Posted on 12/19/2010 4:37:25 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
Your lack of knowledge regarding Northern Europe reveals that you are definitely a chil’ of the Souf’.
You wrote:
“You never fail to amaze me with your open denial of the legitimacy of Judaism.”
You, on the other hand, fail repeatly with these silly attempts at smears.
“Jewish prophets announced the coming of a Messiah ~ they are quite relevant to Christianity.”
Yes, and it is the Church who teaches about them. See how that works?
Hmm ~ now, which church ~ the Coptics? Do they teach these things?
The Church. There’s only one that can really be called The Church. It ain’t the Coptics.
Next you’ll be claiming the Copts were with the Sami worshipping Odin, Baal and the Herb Chick north of the Artic Circle - which you probably think is near Newark somewhere. Gee, would that make Newark anti-semitic or me anti-Coptic? Or would you just be anti-Newark?
Do you dispute the Pope regarding the legitimacy of the Coptic message?
You wrote:
“Do you dispute the Pope regarding the legitimacy of the Coptic message?”
Do you dipute the fact that the Coptics have nothing to do with the German election of 1932?
Quit trying to change the subject.
Please address that ~ not my secondary argument that Germany wasn't all that old a state and age old but well-known historic and cultural divisions continued to play a part as recently as 1932 ~ and that still do.
You still have to tell us if you respect the Pope when he tells you what is or is not legitimate within Christianity. I'd really like to know that because several of your comments suggest you are not well-versed in current intra-Catholic communion so I don't know if I'm dealing with a fallen-away Lutheran or a Uniate who pines for the Good Old Days where the folks loved their Church Slavanic chants.
you wrote:
“Quit trying to change the subject.”
Catholics and the Nazi vote 1932 - that is subject.
Not with you ~ that’s never the topic. You use threads like this to narrow your mind.
“”This thread was an attempt to lay to rest the urban legend that Catholics supported the Nazi regime.””
Just read Pope Pius XI’s encyclical written in 1937 and you will see the Church was not supportive of the Nazi’s
MIT BRENNENDER SORGE
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
ON THE CHURCH AND THE GERMAN REICH
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_en.html
A few excerpts...
If, then, the tree of peace, which we planted on German soil with the purest intention, has not brought forth the fruit, which in the interest of your people, We had fondly hoped, no one in the world who has eyes to see and ears to hear will be able to lay the blame on the Church and on her Head. The experiences of these last years have fixed responsibilities and laid bare intrigues, which from the outset only aimed at a war of extermination. In the furrows, where We tried to sow the seed of a sincere peace, other men - the “enemy” of Holy Scripture - oversowed the cockle of distrust, unrest, hatred, defamation, of a determined hostility overt or veiled, fed from many sources and wielding many tools, against Christ and His Church. They, and they alone with their accomplices, silent or vociferous, are today responsible, should the storm of religious war, instead of the rainbow of peace, blacken the German skies.
Should the day ever come to place before the world the account of Our efforts, every honest mind will see on which side are to be found the promoters of peace, and on which side its disturbers. Whoever had left in his soul an atom of love for truth, and in his heart a shadow of a sense of justice, must admit that, in the course of these anxious and trying years following upon the conclusion of the concordat, every one of Our words, every one of Our acts, has been inspired by the binding law of treaties. At the same time, anyone must acknowledge, not without surprise and reprobation, how the other contracting party emasculated the terms of the treaty, distorted their meaning, and eventually considered its more or less official violation as a normal policy. The moderation We showed in spite of all this was not inspired by motives of worldly interest, still less by unwarranted weakness, but merely by Our anxiety not to draw out the wheat with the cockle; not to pronounce open judgment, before the public was ready to see its force; not to impeach other people’s honesty, before the evidence of events should have torn the mask off the systematic hostility leveled at the Church. Even now that a campaign against the confessional schools, which are guaranteed by the concordat, and the destruction of free election, where Catholics have a right to their children’s Catholic education, afford evidence, in a matter so essential to the life of the Church, of the extreme gravity of the situation and the anxiety of every Christian conscience; even now Our responsibility for Christian souls induces Us not to overlook the last possibilities, however slight, of a return to fidelity to treaties, and to any arrangement that may be acceptable to the episcopate.
In your country, Venerable Brethren, voices are swelling into a chorus urging people to leave the Church, and among the leaders there is more than one whose official position is intended to create the impression that this infidelity to Christ the King constitutes a signal and meritorious act of loyalty to the modern State. Secret and open measures of intimidation, the threat of economic and civic disabilities, bear on the loyalty of certain classes of Catholic functionaries, a pressure which violates every human right and dignity. Our wholehearted paternal sympathy goes out to those who must pay so dearly for their loyalty to Christ and the Church; but directly the highest interests are at stake, with the alternative of spiritual loss, there is but one alternative left, that of heroism. If the oppressor offers one the Judas bargain of apostasy he can only, at the cost of every worldly sacrifice, answer with Our Lord: “Begone, Satan! For it is written: The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and Him only shalt thou serve” (Matt. iv. 10). And turning to the Church, he shall say: “Thou, my mother since my infancy, the solace of my life and advocate at my death, may my tongue cleave to my palate if, yielding to worldly promises or threats, I betray the vows of my baptism.” As to those who imagine that they can reconcile exterior infidelity to one and the same Church, let them hear Our Lord’s warning: - “He that shall deny me before men shall be denied before the angels of God” (Luke xii. 9).
You wrote:
“Your comments have been made in response to my conclusion which was: “In the end one bunch of Germans voted for the Nazis and another bunch of Germans voted for a different bunch of politicians.””
False. Look at post 8.
“Please address that ~”
Address what? What you said is like saying, “In the end one bunch of Americans defeated another bunch of Americans in the Civil War.” It is a statement devoid of any noteworthy comment so there is nothing to address.
“not my secondary argument that Germany wasn’t all that old a state and age old but well-known historic and cultural divisions continued to play a part as recently as 1932 ~ and that still do.”
What? You were talking about “...Franks in the West...more barbaric Germanic cousins in the East...some Slavs working their way up from the bottom of the barrel ....Rome civilizing the Rhine Valley, and losing wars further East...the Holy Roman Empire into three states, and then...In the end one bunch of Germans voted for the Nazis and another bunch of Germans voted for a different bunch of politicians...Did you know these people even use different dialects and figures of speech?”
Quite frankly your comments were bizarre and disjointed to say the least.
“You still have to tell us if you respect the Pope when he tells you what is or is not legitimate within Christianity.”
No, actually I don’t. Since that question has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand it is completely irrelevant. Again, what do the Coptics have to do with the German election of 1932?
“I’d really like to know that because several of your comments suggest you are not well-versed in current intra-Catholic communion...”
I have never heard of “intra-Catholic communion.” As far as I know that’s something out of your imagination. Even if it is not it is not deserving of my comment. I don’t care what you would “really like to know” either.
“...so I don’t know if I’m dealing with a fallen-away Lutheran or a Uniate who pines for the Good Old Days where the folks loved their Church Slavanic chants.”
All of those concerns are essentially unimportant and in fact inconsequential. I have no difficulty arguing with you - and easily defeating you in post after post - even though you have not labeled yourself. I can do this simply because all the facts are on my side and I don’t propose irrational, nonsensical ideas as if they were truths - which is what you’re doing. Learn from that. Truth is not dependent upon how you label yourself. This is not about you. This is about truth and facts. You possess neither one as far as I can see from your posts here.
You wrote:
“Not with you ~ that’s never the topic.”
The thread title is the topic. If you can’t accept that, then that is your problem.
“You use threads like this to narrow your mind.”
No, I effectively use threads to expose the ignorance and sciolism of some posters. I did it in this thread as well.
First, it's not consistent with the facts. Second, it's not coherent. Third, you use your distorted understanding of it to push what you think is the true religious point of view.
You don't even agree with the Pope.
You wrote:
“Sorry, but your understanding of history is more like that of Howard Zinn.”
Coming from you that is simply a meaningless statement. What do the Coptics have to do with the German election in 1932?
“First, it’s not consistent with the facts.”
What you post is not consistent with the facts.
“Second, it’s not coherent.”
Your posts are incoherent - like the one you just posted.
“Third, you use your distorted understanding of it to push what you think is the true religious point of view.”
No, a distorted understanding of history would be to think that Sami and Coptics have something to do with the German election of 1932.
“You don’t even agree with the Pope.”
You don’t even agree with logic or common sense or the historical record. But why should having completely non-historical and even irrational views stop you from posting as if what you said made sense?
What did the Coptics have to do with the German election of 1932 again?
You're toast.
You wrote:
“Mentioning the Coptics got a massive bigoted and smart alec remark out of you.”
Smart alec? Perhaps. Massively Bigoted against the Copts? That has to be one of the most delusional things I have ever heard someone claim on FreeRepublic EVER. It’s so fitting that it came from you.
“It served it’s purpose.”
It’s purpose was apparently to exemplify how bizarrely offbase your posts are.
“You’re toast.”
Wow. Projection is a powerful thing for the defeated isn’t it, mu? If that thought helps you get through your embarrassment you keep thinking it. It’s no more accurate than your other posted thoughts, but reality doesn’t really seem to be your thing anyway.
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.