years of Nazi terror, when our people passed through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and to commiserate with their victims” (Golda Meir, Israeli representative to the U.N. and future prime minister of Israel).

“With special gratitude we remember all he has done for the persecuted Jews during one of the darkest periods in their entire history” (Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress).

“More than anyone else, we have had the opportunity to appreciate the great kindness, filled with compassion and magnanimity, that the Pope displayed during the terrible years of persecution and terror” (Elio Toaff, Chief Rabbi of Rome, following Rabbi Zolli’s conversion).

Finally, let us conclude with a quotation from Lapide’s record that was not given at the death of Pius XII, but was given after the War by the most well-known Jewish figure of this century, Albert Einstein: “Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty.”[23]


FOOTNOTES:
[1] Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House, 1994), 284.
[2] Jack Chick, Smokescreens (China, California: Chick Publications, 1983), 45.
[3] Robert Graham, S.J., ed., Pius XII and the Holocaust (New Rochelle, New York: Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, 1988), 106.
[4] Joseph Lichten, “A Question of Moral Judgement: Pius XII and the Jews,” in Graham, 107.
[5] Pinchas E. Lapide, Three Popes and the Jews (New York: Hawthorn, 1967), 118.
[6] Ibid., 121.
[7] Lichten, 107.
[8] Graham, 18.
[9] Ibid., 19.
[10] Lichten, 30.
[11] Ibid., 99.
[12] Ibid., 120.
[13] Ibid., 125.
[14] Ibid., 126.
[15] Lapide, 133.
[16] Lichten, 127.
[17] Graham, 62.
[18] Lichten, 130.
[19] American Jewish Yearbook 1944-1945, 233.
[20] Lapide, 133.
[21] Ibid., 215.
[22] Ibid., 227-228.
[23] Ibid., 251.
http://www.catholic.com/library/HOW_Pius_XII_PROTECTED_JEWS.asp


76 posted on 07/11/2007 9:59:40 AM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: kellynla; markomalley
Or are you just too busy posting LSM links to ant-Catholic articles .

So markomalley is posting anti-Catholic threads? I suspect he'll be even more surprised by that accusation than I am. He, after all, posted the oldest (1863549) in the series of articles.

If you want to keep the reformed folks out, 1)Don't post excerpts which refer to self styled 'reformed' organizations and 2) slap on a caucus label.

77 posted on 07/11/2007 10:01:36 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
"According to Catholic doctrine, these communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church....These ecclesial communities, which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called 'Churches' in the proper sense."

Pope Benny qualified his words quite well --- "according to Catholic doctrine".

Note that he did not say according to Scripture, nor according to History, nor according to the Patriarchs, nor according to the bones of the Apostle Peter which were supposed to underly the Vatican, according to Catholic doctrine, but don't --- another embarrassing issue in and of itself for the Catholic magisterium.

Before lecturing anyone again on apostolic succession, he and his magisterium would do well to get their shovels out and do some more digging there under the Vatican for some more of those Peter bones which have eluded them for centuries. If apostolic succession is what per Catholic doctrine makes "a" or "the" Church, then the evidence of their own Church status is on shaky ground and shifting sand and over a pagan graveyard no less.

78 posted on 07/11/2007 10:03:49 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: strider44
Why are people angered when a group they think is wrong says that it thinks it is right?

News flash: Catholics and Protestants disagree on some things.

79 posted on 07/11/2007 10:06:29 AM PDT by JohnnyZ (Romney : "not really trying to define what is technically amnesty. I'll let the lawyers decide.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; horse_doc

“Innocent II was firmly on the side of the Sicilians” should read “Innocent III was firmly on the side of the Sicilians.”


80 posted on 07/11/2007 10:11:48 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 361-373 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson